biblioblogs

Brandon Wason, em Biblioblogs.com, entrevista desta vez Loren Rosson III, autor do biblioblog The Busybody, escolhido como o biblioblogueiro do mês de dezembro de 2006.

Loren Rosson III, norte-americano, é de Nashua, New Hampshire, e trabalha na Nashua Public Library (Biblioteca Pública de Nashua). Como explica na entrevista, interessou-se pela Bíblia quando estudou com Richard Rohrbaugh, do Context Group.

Se você leu o post Relatos sobre a SBL 2006, continue aqui, pois Mark Goodacre postou também, em seu NT Blog, o seguinte:

SBL Day 4 (Monday)

Friday, November 24, 2006

After our Synoptics Steering Committee breakfast, it was the SBL Forum Advisory Board meeting. Shortly afterwards I had a meeting of the Library of New Testament Studies editorial board, and next up was the Pauline Epistles section at which I was presenting a paper. Regular readers will not be surprised to hear that the topic of my paper was circumcision in Galatians. Since a few people at the conference asked me about my regular blogging on this topic, perhaps I should explain that one of my reasons for doing this this year, something I have not done in previous years, is that I did not get the chance to practise the paper in a seminar here ahead of time, so I had not had chance to get any feedback on it.

I was pleased with the way the paper went. It is now my habit on these occasions to present the paper and not to read it. I used to call this “extemporary” but since one definition of this is “Spoken, done, or composed with little or no preparation or forethought” (Answers.com), this is not in fact a very helpful term. To present rather than to read takes, in my experience, a huge amount of extra preparation, not less. One has to make sure that one has all the key information in one’s memory, and the structure and balance very clearly worked out. So I think I should talk about “presenting” as opposed to “reading”.

That aside, though, I was happy with the reaction. I had a number of incisive and helpful questions, including from Victor Paul Furnish and Sharyn Dowd. And it was nice to have several friends present for support and encouragement, as well as a great audience. My Duke colleague Douglas Campbell chaired the session, the session also included Kathy Barrett Dawson, one of our Duke PhD students, talking on parody in Galatians. The other speakers were John Taylor on “we” language in Galatians, Benjamin Schliesser from Tübingen on faith in Romans, and James Ware on Paul and Job in Philippians.

I was so relieved to have my paper done that changing out of my smart clothes and into casual ones, getting a couple of beers and a steak at the Brew House, and spending time with three of my favourite people, this was a real highlight of the conference, all the more so in that we then went to see Casino Royale, as I previously mentioned. This was my third SBL Bond, with The World is Not Enough in Boston 1999 and Die Another Day in Toronto 2002. Let’s hope there’ll be another SBL Bond in 2008.

SBL Day 5 (Tuesday)

Friday, November 24, 2006

The Tuesday morning of the SBL is, it has to be said, a bit of a damp squib. As a punter, one is best off when one has a latish flight and one has time to enjoy the last morning fully. But most do not. Some have already left by Monday evening. Many more set off on Tuesday morning without returning to the Convention Centre. No one likes being scheduled on a Tuesday morning. This year, I was able to get to about half of the final Synoptics Section before we needed to pick up our car to begin the drive back to Raleigh. First up in that section was Mike Bird, who did a nice job on the Gospels for all Christians theme, but with a special focus on non-canonical Gospels, arguing that these do not provide counter-examples to the Bauckham claim. Mike is a lively speaker, and his paper was easy to listen to, and I look forward to hearing more from this fellow biblioblogger in the future. Next up was an old favourite in the Synoptics (and related) sections, Jeffrey Gibson, who spoke on “A lack or Alas?” concerning the bread petition in the Lord’s Prayer. Since Mike seemed to have left after his paper, and Jeffrey left after his, I feared rather for the remaining speakers, especially as there were only ten or so people in the audience for the session. It does seem a bit unfair that those who draw the short straw of the Tuesday mornings get such a poor audience. Is it time to scrap Tuesday morning sessions?

Our drive back was great, talking all the way and a great second visit to Cracker Barrel to boot. This was one of those SBLs that left me looking forward very much to next year’s.

SBL Annual Meeting General Reflections

Friday, November 24, 2006

A few random thoughts:

(1) I can’t say that I am too keen on the extension of the meeting backwards towards Saturday at 9 a.m. I used to like the slightly more civilized start at 1 p.m., which enabled one to orientate oneself before getting into the fray. I was very rushed on Saturday morning, especially with a breakfast meeting too.

(2) Are the receptions getting a bit out of hand? I mean: are they losing their identity as receptions for a given university or publishing house and becoming instead free-for-all crowded boozing sessions?

(3) There are far too many sections, and too many overlapping sessions. The meeting encourages not just specialization but specialization within a given area. So if you are interested in the Synoptics (already narrow), you have the choice also of Formation of Luke-Acts, Book of Acts, Mark, Matthew, Historical Jesus, Q, and more. I think this tends to encourage specialized audiences, even cliques, in given areas. Each section has too many sessions and there are always huge overlaps. One of the biggest problem in the guild these days is over-specialization and the SBL Annual Meeting reflects and encourages that problem. It is something that requires some thought.

(4) Although the academic quality remains pretty good, the massive number of sections and sessions inevitably has an effect on the quality. I would like to see the meeting becoming more competitive. I was disappointed to hear a senior academic speak about the bar being set far too low for him to speak at the AAR. It would be a great shame if senior scholars came to feel the same way about the SBL.

(5) Is it time to scrap the Tuesday morning sessions? If it is desirable to shrink the meeting (above), perhaps Tuesday morning sessions would be a good way of beginning the pruning process.

(6) The chairing of sessions is, on the whole, very good, but there are still those sessions where presiders have just not thought through the practicalities of how to time a session. You have to be ruthless. In a two-and-a-half hour session with five speakers, it essential to begin on time, and to allow 28/29 minutes maximum for each speaker and out of fairness to each speaker, to make sure that no one part bleeds into another part.

(7) I witnessed more problems with room size this year than in previous years. This may be because section chairs are not estimating the size of their audience well (and it is difficult), or it may be because the estimates are not getting carried through to the organizers.

(8) I heard many superbly presented papers this year, but I also heard a good number that were simply scripts getting very hastily read, with no thought about communication with the audience. I would say that I saw more hand-outs this year than usual too, and that is something I like very much.

(9) All those things aside, it has to be said that the meeting overall is superbly run. Somehow, everything comes together brilliantly and the only difficulties are minor ones. The book exhibit always goes off brilliantly; it is rare for there to be technical difficulties; these huge American convention centres are surpirsingly straightforward to navigate. Overall, the SBL does a fantastic job, and perhaps we only notice the little niggly things because it does such a good job.

Update (Sunday, 19.38): there are some good comments below from Stephen Carlson and Alan Garrow. On reflection, I say let’s keep the Tuesday mornings. Ending on Monday will result in the loss of Monday evening, the one night I actually get to do something relaxing!

Leia mais sobre a SBL 2006 em:

Conference Reflections – PaleoJudaica: Jim Davila – November 22, 2006

As promised, here are some thoughts about the sessions in which I participated at the SBL conference.

I got lots of feedback on my paper “‘Scripture as Prophetically Revealed Writings.” Often I didn’t know the names of the questioners and my notes are not always clear on who asked what, so I won’t attach names to specific questions, but here are the questions:

. Alongside the question of any altered state of consciously in the production of pseudepigraphic books, would it not also be rather convenient for the authors to have, for example, Jubilees or the Temple Scroll to advance their agenda? (I entirely agree with this and said that altered states of consciousness often converge with convenience.)

. What did the ancient authors mean by a “prophecy”? How would they have defined it? (My first shot at answering this was that a prophecy was a writing by a prophet, but see the next question.)

. Did everything a prophet wrote count as prophecy? If not, what made it a prophecy? (No, and this is a good point. A love letter or a note to the milkman would not be a prophecy just because a prophet wrote them. This raises the question of what genres count as prophecy and I need to defer this one to think about it more.)

. What did the ancient exegetes think about the prophetic books mentioned in the Bible but which are now lost. (I don’t know. It would be very interesting to trawl through the ancient Jewish and Christian literature to see if the exegetes ever commented on such lost books and, if so, what they said.)

. It was pointed out that the evidence I had collected came from a wide geographic area over a long period of some centuries and this made it problematic to generalize about. (I agree, but this was just an initial attempt to collect all [or at least much] of the relevant evidence.)

My paper “The Hekhalot Literature and the Jewish Apocalypses” elicited the following feedback.

. It would be worthwhile to see how well the model applies to groups that existed after the time of the ancient apocalypses but before the Merkavah mystics, particularly the Manicheans. (Indeed. I don’t control the Manichean literature, but perhaps I should at least have a look at the Greek Life of Mani with this in mind.)

. Was there an apocalyptic movement of which all the writers of the surviving ancient apocalypses considered themselves to be a part? (Perhaps there was from our [etic] perspective, but from their [emic)] perspective they often would have disagreed violently on important issues. For example, the author of the Animal Apocalypse advocates armed resistance during the persecution of Antiochus whereas the contemporary author of Daniel promotes pacifist martyrdom. It is hard to imagine that they considered themselves part of the same movement.)

. What can we say about the social context of the writers of the ancient apocalypses along the lines of my reconstruction of the social context of the Merkavah mystics in my book Descenders to the Chariot? (I can’t remember what I said here except that we have a lot less information on the former than the latter.)

. Can the model be applied as far back as to the book of Ezekiel, which is the font of much apocalyptic and mystical thought in Judaism? (I don’t think that this specific model would work very well with the book of Ezekiel, but Ezekiel is certainly a character who makes use of altered states of consciousness and had visions of the divine realm. My suspicion is that Ezekiel presents us with a much more realistic view of what a priest in the Jerusalem Temple was like and that Leviticus is a bowdlerized account by a movement that rejected the visionary elements of the Jerusalem cult.)

The session of the Pseudepigrapha Section devoted to my book generated a lot of good discussion and debate. Here are some reflections I and others shared at the time.

. One of my main objectives in writing the book was to get people talking about the methodology for identifying the provenance of pseudepigraphic books, and I am delighted that the book is getting so much attention. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if I am right or wrong about the provenance of a particular book or even about any given point of methodology. What matters is that we are now discussing these issues on a more sophisticated level.

. The most general criticism from the panel was that I did not go far enough and that I should have approached the problems from an even more abstract and higher-order level (e.g., dispensing with or being even more sceptical of labels like “Jewish” or “Christian”). I don’t doubt that there is some truth to this and I am not surprised to hear it from this panel, which consisted mostly of OT pseudepigrapha specialists. But another important audience I am trying to reach is New Testament scholars, and the book was written for them too. I suspect some of them think (assuming they bother to read it, which I hope they do) that I’ve gone entirely too far as it is. Let’s see how far we get with level of abstraction and label-rejection before we call for more.

. The quest for the viewpoint of the original authors and audiences of these works is worth pursuing for two reasons, even though such questions are out of fashion. First, our job as historians of religion is to reconstruct the reception history of these documents from their inception to the present, so the original audience is one audience (of many) that we should consider. Second, we are already handed the agenda of finding the viewpoint of the original audience and author by New Testament scholars who want to know which texts they can use as first-century “Jewish background.” We specialists need to guide them on this question, because it is not going to go away.

. The methods I have advanced in the book need to be applied by specialists who control the language and culture of particular areas (Armenian, Coptic/Egyptian, Ethiopic. Syriac/Eastern Church, Slavonic, etc.). They may well be able to refine and correct my conclusions about specific texts.

. One suggestion in the discussion was that junior scholars who wish to work with Second Temple literature and Pseudepigrapha should develop a subspecialty in at least one of the more obscure church languages and cultures that transmit OT pseudepigrapha. I also underlined the importance of team work in approaching such texts. Often a single pseudepigraphon is transmitted in more than one such language and we may need several specialists collaborating in order to understand the transmission and origin of the work. I hope that on the coat tails of the More Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Project I will be able to edit a collection of essay that gives an introduction and bibliography for each of these languages and cultures. I am discussing this with a publisher right now.

The ten-year retrospective panel of the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism Section looked both at what we accomplished and where we are going. In the business meeting at the end we decided that for the next ten years (at least!) we would approach the problem of Jewish and Christian mysticism chronologically, beginning with the earliest texts and moving forward each year. In 2007 we plan to hold one session on mysticism in the ancient Near East, another on mysticism in the Hebrew Bible, and a third session consisting of reviews of books published recently by members of the group.

A few other random notes:

On Monday I also attended S20-30, Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, the theme of which was “the experience of possession.” I was especially interested to hear Guy Williams’s paper, “Spiritual Possession in Judaism and Paul’s Relationship with Christ,” in which he argued that Paul was possessed by the spirit of Jesus, a position that is close to mine — in my “‘Scripture’ as Prophetically Revealed Writings” paper — that Paul was channeling Jesus.

I also stopped for a while at S20-82, the review of DJD 17 (the Samuel manuscripts from Cave 4), on which I have already commented here. I was very sorry that Frank Moore Cross, the chief editor of the volume and my doctoral supervisor was unable to attend. I had been hoping to see him.

I also attended the business meeting of the Enoch Seminar on Monday evening and I can report that there will be another Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli in Italy in July of 2007 (and, yes, I plan to go). The topic will be Enochic Judaism and the book of Jubilees. There is also a tentative plan for a panel discussion at next year’s SBL in San Diego which will be devoted to the proceedings volume of the 2005 Camaldoli Enoch Seminar on the Similitudes.

 

SBL 2006 – Hypotyposeis: Stephen C. Carlson – November 18, 2006

Well, SBL 2006 is over. It was a very busy time, but I am happy to spend time with some old friends and to make new friends. Compared to last year, I spent a lot more time attending session, and less time in the book exhibit. By the time I got to the exhibit, most of the books I had wanted were sold out. Of course, having a paper in both the first and last session tends to cramp one’s book-buying style, but I’m nonetheless grateful for the opportunity to give the papers in the first place.

Fri. Nov. 17: I’m here at SBL. I’m staying at the Grand Hyatt. I’ve already spotted Jeffrey Gibson, Mark Nanos, and (from afar) AKMA. I had a great dinner in Chinatown. Tomorrow morning, bright and early, is my Synoptic Gospels paper.

Sat. Nov. 18: My first paper, Luke’s Panel Technique for an “Orderly” Account, was in the kick-off slot in the Sat. morning Synoptic Gospels section. Unfortunately, I was so excited that I read it a bit too quickly, but that gave the room plenty of time for questions. The questions were good, including one referencing a recent unpublished Australian dissertation which I had not heard about but which nonetheless seemed interesting. Another asked me about Mussner’s (as it took me a while to realize in retrospect) interpretation of “orderly” but I couldn’t hear the name clearly in the cavernous room, so I ended up talking about Fitzmyer’s interpretation, instead!

In the afternoon, I attended another session of the Synoptic Gospels section featuring Jane Schaberg and David Landry. Landry’s paper explored how Luke’s infancy account is compatible with the Farrer theory that Luke had knowledge of Matthew’s text.

Sun. Nov. 19: I attended the morning session in the TC section, which was devoted to Hort. Peter Head had a paper on Hort and Tregelles, and I finally got to learn how to pronounce the latter’s name (Cornish tray-GHELL-eez, not the French-like tray-ZHELL).

The afternoon featured a sesssion on Larry Hurtado’s latest book, with some captivating back-and-forth between Larry and Bart Ehrman. I particularly liked Larry’s insight in applying the term “scripture” to artifacts (i.e., particular copies of documents) rather than texts themselves, so he investigates whether copies were used as a scripture if they were designed to facillate its reading in public worship, as opposed to private study copies.

The John, Jesus, and History Group in the second afternoon session was jammed packed into a small room, probably because it featured such heavyweights as Craig Evans, Richard Bauckham, and Ben Witherington, III. (I was too late for Sean Freyne’s paper.) I’m not a fan of the Lazarus = Beloved Disciple position that BWIII defended, but his defense of it was unforgettable.

Mon. Nov. 20: The morning session featured Ken Olson critiquing Clayton Croy’s case that Mark’s original ending after 16:8 was lost. This was really stimulating. In the afternoon, Mark Goodacre presented his Pauline paper on Galatians. He did the ex-temp approach that clearly stated his position and left plenty of room for questions. I wish a lot more papers at SBL would be like that.

Tues. Nov. 21: My second paper was in the final session of the annual meeting in the TC group. I left some extra time for questions, and I had a good colloquy with Margaret Mitchell over 2427. Klaus Wachtel gave a paper that explained the coherence-based genealogical approach being used by Münster for the new Editio Critica Maior. I feel like I’m begining to understand it, and it was very helpful to see graphs epitomizing the interrelationships between witnesses in the textual tradition. Since I’m a visual person, I wish the ECM would include such visual aids. Another highlight was that I finally got to meet J. Keith Elliott.

 

SBL Day 1 (Friday) – NT Gateway Weblog: Mark Goodacre – Novmber 22,2006

Going to the SBL Annual Meeting when you are living in the USA is a different experience from going to it from abroad. You don’t have to deal with the jet lag, you get home much more quickly, and you don’t have to go straight back to work when you return. And sometimes, you live close enough to the meeting that you can drive to it. Washington DC is about 250 miles north of where we live in North Carolina, and for the first time ever I drove from home, with a close friend who had been staying with us for a couple of days, to the meeting location. It was about four hours of actual driving, all very straightforward, especially as I didn’t do any of the driving. It turns out too that there is a great place called Cracker Barrel every fifty miles or so, and you can stop off there for breakfast, brunch or lunch and get a good meal (and especially their raspberry lemonade). The only difficulty was finding our way to Union Station where we were to drop off our hired car, and then finding our way to the hotel from there. But I was still there in time there to meet an old friend at 7pm for an amazing dinner in a place called the Chop House, which served very, very good brewed-on-site beer and some very expensive food.

We were lucky to be staying in the Renaissance Washington, which was one of the main meeting hotels. I am ashamed to say that I didn’t get to any of the DC sites, the monuments or anything else, during the four days of the conference. But my excuse is that I am saving that up to do properly with the family some time.

 

SBL Day 2 (Saturday) – NT Gateway Weblog: Mark Goodacre – November 22, 2006

One of the changes in recent years is the arrival of 9 a.m. meetings. I can’t say I am too keen on this innovation. That extra morning used to give one a chance to get everything in order before the serious business began. Now, the conference comes crashing in very quickly. Straight after my breakfast meeting, I dashed to the Convention Centre for the first time to catch the first Synoptic Gospels session. I prioritize Synoptic Gospels sessions because I co-chair the section with Greg Carey and I regard it as important to try to hear all papers in the section if at all possible. A particular highlight for me was Stephen Carlson’s paper Luke’s Panel Technique for an “Orderly” Account, which I found pretty persuasive — and very interesting. I hope he has the chance to publish this in due course.

I forgot to take my badge with me this year. In fact I don’t remember receiving it. But it turns out that it is very easy to get a replacement.

Later on Saturday was a session I had put a lot of work into organizing, the second Synoptic Gospels session, this time on the Birth Narratives. The session was chaired by Loveday Alexander and was divided into two. The first half celebrated twenty years of Jane Schaberg’s The Illegitimacy of Jesus, with Schaberg giving a review of the book and reactions to it and Gail Streete offering her reflections. Sadly, Amy-Jill Levine, who was to be the second respondent, was unable to make it to the meeting because of ill health. The second half was led off by David Landry, whose paper looked at Luke 1-2 as a “hostile takeover” of Matthew 1-2, developing the idea that Luke disliked Matthew’s Birth Narrative and tried greatly to improve on it. There were two responses, one by Robert Miller and one by John Darr. I was particularly intrigued by Robert Miller’s response, which confirmed a point I make in the first chapter of The Case Against Q, that the majority of those who accept the Q hypothesis do so because they have not given the Synoptic Problem any extended critical thought (note that I say the majority, and not everyone — I know there are plenty who do, of course). Miller said that he had devoted a total of no minutes thinking about the Synoptic Problem over the last twenty years, a claim he repeated when pressed in various of the questions. Actually, the Q sceptics were out in force; I am afraid that I asked a question and so did Ken Olson, Jeff Peterson and Mark Matson.

John Darr’s response had one particularly entertaining moment. Landry had extolled the virtues of Luke’s birth narrative, denigrating Matthew’s in the process. Darr began his piece by pointing out, facetiously of course, that Matthew’s Birth Narrative provides us with a rationalization for giving and receiving Christmas presents, and that we should therefore celebrate his contribution.

It was a good session. I suppose that one thing that I found a little disappointing was that there was not as much dialogue between the two halves of the session as I had hoped. And I suppose us Farrer types slightly skewed the discussion at the end by asking all the tough questions on Luke’s use of Matthew.

Speaking of Q, I did manage to get to some of the first Q section dealing with the Christology of Q, and which included a paper from Harry Fledderman.

Saturday evening was the Continuum (T & T Clark) dinner at Clydes restaurant, an enjoyable evening not least because I was lucky to be on a table with some great people. The food was OK and the wine was great. The dinner represented something of a move from former years when Continuum, like everyone else, had receptions. This was a more select gathering and, to be honest, a much more enjoyable occasion.

 

SBL Day 3 (Sunday) – NT Gateway Weblog: Mark Goodacre – November 22,2006

Sunday’s breakfast meeting was the University of Birmingham reception and a great pleasure to see old friends. I was really annoyed last year to have to miss the Birmingham reception because I had another breakfast meeting at the same time. In fact Sunday was university reception day for me, and the three universities I have known, first Birmingham where I taught for a decade, then later Oxford, where I was student for almost a decade, and then Duke, my current university.

At one we had the third Synoptic Gospels session, this time a panel on Simon Gathercole’s new book published by Eerdmans, The Pre-Existent Son. This was a session I organized relatively late in the day, beginning last March, when I was approached by Eerdmans. It seemed like a very good idea. The three respondents to the book were James D. G. Dunn, Rikk Watts and Deirdre Good. The fourth was to be Maurice Casey, making a rare appearance at SBL, but sadly he had to drop out last week because of health. The section sent its best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I took the first ten minutes or so of the session to introduce Simon and to summarize the book. Jimmy Dunn then took 15 minutes, and Rikk Watts and Deirdre Good also took 15 minutes each. We had a 5 minute (or so) break followed by Simon’s 25 minute response to all three respondents, and then there was plenty of time first for more panel discussion and finally for views from the floor. First up from the floor was Richard Bauckham who said, among other things, that Jimmy Dunn conceived of monotheism in unitarian terms, and that he conceived of others’ Trinitarian views as tritheistic. He also chided Rikk Watts for using the divine name in his presentation in spite of his claim to be using emic language. And he added that it is impossible to talk about these issues solely using emic language.

In spite of the interesting discussions, the thing that will remain with me for the longest will be, I think, Jimmy Dunn’s strongly worded critique of his former student’s book, which he accused of “wooden literalism”, of “tritheism, ditheism or modalism”; and he said that Simon was in need of a “refresher course in hermeneutics”. I am afraid that I could not resist adding after he had finished, “I am tempted to say: don’t hold back; tell us what you really think.” Simon defended his book bravely, and had not had either Deirdre’s or Rikk’s responses in advance, so he did particularly well on those.

I tend to find presiding a little stressful because you have to keep alert for 150 minutes and there is a lot to look out for and not just speakers, time and audience. So I always feel very relieved when it is over.

I went to the John, Jesus and History session next, a disaster of room allocation, one of several at the meeting. Its allocated room had only enough space for forty people, and Felix Just stood outside guiding people to the new room, also far too small, with people sitting on the floor, crowding into the doorway and so on. Sean Freyne was first up and talked about Galilee in John. Next up were Craig Evans, Richard Bauckham and Ben Witherington III. Unfortunately, I missed a lot of what they said because I was now sitting down in a chair and not on the floor and I couldn’t stop drifting off, a very annoying habit when one is interested in the material. Actually, I think I heard most of Witherington’s talk, which was a tour de force, arguing that Lazarus was the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel, that Simon the Leper was the father of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, and that the Gospel owned the name of John because it was redacted by John of Patmos. It was the kind of harmonizing reading that I find implausible but entertaining to listen to.

Sunday evening was receptions evening, for me first Oxford and then Duke, both great places to meet old friends, and some new people.

Cinco biblioblogueiros publicaram um podcast na SBL 2006 que está acontecendo em Washington, DC. Confira aqui em Targuman sob o título Bibliobloggers @ SBL. Conversaram sobre biblioblogs, SBL, língua hebraica, bíblia hebraica e… algumas “abobrinhas”, que ninguém é de ferro!

Sobre a SBL vai sair mais coisa, mas, por enquanto, confira em Biblische Ausbildung, o post SBL 2006 Has Begun! e outros que o seguem, com links para outros blogs. Veja também o PaleoJudaica, de Jim Davila, aqui e aqui.

Como explicado aqui, no dia 10 de novembro de 2006, a Ayrton’s Biblical Page comemorou seus 7 anos de existência, e, nesta ocasião, coloquei para meus alunos duas questões:
Quais são os 4 temas que mais lhe interessam na Bíblia?
Quais são as três perguntas sobre Bíblia que você mais escuta na sua pastoral?

As respostas dadas à primeira questão estão aqui (parcialmente, pois ainda falta o Segundo Ano de Teologia). Agora, vamos à segunda questão: Quais são as três perguntas sobre Bíblia que você mais escuta na sua pastoral?

De acordo com 19 dos 25 alunos do Primeiro Ano de Teologia da FTCR da PUC-Campinas, as perguntas são as seguintes:

AT/NT: 2
O Deus do AT era, de fato, mais enérgico do que o do NT? 1
Qual é a ligação entre Antigo e Novo Testamentos? 1

Criação: 6
Adão e Eva são figuras simbólicas ou realmente existiram? 2
Como Deus criou o homem? 1
Como Deus criou o mundo? 2
Como explicar Adão, Eva e o paraíso? 1

Deus: 2
Antes de criar o mundo, onde estava Deus? 1
Qual é a origem de Deus? 1

Dogmas: 1
Qual é a fundamentação bíblica dos dogmas? 1

Escatologia/Apocalíptica: 7
Há vida após a morte? 1
O Apocalipse: o que diz e significa? 1
O inferno existe? 1
O que são os selos do Apocalipse? 1
O que vem a ser o fim dos tempos? 1
Purgatório na Bíblia? 2

Êxodo: 1
O Mar Vermelho foi aberto como está no relato bíblico? 1

Idolatria: 10
O que a Bíblia fala sobre idolatria? 4
O que a Bíblia fala sobre imagens e idolatria? 5
O que a Bíblia fala sobre veneração de imagens? 1

Jesus: 6
Como foi realmente a paixão e crucifixão de Jesus? 1
Em que dia Jesus nasceu? 1
Jesus se relaciona com os mortos, sendo Deus? 1
Jesus teve um relacionamento com Maria Madalena? 1
O que Jesus fez antes de sua morte e ressurreição? 1
Por que Jesus amava mais a João, o discípulo? 1

José: 1
O que se sabe, historicamente, sobre a vida de José, esposo de Maria? 1

Leitura da Bíblia: 2
Quais são os modos certos e errados de se interpretar a Bíblia? 2

Maria: 11
E a virgindade de Maria? 5
Jesus teve irmãos? 4
Qual é a importância de Maria na Bíblia? 2

Maria Madalena: 1
Maria Madalena era prostituta? 1

Moral: 2
O que a Bíblia fala da moral? 1
O que são os dez mandamentos? 1

Números: 1
Como se explica o simbolismo dos números na Bíblia? 1

Pecado Original: 1
Mesmo após a redenção, o pecado de Adão e Eva é sinal da decadência humana? 1

Profetas: 1
Quem são os profetas? 1

Religiões do Antigo Oriente Médio: 1
Como eram as religiões do Antigo Oriente Médio, como a cananeia, a egípcia e outras? 1

Santos: 1
Quem são os santos e qual é a sua função? 1

Predominam os seguintes temas:
Maria: 11
Idolatria e imagens: 10
Escatologia/Apocalíptica: 7
Criação – Jesus: 6
AT/NT – Deus – leitura da Bíblia – moral: 2
Os demais: 1

No CEARP, por sua vez, as perguntas mais ouvidas pelos 11 alunos do Primeiro Ano de Teologia, aqui colocadas em ordem alfabética segundo os temas, são as seguintes:

Anjos: 1
Os anjos existem? 1

Bíblia: 1
A Bíblia é realmente um livro inspirado por Deus? 1

Criação: 4
A serpente um dia falou e teve pernas? 1
Como realmente aconteceu a criação? 1
Deus criou o mundo em sete dias ou evoluímos do macaco? 1
Se a humanidade teve início com um casal, Adão e Eva, como fica o problema da consanguinidade? 1

Deus: 6
Antes da criação do mundo, onde estava Deus? 2
Deus existe mesmo? 1
Por que se fala de um Deus de amor e paz e há tanta violência e mortes na Bíblia? 1
Se Deus é bom, por que ele criou o mal? 1
Se Deus é misericordioso, por que ele castiga? 1

Dilúvio: 2
Após o dilúvio como continuou a humanidade, se entre os sobreviventes só havia parentes? 1
Existiu a Arca de Noé? 1

Escatologia/Apocalíptica: 7
Como é a ressurreição? 1
Como será o juízo final? 1
Existe céu, purgatório e inferno? 1
Já estamos no fim dos tempos como fala o Apocalipse? 1
O livro do Apocalipse fala mesmo do fim do mundo? 1
O que é o fim dos tempos no livro do Apocalipse? 2

Evangelhos: 3
Como entender os evangelhos sinóticos? 1
Cristo celebrou com os discípulos de Emaús? 1
O Evangelho de Emaús existiu mesmo? 1

Êxodo: 2
Como foi a travessia do Mar Vermelho? 1
O Mar Vermelho realmente se abriu ao meio? 1

Filmes bíblicos: 1
Como surgiu o homem negro, se em todos os filmes bíblicos prevalece o homem branco? 1

Jesus: 1
O que significam a divindade e a humanidade de Jesus? 1

Maria: 3
Jesus teve irmãos? 1
Maria teve mais filhos? 2

Mulher: 1
A mulher sempre foi submissa ao homem no tempo do Antigo e Novo Testamentos? 1

Pecado Original: 1
Se não fosse o pecado dos primeiros pais, haveria tantas calamidades? 1

Predominam os seguintes temas:
Escatologia/Apocalíptica: 7
Deus: 6
Criação: 4
Evangelhos – Maria: 3
Dilúvio – Êxodo: 2
Os Demais: 1

Deixarei para pensar em alguma conclusão ao publicar os resultados do Segundo Ano de Teologia.

Mas aqui já chama a atenção, em questão tipicamente católica, creio, a preocupação com Maria. É de se notar que o tema da vida ameaçada por catástrofes apocalípticas, e do que se seguiria a tais catástrofes, também é muito forte. Por outro lado, talvez pela forte polêmica evangélica contra as imagens, o tema da idolatria tem significativa presença. Sem nos esquecermos da pergunta sobre Deus e o significado de sua presença/ ausência na criação e no mundo atual…

Por outro lado, assunto ainda a ser analisado, mas que já dispara o alarme: a razão de boa parte das preocupações das pessoas resulta de uma leitura fundamentalista da Bíblia, com fraquíssima participação do conhecimento acadêmico desde muito consolidado sobre estes temas…

Acrescentei ao meu blogroll dois biblioblogs: BiblePlaces Blog, que traz notícias e análises na área de geografia, história e arqueologia bíblicas. E Bibliablog, em italiano, sobre teologia bíblica.

BiblePlaces Blog é escrito por Todd Bolen, Professor de Estudos Bíblicos no Israel Bible Extension do The Master’s College, Santa Clarita, Califórnia, USA. Ele vive em Judean Hills próximo a Jerusalém, Israel. O blog é associado ao site BiblePlaces.com, mantido por Todd Bolen.

Bibliablog é mantido por Sergio e Gianni, mestres em Teologia Bíblica pela Pontifícia Universidade Gregoriana, Roma. Sergio é religioso dehoniano e vive em Bologna, enquanto que Gianni é sacerdote diocesano de Prato. O blog é interessante principalmente porque mantém o visitante informado sobre publicações acadêmicas, em italiano, na área de Bíblia.

Atualizando em 29/11/2006:
O Bibliablog mudou de nome e endereço: agora é Bibbiablog. Clique no link e veja o novo visual. Não se esqueça de atualizar também o seu leitor de feeds.

No dia 24 de outubro de 2006, 19 dos 25 alunos do Primeiro Ano de Teologia da FTCR da PUC-Campinas responderam às duas questões citadas no post anterior. E no dia 27 de outubro de 2006, 11 dos 11 alunos do Primeiro Ano de Teologia do CEARP de Ribeirão Preto fizeram o mesmo.

Aqui está o resultado da primeira questão: Quais são os 4 temas que mais lhe interessam na Bíblia?

Na FTCR os temas preferidos pelos alunos, seguidos pela frequência das respostas, aqui dispostos em ordem alfabética, foram os seguintes:
A intenção dos autores bíblicos: 1
Abraão: 1
Amós: 1
Apocalipse: 9
Arqueologia: 1
Atos dos Apóstolos: 1
Carta aos Romanos: 1
Cartas de Paulo: 3
Criação: 3
Criação e Ciência: 1
Criação e Evolução: 1
Decálogo: 2
Distinção entre Teologia e História: 1
Eclesiastes: 1
Evangelhos: 4
Evangelhos Apócrifos: 1
Falsidade: 1
Festas litúrgicas no AT: 1
Gênesis: 3
Gênesis e textos do ANE: 1
História de Israel: 1
Igreja primitiva: 1
Isaías: 1
Jesus e o judaísmo: 1
Jesus Histórico: 3
João: 1
Judite: 1
Literatura Joanina: 1
Livre arbítrio: 1
Lucas: 1
Marcos: 1
Maria e José: 1
Mateus: 2
Mateus e João: 1
Métodos para a leitura da Bíblia: 1
O livro de Isaías e seus múltiplos autores: 1
O Paulo das cartas: 1
Pentateuco: 1
Profetas: 2
Sabedoria: 1
Salmos: 6
Sapienciais: 1
Significado dos números: 1
Símbolos: 1
Sinóticos: 3
Sonhos: 1

Como se vê, há maior interesse por:
Apocalipse: 9
Salmos: 6
Evangelhos: 4
Cartas de Paulo – Criação – Gênesis – Jesus Histórico – Sinóticos: 3
Decálogo – Mateus – Profetas: 2
Os demais: 1

Ainda: nos 46 temas citados em 75 respostas, 10 são de toda a Bíblia, 18 são do AT (citados 29 vezes) e 18 são do NT (citados 36 vezes).

No CEARP, por sua vez, os temas preferidos pelos alunos, seguidos pela frequência das respostas, aqui colocados em ordem alfabética, foram os seguintes:
Apocalipse: 2
As comunidades cristãs primitivas: 1
Cartas de Paulo: 2
Criação: 3
Criação e Evolução: 1
Deus: 1
Discípulos de Emaús: 2
Evangelhos: 2
Exílio: 1
Êxodo: 2
Isaías: 4
Jeremias: 1
Jesus Histórico: 3
Jesus Histórico e Cristo da Fé: 1
João: 3
Literatura Deuteronomista: 1
Maria: 2
Mateus: 1
Métodos para a leitura do Antigo Testamento: 1
Multiplicação dos pães: 1
Parábolas: 1
Pentateuco: 1
Profetas: 2
Salmos: 1
Sapienciais: 1
Sermão da Montanha: 1
Símbolos: 1
Sinóticos: 1

Os alunos do CEARP manifestaram maior interesse por:
Isaías: 4
Criação – Jesus Histórico – João: 3
Cartas de Paulo – Discípulos de Emaús – Evangelhos – Êxodo – Maria – Profetas: 2
Os demais: 1

Finalmente, dos 28 temas citados em 44 respostas, 2 são de toda a Bíblia, 12 são do AT (citados 19 vezes) e 14 são do NT (citados 23 vezes).

No caso da FTCR, a colocação do Apocalipse como tema mais citado (por 9 alunos) precisa ser confrontada com os Evangelhos. Estes, embora citados no conjunto apenas 4 vezes, saltam para 18 vezes, e, portanto, para o primeiro lugar, quando considerada também a menção dos sinóticos e dos evangelhos individuais. O mesmo fenômeno, em menor proporção, pode ser notado no CEARP.

Diríamos, então, que o Novo Testamento levou a melhor? Em parte. Pois podemos notar notável equilíbrio entre as preferências pelo Antigo e Novo Testamentos quanto aos temas nas duas turmas citadas, mas o número de alunos que prefere o NT é maior:
na FTCR: AT: 18 temas, citados 29 vezes; NT: 18 temas, citados 36 vezes.
no CEARP: AT: 12 temas, citados 19 vezes; NT: 14 temas, citados 23 vezes.

Fiz a proposta, a turma aceitou. Como hoje, 10 de novembro de 2006, a Ayrton’s Biblical Page comemora seus 7 anos de existência, e como nestes dias estávamos estudando Gn 1,1-2,4a – relato sacerdotal (P) da criação – que usa e abusa do número 7, existe melhor ocasião para se fazer 7 perguntas sobre Bíblia a meus alunos e obter outras tantas respostas interessantes?

Foi o que fiz. Atacando em duas frentes, uma acadêmica e outra pastoral.
Na acadêmica perguntei: Quais são os 4 temas que mais lhe interessam na Bíblia?
E na pastoral: Quais são as três perguntas sobre Bíblia que você mais escuta na sua pastoral?

Embora limitada, sem valor científico em termos de abrangência, esta pequena amostragem aponta algumas tendências em grupo voltado para os mesmos objetivos e revela preocupações, influências, modismos… Após expor os dados, podemos pensar em alguma observação mais criteriosa.

Explico, para entrar no assunto, a importância do número 7 em Gn 1,1-2,4a. Brevemente.
. 7 dias para a duração da obra
. 7 fórmulas:
– de introdução (Elohim disse…)
– de comando (Haja…)
– de execução (E houve…)
– de descrição (Elohim separou…)
– de bênção (Elohim abençoou…)
– de louvor (E Elohim viu que isto era…)
– de conclusão (E foi tarde e foi manhã …)
. 7 vocábulos – em hebraico – no primeiro verso (v. 1)
. 14 (7 x 2) vocábulos no segundo verso (v. 2)
. 7 vezes a frase “E Elohim viu que isto era bom”
. “Elohim” ocorre 35 x (7 x 5)
. os termos céu e terra ocorrem 21 vezes (7 x 3) cada um.

O 7 é um número que indica, na Bíblia, perfeição, totalidade. O seu uso em Gn 1,1-2,4a dá ao texto uma cadência, que transmite ao leitor uma sensação de harmonia pela repetição precisa das fórmulas e palavras na quantidade certa. E isto é possível porque no pensamento semítico um número não indica apenas quantidade, mas qualidade. Pode-se “fazer poesia” com os números. Mas, atenção, isto nada tem a ver com a conhecida “numerologia” que se propaga por aí a torto e a direito. As raízes da numerologia devem ser buscadas muito mais no mundo grego do que semítico.

Para ver mais sobre o significado dos números na Bíblia, consulte o verbete “números” em:
MACKENZIE, J. L. Dicionário Bíblico. 8. ed. São Paulo: Paulus, 1997, 1002 p.
VAN DEN BORN, A. (org.) Dicionário Enciclopédico da Bíblia. 5. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1992, 1600 p.

E para o tão badalado número 666 em Ap 13,18, consulte:
PRIGENT, P. O Apocalipse. São Paulo: Loyola, 1993, p. 252-255.

Conheça melhor o Google Co-op que permite criar buscas personalizadas em sites e blogs.

Biblical Studies Carnival XI, comentando os melhores posts de outubro de 2006, está em The Stuff of Earth, blog de Michael Pahl.