Markus Bockmuehl has sent along the programme for the Trinity Term NT Seminar. As ever, local friends more than welcome to attend (PDF here).
In reading Owen Chadwick’s magisterial book, The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century, I came across a reference to a ‘vast, sprawling’ unpublished biography of the radical critic and friend of Marx, Bruno Bauer, by Ernst Barnikol (who had also written on FC Baur, among other things). The International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam now has Barnikol’s papers, including the long manuscript of his ‘Bruno Bauer. Darstellung und Quellen’ (Collection ID: ARCH00022).. This work was never published in full, given its length, but certain extracts were published posthumously in Bruno Bauer: Studien und Materialien, edited by P. Reimer and Hans-Martin Sass (Assen: van Gorcum, 1972) under the auspices of the IISH, although that volume is now long out of print. Bruno Bauer is a figure of continuing interest to theologians, social theorists and historians, for his radical Hegelianism, his associations with Karl Marx, his role as most prominent of the Dutch ‘radical critics’ of the New Testament, and his ‘atheistic theology’. And Ernst Barnikol has writtenwritten penetrating studies of the German tradition of idealist theology and philosophy.
So I wrote to the IISH to ask whether they would ever think of digitizing the work, given that digital space constraints weigh less heavily than print constraints. I’ve just heard back that they would in principle be open to doing so (and thus effectively making Barnikol’s whole manuscript available as a free e-book), but given their workload, they would need external funding of around 3000 EUR (a little over $3200 by today’s exchange rate) to have someone digitize the 4,000 pages or so of the archives. So, while it seems unlikely, if anyone wants to invest in making Barnikol’s work freely available, or knows of another good way to get a few thousand euro for the project, please let me know.
In the first, Mohr Siebeck printing of my book, Paul and the Early Jewish Encounter with Deuteronomy, I erroneously spoke in a footnote of ‘thousands’ of Hebrew and Aramaic fragments from Oxyrhynchus, on the basis of an unsubstantiated remark I heard someone connected with the collection make during a papyrology seminar. After the fact, I checked with Prof. Peter Parsons and the actual number is much lower, so I revised for the Baker Academic reprint (my apologies for the error in the first printing!). Since I had some recent correspondence with someone over the question on the basis of the first printing, I thought it might be useful to share what the actual state of affairs is here. And perhaps if some Hebrew papyrologist tires of the last fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Cairo Genizah, they can take up the surviving bits from Oxyrhynchus? Here are the relevant bits excerpted from my correspondence with Prof. Parsons following my query:
I will check the inventory, and also whether any of the unpublished material has been assigned for publication (I remember discussing the matter with Sebastian Brock, and more recently with David Taylor). …[there] is not so much a question of the number of fragments as of their extent and quality – witness Cowley’s disappointment with the Hebrew pieces that he published in 1915 (now in Bodley), which he found valuable only for their palaeography. Add the difficulty that the preliminary inventory will have been made by classical scholars who could recognise the script but not understand the content. Anyway, I’ll see what I can find out, and be in touch again shortly.
I’ve now looked at the inventory. One must make allowance for the ignorance of the cataloguers, but as things stand only c. 30 items are classified as ‘Hebrew’ or occasionally as ‘Hebrew or Aramaic’ (nothing unequivocally ‘Aramaic’). Of these c. 25 are described as ‘scraps’, the rest as ‘fragments’; of the fragments only one is identified, as part of a Hebrew account. This doesn’t seem promising, even if you are already expert in Hebrew palaeography; on normal experience, small fragments take a lot of blood and sweat without any guarantee of interesting results.
So hopefully this helps a bit to set the record straight after the erroneous information I supplied in the first edition of my book.
I’ve also just had word that my Macbride Sermon (one of Oxford’s so-called University Sermons) has been published in Expository Times. The sermon must be on ‘the application of messianic prophecy’ and it posed an interesting challenge. As ever, I’m happy to send an offprint to anyone without access to the journal.
When did the ‘apostolic fathers’ become a thing? There’s been a minor debate about that question, and I’ve managed to throw my two cents into the discussion about Cotelier’s role in that affair – a debate that Ehrman calls ‘rather pointless’. It’s in a short note just released in advance access form in JTS called ‘The Paratextual Invention of the Term “Apostolic Fathers”‘.
The abstract reads:
The origin of the term ‘apostolic fathers’ has been the subject of some debate. This note examines the extant bindings of Cotelier’s 1672 edition of the collection to suggest that the term first arises as a paratextual shortening of his title by readers, booksellers, and librarians, and from there enters into common usage.
If anyone would like to read a copy but doesn’t have access to JTS, please drop me an email and I’ll be happy to share with you a PDF offprint.
The programme for the Oxford NT Seminar this term is now available, courtesy of Markus Bockmuehl:
As all academics in the UK are aware, the REF results were published this week. This is a major research assessment exercise conducted by the research funding bodies and the UK government periodically, that takes into account research quality, but also newer measures like environment and impact. The results were analysed almost immediately by numerous outlets, but the THES rankings and analysis are likely to prove influential steers to how the data is publicly perceived, however that data might eventually translate into funding decisions.
In Theology & Religious Studies, there were some expected results – Durham did very well once more – and some surprises. Among the latter, I was surprised to see Oxford rank 12th in the THES ranking. One reason I was surprised is that we had the largest submission of FTE staff submitted (33) with a relatively strong research score overall, though we did less well on impact and environment, issues we’ll no doubt ponder over the course of the next REF cycle.
But I was also curious to see this article about research intensity. Some departments choose to submit only a portion of their staff with very strong research profiles, while other departments submit virtually all of their core people. I was curious as to how the rankings might look if we tested for ‘research intensity’, that is, a THES-like GPA expressed as the ratio of eligible to submitted staff multiplied by research output scores. So I thought I would do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see how it would look for Theology & Religious Studies.
In the interests of ‘showing my work’, these are the numbers from which I worked. Taking the THES rankings for each university (expressed parenthetically in the list that follows after institutional name), I noted the number of FTE staff submitted, followed by the number eligible (the latter using figures from HESA, the Higher Education Statistics Agency). Expressing this ratio as a percentage, I then multiplied this by the THES Output GPA (the blue second column in the THES table), and expressed this as a new GPA for research intensity, for lack of a better term.
- Durham (1), FTE submitted: 25; eligible: 27; percentage submitted: 93% x Output GPA, 3.11 = 2.89
- Birmingham (2); 9; eligible: 15; 60% x 3.15 = 1.89
- Lancaster (=3); 22; eligible: 22; 100% x 2.80 = 2.80
- Leeds (=3); 11; eligible: 12; 92% x 3.15 = 2.90
- UCL (=3); 7; eligible: 9; 78% x 3.07 = 2.39
- Cambridge (6); 24; eligible: 27; 89% x 2.87 = 2.55
- Kent (7); 8; eligible: 9; 89% x 2.89 = 2.57
- Edinburgh (8); 27; eligible: 30; 90% x 2.89 = 2.60
- KCL (9); 26; eligible: 36; 72% x 2.84 = 2.04
- Cardiff (10); 9; eligible: 13; 69% x 3.05 = 2.10
- Soas (11); 14; eligible: 19; 74% x 3.02 = 2.23
- Oxford (12); 33; eligible: 32; 103% x 3.06 = 3.15
- Nottingham (=13); 16; eligible: 16; 100% x 2.97 = 2.97
- Exeter (=13); 11; eligible: 12; 92% x 2.90 = 2.67
- Manchester (15); 15; eligible: 17; 88% x 2.71 = 2.38
- St Andrews (=16); 14; eligible: 20; 70% x 2.90 = 2.03
- Sheffield (=16); 4; eligible: 6; 67% x 3.00 = 2.01
- Aberdeen (18); 19; eligible: 20; 95% x 2.54 = 2.41
- Bristol (19); 9; eligible: 8; 113% x 2.91 = 3.29
- Heythrop (20); 16; eligible: 40; 40% x 2.54 = 1.01
- Open (21); 6; eligible: 9; 67% x 2.86 = 1.91
- Wales Trinity Saint David (22); 8; eligible: 7; 114% x 2.47 = 2.82
- Glasgow (23); 11; eligible: 13; 85% x 2.38 = 2.02
- Canterbury Christ Church (24); 6; eligible: 8; 75% x 2.55 = 1.91
- Roehampton (25); 7; eligible: 7; 100% x 2.64 = 2.64
- Liverpool Hope (26); 15; eligible: 18; 83% x 2.41 = 2.00
- Chester (27); 11; eligible: 17; 65% x 2.40 = 1.56
- Winchester (28); 8; eligible: 8; 100% x 2.19 = 2.19
- Gloucestershire (29); 5; eligible: 10; 50% x 2.17 = 1.09
- St Mary’s, Twickenham (30); 5; eligible: 9; 56% x 2.29 = 1.28
- York St John (31); 7; eligible: 14; 50% x 2.23 = 1.12
- Leeds Trinity (32); 4; eligible: 4; 50% x 2.20 = 1.10
- Newman (33); 2; eligible: 5; 40%; n/a
If we then turn this into a new ranking order, we get the following:
- 1 Bristol (3.29)
- 2 Oxford (3.15)
- 3 Nottingham (2.97)
- 4 Leeds (2.90)
- 5 Durham (2.89)
- 6 Wales Trinity Saint David (2.82)
- 7 Lancaster (2.80)
- 8 Exeter (2.67)
- 9 Roehampton (2.64)
- 10 Edinburgh (2.60)
- 11 Kent (2.57)
- 12 Cambridge (2.55)
- 13 Aberdeen (2.41)
- 14 UCL (2.39)
- 15 Manchester (2.38)
- 16 Soas (2.23)
- 17 Winchester (2.19)
- 18 Cardiff (2.10)
- 19 KCL (2.04)
- 20 St Andrews (2.03)
- 21 Glasgow (2.02)
- 22 Sheffield (2.01)
- 23 Liverpool Hope (2.00)
- =24 Open (1.91)
- =24 Canterbury Christ Church (1.91)
- 26 Birmingham (1.89)
- 27 Chester (1.56)
- 28 St Mary’s, Twickenham (1.28)
- 29 York St John (1.12)
- 30 Leeds Trinity (1.10)
- 31 Gloucestershire (1.09)
- 32 Heythrop (1.01)
* n/a Newman
I’ll be the first to admit that this system isn’t without problems. As HESA notes on their site, Oxford and Cambridge have the added complication of eligible academics with non-university (i.e., college-only) posts, and there is the further problem that in two cases (Bristol and Wales Trinity Saint David) small departments submitted one more FTE than apparently expected, and so their percentages go way up. And of course the accuracy of HESA’s figures for FTE staff could certainly be disputed. Finally, it’s also worth noting that the REF is not simply measuring research outputs, and so this would only affect one portion of the exercise’s concern.
Nevertheless, even bearing in mind all those caveats, I think looking at the data in this way still does yield some interesting results.
UPDATE: In light of some pushback I’ve had, I’d like to clarify that for me these results serve to underscore the artificiality of the whole REF process, and the problematic way in which one interpretation of the data is used against other departments in publicity wars, etc. In my view, the REF problematically limits the types of projects people pursue, causes conflict in the small TRS sector, and places unnecessary strain on already thin resources. I understand that research councils wish to find ways of exercising accountability for their funding, but the whole sector would be better served by less heavy-handed methods and, in general, by much more extensive investment in research – not least in the neglected humanities – by the government as a whole.