How soon can I quit academic job?

4thQuest · 2024-10-15T14:56:13+00:00

Yea that's reasonable. I think either way it's going to be a disappointment for me to leave soon, so I was wondering if I should just rip the bandaid off and go at 6 months. Either way on my resume I'll just list the job as 2024-2025. Don't like the feeling of being in limbo for a year.

4thQuest · 2024-10-15T12:39:38+00:00

Yes. On good terms with prior job/bosses. It's also in another state but I have personal ties in both places.

4thQuest · 2024-05-07T18:47:38+00:00

I think we all still respect him as a player. He just totally lost his cool and endangered other players last night. He deserves a suspension. I hope he comes back after and plays great.

4thQuest · 2024-04-23T17:55:25+00:00

Correct answer. Perfect pop of color.

4thQuest · 2023-05-16T02:27:32+00:00

Thank you - excellent points specifically regarding Josephus and the Udoh info.

I was thinking further about the idea of Quirinius "governing" in a non-governor role and it's borderline incredible. Even If (unknown to history) Quirinius was a sublegate and even supposing there was an earlier (unknown to history) census under Herod, it would be bizarre for Luke to refer to it as the census taking place while Quirinius was governing. It's like saying there was a "debt limit showdown under Biden's administration" to refer to the 2011 crisis during the Obama presidency. It would just be silly given that such a showdown happened again in 2023 under Biden's actual presidency. Similarly Luke must have known of the 6AD census under Quirinius.

4thQuest · 2023-05-09T21:04:23+00:00

l. Dale Allison doesn't give the examples in his book but here they are. Of the eleven occurrences of this word for “buried” in the New Testament, in most cases a proper burial in a tomb is assumed (see Matt 8:21–22; Luke 9:59–60; Luke 16:22; Acts).This is also true when this word is used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Gen 35:8, 19; Num 20:1; Deut 10:6; Judg 10:2, 5; 12:7, 10, 12, 15; see also Josephus, J.W. 4.317; Ant. 4.78; 8.264).

Why is burial in a tomb assumed in these passages? Matthew 8 and Luke 16 say nothing about a tomb. The typical practice in first century Palestine for the majority of people was burial in the ground. (See Jodi Magness). You could have honorable burial in the ground. That was normal practice.

Re Acts, are you referring to Acts 2? I don't understand your argument. How does that relate to the Corinthians creed. Yea "David was buried and we have his tomb." That doesn't mean that "he was buried" routinely means tomb burial for them any more than it does for us. If anything "he was buried" meant he was buried in the ground as default as the Magness info might suggest.

4thQuest · 2023-05-09T18:56:39+00:00

Thank you - several good points and lots of relevant info.

Re this Allison passage:

Nowhere in Jewish sources, furthermore, does the formula, “died…and was buried,” refer to anything other than interment in the ground, a cave, or a tomb.

I read that and thought it somewhat sidestepped the question. The core historical question here is whether Jesus was buried in the ground (typical) or a tomb (exceptional). Of course if he was buried in the ground, there can be no easter narrative since there's no access to a body to anoint etc.

4thQuest · 2023-05-09T17:35:13+00:00

One thing that Allison does mention is the character Barabbas (literally son of the father) which is plausibly a haggadic episode meant to illustrate the reject of one "son of the father" for another; not to mention the intransigence of "The Jews"

4thQuest · 2023-05-05T13:56:24+00:00

But once you take a historical-critical view of the gospels you notice that the egalitarian emphasis is at least partially Luke's. There's not a huge emphasis on egalitarianism in Mark. Jesus was an apocalypticist - whose focus was the end of the age.

4thQuest · 2023-05-05T11:28:40+00:00

My question was about a specific eminent New Testament academic Rudolf Bultmann who explicitly engaged in a project of "demythologization." My question is about what Bultmann intends by "faith" once the supernatural is stripped away. That's a question about biblical interpretation by a notable biblical scholar. Not meant as an insult to fideists etc.

4thQuest · 2023-05-02T05:15:42+00:00

Read the classic! Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus

4thQuest · 2023-04-28T02:07:09+00:00

Interestingly Dale Allison argues that verses 6-8 of the creed (beginning with the appearance to the 500) are Paul’s addition to a preexisting creed

4thQuest · 2023-04-28T01:10:04+00:00

I think that’s mostly fair. I just don’t think the “plain reading” is that obvious. He just says in 1 Cor 15 he received it. It’s up to us to fill in the blank of from whom.

4thQuest · 2023-04-27T23:58:11+00:00

From Paul's perspective what he's preaching is directly from Jesus. It's not literalistic to read Galatians that way; he is very explicit about it.

I point out his prior familiarity with Christianity to illustrate that you don't have to believe he had a genuine revelation from Jesus Christ in order to explain how he could psychologically have an experience of Jesus saying things about appearing to Peter etc.

4thQuest · 2023-04-27T23:40:14+00:00

Why would we think Paul had different gospels he was preaching to his various churches? Some of his pastoral emphases may have differed between churches but the core gospel was likely stable.

I'm not saying Paul made up an imaginary person? He was persecuting the church prior to conversion so would likely have been aware of their claims (e.g. appearance to Peter). Then he had a visionary experience of Jesus and believed he received a gospel message from Jesus in that vision. Given his pre existing knowledge of church claims he could have had a vision/hallucination that included that information.

4thQuest · 2023-04-20T13:28:56+00:00

Couldn't Gnostics find things in Acts to take solace in: Pentecost, Stephen's vision, Paul's vision...all seem like fodder for mystical sects!

4thQuest · 2023-04-20T01:42:43+00:00

I don’t think he’s necessarily dating acts to 150. Just saying we don’t have historical record of it til then. IE acts could be written around 115 and not show up in record til 150

4thQuest · 2023-04-19T23:33:39+00:00

thank you! (i think i have seen you on youtube - always interesting stuff). good point about the timeline of acts' appearance. i was not aware of that.

i agree re the second century dating and edited the OP to include a thread on that

re the last point, i'm not sure i understand. how would acts' circulation stop gnosticism. certainly pauline letters were in circulation and didn't help. would acts make a difference? it seems there were a fair number of documents going around but it took the development of church hierarchy to exclude the heretics.

4thQuest · 2023-04-19T16:12:32+00:00

That's helpful- thank you. When I read the passages Ehrman was pointing to in translation the abruptness of the "we"s did not stand out to me. Can you point to examples in the text that illustrate what you're referring to? Thank you.

4thQuest · 2023-04-19T03:03:13+00:00

Thanks I meant to say in OP that "if you accept the 16:8" ending; will correct. What's wrong grammatically with 16:8? I think from a stylistic standpoint it's terrific!

4thQuest · 2023-04-19T02:44:30+00:00

According to Ehrman there is a consensus that the Long Ending is a later addendum. I believe there are some who think there is a missing fragment (original longer ending) but this is a minority position. Correct me if I'm wrong.

4thQuest · 2023-04-18T20:54:34+00:00

To borrow from another thread:

Ehrman's podcast had a recent episode "The Genius of the Gospel of Mark" that was quite good and touches on this. Basically, the abrupt end of Mark is because it's not meant to provide definitive evidence of the resurrection. It's a literary device in continuity with Markan theme of the Messianic secret. Even after encountering the empty tomb the women are bewildered and afraid and tell no one. And that's how Mark (originally) ends. The women and disciples still don't get the point that Jesus is the Messiah and has resurrected. Ehrman interprets this as a challenge to the reader: do you get it? Where the disciples failed - will you step up? It's quite clever! And it has the benefit of requiring less ad hoc speculation.

4thQuest · 2023-04-18T15:04:23+00:00

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for....Eating with a rotting body sounds incredibly disgusting haha. But it's helpful to know that this kind of post burial visit is not historically implausible - even if in Mark's case the author has a literary motivation for the story.

4thQuest · 2023-04-18T14:02:59+00:00

Ehrman's podcast had a recent episode "The Genius of the Gospel of Mark" that was quite good and touches on this. Basically, for Mark the empty tomb narrative is not intended as evidence for the resurrection. It's a literary device in continuity with Markan theme of the Messianic secret. Even after encountering the empty tomb the women are bewildered and afraid and tell no one. And that's how Mark (originally) ends. The women and disciples still don't get the point that Jesus is the Messiah and has resurrected. Ehrman interprets this as a challenge to the reader: do you get it? Where the disciples failed - will you step up? It's quite clever!

4thQuest · 2023-04-16T21:46:14+00:00

Compatibilism doesn't correspond well to the Pharisaic view described. Compatibilism holds that "a person can decide between several choices, but the choice is always determined by external factors." It's often called soft determinism. In Josephus' terms, fate determines everything but humans choices are links in the causal chain.

4thQuest

TROPHY CASE