With thanks to Bob Cargill for this important tip.
“Peter was humble and kind. The Spanish players are arrogant divas who treat me like a whore.” — Monica Mint (19-year-old, 1,000 euro-per-night Spanish hooker who ‘entertained’ Peter Crouch in Madrid last July). (Via Matthew Kalman)
What on earth is the world coming to when a Spanish hooker is treated like a whore?!
Ok it wasn’t me (in the words of Nelly), but could anything illuminate the darkness of our youth obsessed beauty driven culture better than the fact that an A&F model was fired for eating when he wasn’t supposed to? Depravity.
Abercrombie & Fitch really scaled back for its recent catalog shoot, Page Six reports. The female models were supposedly paid only $2,500 and the men $1,500 for a week’s worth of work (and $13 for food each day), and the pretty faces were forced to put in 13-hour days with their eating and workouts monitored, a source said. So strict were the rules that Belgian male model Florian Van Bael was reportedly fired for snacking on a croissant at an inappropriate time. His agent told Page Six, “I don’t think it’s a question about coffee or croissant, it’s just a question of respect during an important job.”
Any job that monitors your eating isn’t a job worth having. And I’m calling on all biblio-theo bloggers to stop shopping at A&F! That means you, Ben Myers, Joel Watts, James McChewbacka, Chris Tilling, Mark Stevens, and Matt Flannagan. Don’t support your favorite store any more! They’re treating their models like animals in a lab experiment.
While chatting with a friend who teaches Pre-K I learned something really sad. She said that this year of the 18 children (4 year olds) in her class, only 5 lived in a household with both mother and father. All the rest lived either with grandparents or aunts or uncles.
That strikes me as just about the saddest thing anyone can hear. Parents have abdicated their responsibilities and passed off the raising of their children to people who should be supports instead of primaries. And that’s nothing but total depravity with grave and serious consequences.
While many may ‘welcome’ this shifting of the meaning of ‘family’, I find it a grave sin and a great error. Even on the most basic biological level there is ONE mother and ONE father resulting in the Child. This cannot be ignored except to our own hurt and to the ultimate severing of the most important of all ties- the tie of life itself. Father and mother are bound to child in a way that no other people on the planet are bound to them individually. The end of that ‘tie that binds’ is the end of any meaningful sense of community.
James and I, I think are on the same page on this issue. So let me say this as clearly and precisely as possible: demonstrations of hatred, harassment, cruelty, or bullying are never, ever Christian. Ever.
This does not mean Christian people should ignore or gloss over sin. Certainly not. But sin is sin, so when people are bullied because they’re divorced or gossips or thieves or tax cheats or liars or adulterers, then, and only then, will it be ok to bully someone because they are homosexual.
Hence, since those sinners aren’t treated evilly then neither should gays be. Ever. By any Christian. All such mistreatment is a denial of the very Gospel we claim to represent. ‘The one among you who is without sin can throw the very first stone!’ And good luck finding such a sinless soul these days.
McChewbacka and I might disagree about everything else, but I think we probably agree about this: bullying homosexuals (or ANYONE) is evil.
You can read Mark’s thoughts on the question of Johannine priority here. And if John isn’t your thing, Mark has a paper on sexual sin too (and other interesting topics as well). I know that got your attention.
Mark teaches at Milligan College here in Tennessee. We’ve met a couple of times at meetings and I think he’s a very personable fellow (as well as being a good thinker).
Chuck Cecil is exhibit a in classless tackiness for teaching every kid watching yesterday’s game that being tacky and vulgar is expected in sports. Will he be fined? Reprimanded? For some reason I doubt it. Vulgarity and pro sports (and sports at every level, it seems) go hand in hand like incoherence and spokesmodels.
Kids, let me say to you, just because overpaid plump people do things doesn’t mean they’re the right thing to do. Vulgarity and classless behavior only make those who perform them little and small and silly. Real adults don’t act like Cecil.
The second excerpt from Maurice Casey’s Jesus of Nazareth concerns the rise of the study of the Historical Jesus during the Nazi era. This is, for me, one of the most engaging and interesting parts of the book. But of course I’ve long been interested in that place (Germany) and that period (the 20th century). Casey introduces the section by writing-
The years after Schweitzer’s major contribution form the most disreputable part of the story of the quest, and one of the most illuminating episodes in the history of scholarship. This is however being concealed by an academic myth, according to which scholars are now working on the third quest for the historical Jesus. The first quest was supposedly torpedoed by Schweitzer in 1906, when he showed that the liberal quest of the historical Jesus essentially consisted of scholars looking in a mirror and finding in Jesus an image of themselves. Schweitzer’s demolition of the first quest was so devastating that it brought the quest to a halt. The second quest was begun by Käsemann in a 1953 lecture, published in 1954. It therefore seems at first sight reasonable that we should call the period between Schweitzer and Käsemann the period of ‘no quest’.
That’s an appetite whetter and the section doesn’t disappoint. To be sure, it does remind us that scholars always carry baggage with them. Sometimes that’s bad and so colors results that nothing useful is produced.
And don’t forget, we’ve got a contest going offering a free copy of Prof. Casey’s book to the winner (as chosen by James Spinti and myself).
Is available here. Here’s the core of it
As proven at trial, GOLB used dozens of email aliases to engage in a systematic scheme via the Internet to influence and affect debate on the Dead Sea Scrolls. GOLB created these aliases in order to intimidate and harass five Dead Sea Scrolls scholars who differed with GOLB’s viewpoint on the ancient texts, which was heavily influenced by his father’s scholarship on the subject. As a graduate of the New York University (“NYU”) School of Law, GOLB had access to the university’s computers, which he used in an attempt to mask his true identity when conducting this Internet scheme. Through his email aliases, GOLB promoted the theories of his father, Norman Golb, Ph.D., on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and criticized the theories of his father’s colleagues in the field. Frequently, GOLB criticized the manner in which the Dead Sea Scrolls had been displayed at museums, because GOLB insisted that the exhibits did not pay sufficient attention to the theories of his father.
GOLB also created email accounts in the names of other individuals active in the field of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship, including Stephen Goranson, Ph.D., Jonathan Seidel, Ph.D., Frank Cross, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Gibson, Ph.D. District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorney John Bandler, who handled the prosecution of the case under the supervision of David Szuchman, Chief of Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau, and Special Assistant District Attorney Antonia Merzon. Senior Cybercrime Analyst Sarah Briglia and Cybercrime Analyst Michelle Moy of the Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau participated in the investigation, as did Forensic Analyst Selena Ley. Investigators from the District Attorneys Investigation Bureau, including Senior Investigator Patrick McKenna and Investigator Ariela Fisch, participated in the investigation and trial preparation.
Those who assumed Golb was innocent now have a trial to prove he was anything but.
Sometimes seeing things a different way causes difficulties…
Tim’s got an interesting question concerning the issue of accessing scholarly production, in response to Evan’s mention of subscription prices for publications:
Evan and Jim have responded vigorously to my post below: Secret societies: biblioblogging in Religion Bulletin. Evan points out that: An annual individual print subscription to the journal is 35 USD in North America, 17.50 GBP elsewhere. What’s your trouble? Do you get TIME magazine for free or something? How is this set-up any different than most any other publishing situation out there. Oh, I agree, if scholarship is a commodity to be bought and sold $35 a year is a snip. Except, who paid for the writing? Who pays the scholars who did most of the editorial work?
No one paid me to write the history of blogging piece for the bulletin and I’m guessing no one else got paid to write for that issue either (and if they did I’ll be TOTALLY ticked off at you Craig!). And I’m also guessing that Craig gets paid a pittance for doing the editorial work. The cost arises in the actual process of printing and mailing I suspect. Printing and mailing cost and as long as the cost passed on to consumers is reasonable (unlike with Brill publications, for instance) then I have no issues with it.
As to Tim’s larger question, though, which he expresses thusly
Oh, I agree, if scholarship is a commodity to be bought and sold $35 a year is a snip.
Scholarship is exactly that. A commodity which some wish to consume and others don’t. Those who wish to consume it have to bear the cost of it- just like those who consume beer bear the cost (and I don’t, because I don’t drink nearly frozen urine). That’s the way life is. If you call the tune, it’s your obligation to pay the piper, otherwise there’s no piper piping at all. If you think the piper should play for free, try it yourself. Give up your salary. Work for free. Do everything you do for no cost. See how long you survive without trading the commodities you control.
In a perfect world barter would be the way life was lived. But we don’t live in a perfect world. We don’t even live in the best of all possible worlds.
In this video you’ll see Chris singing lead and Mark Stevens and James Crossley and the entire Sheffield Biblical Studies Department (among others) singing Lady Gag’s Bad Romance.
And you thought they were too busy with coursework to blog. Ha. They’ve been rehearsing.