I continue here with my reflections on what a research scholar at a research university actually *does*. This post covers the most important part of the work. The main job of a professor, of course, is to teach. (!)
Different colleges and universities have different requirements and expectations for their faculty. At many small colleges, professors teach four or even five courses a semester. Rarely can a person teach that much and still produce substantial (or much of any!) research, so that professors in those contexts are usually handicapped when it comes to publishing scholarship in the form of books and articles. But many of them are in the job because they mainly LOVE teaching. So do I. But I’m in a different situation.
Large research universities expect their professors to be at the cutting edge of scholarship, and so the teaching requirements are lighter (since the research demands are so much heavier). Faculty in research schools can never get tenure or promotion (or raises!) if they do not regularly and extensively publish in their fields of expertise. (That is becoming increasingly true in all colleges and universities, even ones with heavier teaching requirements, which scarcely seems fair, and is probably not good for scholarship or teaching).
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a “Research 1” university, which means it places very heavy research expectations on its faculty. But we still teach a good deal! In my Department of Religious Studies the normal teaching load (not counting independent studies, directing honors theses, running reading courses, administering PhD exams, directing PhD Dissertations, and so on) is two courses a semester. Since I came here in 1988, I have taught one (usually very) large undergraduate course and one small PhD seminar each semester. These two courses are about as different from one another as you can imagine.
The undergraduate courses are almost always survey courses for large numbers of students who are not involved in doing original research themselves but who are learning the results of research scholarship at a fairly low, introductory level. Every Spring semester I teach my Introduction to the New Testament. For this class I have a group of graduate student teaching assistants, each of whom runs three separate discussion sessions with 20 students in each, every Friday. And so each TA has 60 students, which means that the class size is determined by how many TA’s I have. This year I had four, so we had 240 students in the class; some years I’ve had six or seven, and correspondingly larger classes. It just depends on how many TAs are available for me.
This class is designed for underclass students (say, 19 and 20 year olds) who may know nothing about the New Testament. The reading and lectures and discussions all take a rigorously historical approach, rather than a devotional or confessional approach. This comes as a bit of a shock to many of my students, whose only exposure to the New Testament has, in most instances, been in religious contexts, where the emphasis is on believing the Bible, rather than studying it. For my class we study the context of the New Testament in the Roman Empire and within the context of ancient Judaism and paganism, we ask who its authors really were (and how we can know), what historical value can be ascribed to its narratives, and so on. We look at historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions – not in order simply to show that the Bible has problems, but in order to open up new avenues of interpretation that would never occur to someone who doesn’t realize how thoroughly historically situated the New Testament books really are. I never insist that a historical approach to the New Testament is the only approach one should take; but it is certainly one valid approach, and the one that is most appropriate for a secular research university setting.
In this class the students have the benefit of two weekly lectures (by me), of 50 minutes each, and, as I indicated, a weekly small-group discussion led by a trained graduate student teaching assistant. As a rule, students find the class eye-opening, challenging, and interesting. It is the class I am best known for around campus.
In the Fall semester I will teach some other course – and over the years it has been a range of things. Last semester I taught my course on “Jesus in Scholarship and Film,” where we did the following: (a) read a number of ancient Gospels about Jesus – not just the ones in the New Testament, but others as well, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Proto-Gospel of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and so forth; (b) saw what scholars have been saying about the historical Jesus, based on the application of rigorous historical criteria to the ancient accounts of his life; and (c) considered how Jesus is portrayed in modern film, in such great movies as “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” “Jesus Christ Superstar,” “The Last Temptation of Christ,” and my personal all-time favorite, “Jesus of Montreal” (which *everyone* should see, multiple times!).
Over the years I have taught a wide range of undergraduate classes at UNC and, when I started out in the mid 1980s, at Rutgers University. They have included the following:
• Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (a survey course like my New Testament class)
• The Life and Letters of Paul (an upper-level course on the Apostle Paul)
• Varieties of Early Christianity (about so-called “heresies” and “orthodoxy” in early Christianity, with attention to such topics as early Christian Gnosticism)
• The Birth of Christianity (dealing with how Christianity succeeded in spreading itself throughout the Roman World, and the trials and challenges it faced)
• Apocalypse Now and Then (dealing with ancient Jewish and Christian apocalypses – such as the book of Daniel, the Revelation of John, and non-canonical works; and with how apocalyptic themes can be found in modern novels and film)
• The Problem of Suffering in the Biblical Tradition (about different views of suffering in different authors of the Bible, both Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament)
I often get asked what is my favorite part of my job – given all the things that I do (as is true of all my colleagues), and I have to say, teaching undergraduates is right at the top of my list. A lot of scholars at research universities teach undergraduates, frankly, because they have to do so. It’s part of the job. Not me. I do it because I deeply enjoy it and find it personally rewarding and satisfying. Promoting the knowledge acquired through hard research among young people, getting them to look at the world in a different way, opening their eyes to enormously important issues, getting them to think deeply about fundamentally significant topics – all these things I consider to be “percs” of my job. There are few things I enjoy more than lecturing to a large auditorium of eager and attentive undergraduate students.
This sounds infinite. Or,at least, the endeavors of various people! So much accomplishment and so much passion for it.
I wonder if you were already tenured when you wrote Misquoting Jesus and if you faced local negative reactions.
Because it’s in the South, I had imagined your University being very conservative, but I read here that it’s secular.But still! Revolutions breed martyrs and your book was a first of its kind.
I totally get your particular enjoyment teaching undergraduates.First, I love teaching too. I’ve been teaching since I was 13. After all, someone in my profession is called ” Maestro”, literally, teacher. But of all orchestras I’ve conducted, those composed of accomplished young students are the most rewarding, hard work and all. In a few months I’ll be facing an All State student orchestra in California, my third All State ( previously All States NY and NJ). As you describe, they want to be there (professional musicians can be a very tough crowd) and they are eager to learn. They are sponges.
I also wonder if some of your students remain full believers as when they came in, or more critical but still believers, or cease to be believers.
Anyway, Bravissimo to you!
Yes, I was. And yes, I did. But not locally and never to my face. But there were three (or four?) books written directly to counter it, some of them not overly friendly. 🙂
Most of my students remain what they are by the end of the term, and if they didn’t, it would be weird. (19-20 years of being a Christian, dropped after a single class?) But most do become more knowledgable and thoughtful, and what often happens is years later they begin to see the other side and change their views. Not necessarily deconvert, though that happens some too.
Pardon an unrelated comment, but would definitely like your thoughts on this—
I’m currently reading “Heaven: A History” by Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang. So far, they’ve made a couple of assertions that struck me as contrary to the scholarly consensus, namely:
1. Jesus believed heaven to be a place above to which souls were exalted after death, explicitly not an earthly place. My understanding was Jesus likely believed that resurrection would only take place after God intervened in history to restore Israel, not immediately after death; that it would be a bodily resurrection; and that it would involve a kingdom of heaven on earth. Are they taking the gospels too much at face value?
2. There’s an outright claim that Paul “considered Christianity as a religion in its own right, based on a new revelation and separate from traditional Judaism”. My sense has been that Paul explicitly did not view himself as part of a new religion but simply Judaism in its ultimate form. Are the authors mistaken or am I misunderstanding them?
Would appreciate any input on this (and any thoughts on the book/authors if you’re familiar with them)!
I’d say they are completely wrong on both scores. You might want to look at my book Heaven and Hell where I discuss such things at length.
Was John the Baptist an Apocalypticist? (I know , totally unrelated to the article)
I had read in your books and also here in the blog (the case against Jesus Seminar) your argument that since Paul was an apocalypticist (after Jesus) and so John the Baptist ( before Jesus) well, Jesus most probably was.
I have no doubts about Paul, but John ….
In the gospels John the Baptist is clearly depicted as an apocalypticist, but what about other sources?
In his Antiquités , Josephus said that John “was telling the Jews to practice virtue, and behave righteously towards each other and devoutly towards God”, not a word about the imminent end of the world. Argument from silence? Yep, but it is odd that Josephus introducing John ministry won’t tell anything about that. Just imagine a note about Paul from an ancient writer not telling anything about his apocalypticism!!!
Yes, you need to consider *that* source as well. Josephus famously opposed apocalpytic movements and the people who held apocalyptc views (note: he also doesn’t portray Jesus as an apocalypticist). He was very selective in how he worded his views — consider his presentation of both the Pharisees and Essenes. His audience was largely a Roman audience and he did not want to stress teh apocalyptic nature of so much of his Jewish people, and so he underplayed it etenbsively. As to Paul, there are many, many books today by *scholars* who don’t emphasize his apocayptic views. That’s why J. Christiaan Beker’s magnum opus was so signficant historically.
“His audience was largely a Roman audience and he did not want to stress the apocalyptic nature of so much of his Jewish people”
But he had no problem in writing that John was killed because a king appointed by Rome feared a REBELLION against him ?
“As to Paul, there are many, many books today by *scholars* who don’t emphasize his apocalyptic views. “
Well , I can’t imagine writing just a few sentences about Paul without mentioning that he preached salvation through Chist from the upcoming end of the world by God’s wrath.
You don’t even have to use the word “apocalypticist” to make it clear.
“(note: he also doesn’t portray Jesus as an apocalypticist)”
Maybe because neither John nor Jesus were !!!
If you are convinced they were… your conclusion “Josephus famously opposed apocalyptic movements and the people who held apocalyptic views” is circulus in probando
Yes, Josephus has no trouble at all discussing rebellions. That, as you know, is the topic of his six-volume work on the Jewish War.
Even more odd, Josephus said that “Herod feared that his great influence over the people might lead to some revolt”
An apocalypticist sparking a rebellion?
Again, imagine Paul promoting a rebellion … No way! He was expecting the imminent end of the world, God would fix it all so why to waste your time?
You can think that it all was Herod’s paranoia , maybe, but since the people was “greatly moved by hearing (John’s) words” to kill him was a dangerous move, he was a very rough ruler but he ruled for over 40 years as a vassal king in one of the hardest provinces of the Roman Empire , it not seems he would act only based on rumors …
Obviously nothing is conclusive in that John by no means was an apocalypticist…but nothing in Josephus even suggest he was.
My question is :
Why take for granted John the Baptist apocalypticism only based in the gospels?
Lots of reasons: multiple attestation for one (Mark, Q, M). But also for a similar reason to the apocalyptic Jesus: Gospel writers many decades later would not be inclined to say that he indicated that the chopping down of the tree was now going to begin (50 years earlier). Dissimilarity.
The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
BUT about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father.
Indeed, the chopping down of the tree was now going to begin but a thousand years in Lord’s sight are like a day that has just gone by.
Right. So if an evangelist today says that Jesus is going to cmoe back from heaven three days from now, we can expect him in 5022. 🙂
You don’t have to post this but when we talk about research universities or colleges, I always read that in the area of cancer and other illnesses, “research centers” or universities were the best place to take a person with these illnesses.
I took my wife to MD Anderson in Houston specifically because of that line of reasoning.
It felt good to have my wife down there with all the best and brightest paying attention to her but sometimes I felt like she was a thing of study instead of patient to be treated.
Once my wife was under the care of this doctor who was trying to treat her and control her white blood cell count with an experimental drug.
When the white blood cell count remained too high, she was taken off the study and the doctor who I had talked to everyday and called… just vanished! Research? Or treatment?
Whoa? Really? I’m so sorry to hear it.
Hello Bart. Just a quick note to wish you Happy Birthday for tomorrow. Hope you have a great one.
Thanks for your great work on the blog, your books and general outlook on scholarship and Christianity.
It might not be of much interest to you, but one of the newer kids on the Biblical scholar block, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, has her birthday on the 3rd, a couple of days before yours.
All the best matey.
Thanks!
Hi Bart,
Is the September Gold QA out yet? If so, I haven’t been able to find it!
Cheers
I though it was, but maybe not! I’ll check with the powers that be.