
Ass. Teaching Prof @NCState | Early Judaism & Early Christianity | Opinions my children’s | Team Meatbag | Sports: @DocStaples
North Carolina, USA
Joined June 2008
- Tweets26.6K
- Following432
- Followers4K
- Likes8.7K
Pinned Tweet
Paul and the Resurrection of Israel is now available for preorder via Amazon (& elsewhere).
I’ve been working toward this book since spring 2003—half my life. Can’t wait to have this one out in the world. amzn.to/3O2llss
*Affiliate link
Jason A. Staples retweeted
As the prospects of getting a tenure-track job shrink, the prestige of academia declines, and working conditions worsen, PhD cohorts in the humanities skew more and more towards ideologues, the socially dysfunctional, and the otherwise unhireable.
Massive survey of grad students finds: "Humanities PhD students were the most likely to express anti-Jewish prejudice and hostility to Israel and to consider Israel/Palestine to be an issue of personal importance, compared to other graduate students."
brandeis.edu/cmjs/antisemiti…
Ugly truth is that most of these problems are easily solved w/o government intervention given better social norms. Nothing wrong w/older people having most wealth—if they use it to support their children/grandchildren rather than selfish luxurious leisure
The ugly truth about France and some of the other European countries currently in turmoil - and which none of the politicians want to admit because it'd be political suicide - is that you can't solve the problem by going after immigrants (as the right asserts) or the rich (as the left asserts), but you could solve it by going after the old.
One extraordinary statistic for you: people over 60 in France, a quarter of the population, own 60% of France's wealth, non-financial and financial (ofce.fr/pdf/revue/2025/3-192…).
And here is another crazy statistic:
that same quarter of the population, those above 60, receive nearly two-thirds of all social spending by the French government (previssima.fr/actualite/prot…) - which is famously among the highest in the world (France's government spending is an insane 57.3% of GDP).
Last statistic: they make up about 40% of voters because they're a third of registered voters (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/266…), and they turn out far more than anyone else (franceinfo.fr/elections/sond…).
Put our 3 statistics together and there's almost a bit of an apartheid situation here: the old own most of the country's wealth, collect most of the social spending and have the political power to keep it that way.
Which makes them a de-facto rentier class, living off assets and transfers paid for by younger generations.
And, of course, at the risk of stating a truism, the future is built by the young. Yet France keeps effectively taking money away from them to give it to those whose working lives are already behind them - and need the money far less since they already own the country's wealth.
What about inheritance, I hear you ask? That's the funniest/saddest aspect: given that life expectancy has kept rising, the French now inherit a home at 54 on average. The most common case is someone in their 80s leaving it to heirs in their 50s, in effect the very old transferring wealth to the about-to-be old (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fic…).
You can add this to our earlier apartheid statement: on top of all the rest, even when the old finally let go of their wealth, it stays within their own "camp".
That's my personal situation, incidentally: I'm 42, my father is 71 and he is starting to look at ways to pass things on to me and my siblings, when our professional lives are already well settled, so it'll arrive when it changes things the least, which is pretty much the French system in a nutshell.
Now, I get that there'd be some unfairness in going after them: they paid into the system their entire working lives, playing by the rules of a social contract that told them if they paid up they'd collect at the end. Changing the rules now means breaking that promise, which is admittedly unfair.
But there's no magic wealth tree in any society: you can only take it where it is. That's the way most major societal transformations end up happening. They're often triggered by a catastrophic event (the so-called "four horsemen": mass-mobilisation war, revolution, state collapse, plague) BUT what really drives change is a transfer: wealth gets pried from the privileged class who've been sitting on it and handed to those who'll build what comes next.
So, in theory and in an ideal world, you can do without the catastrophic event and directly proceed with the transfer...
The fact that in France, and elsewhere in Europe, it's the youth protesting is probably no coincidence - even though they don't frame it as a generational fight. And even though, cruel irony, the left politicians many of them march behind promise to bring the retirement age back to 60 (lcp.fr/actualites/legislativ…), which would make the situation even worse.
Let's say they understand intuitively that the system is stacked against them, even if they haven't yet figured out how. And politicians are obviously doing what politicians do, meaning pandering to the people who actually vote, while pointing the young towards easier - and politically convenient - scapegoats.
To be clear I'm not saying it's the only problem in France, VERY far from it. I'm also not saying that all old people in France live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of younger generations: there are also plenty of very poor retirees who, if anything, would deserve more.
What I am saying is that it's probably the biggest elephant in the room: everyone can see it, nobody dares mention it - no politician, from any side, wants to run on cutting grandma's pension - and it makes every other problem harder to fix.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Every age has its pros and cons, but due to medical advancements, if I were born even five or ten years earlier, my life would look very different now, and I possibly wouldn't be here. It's very fortunate I'm a mid-90s kid, and I'm hopeful treatments will continue to advance.
Yet another "This is an ADHD thing" that is really just a human condition thing. So tiresome.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Me in a magic shower of instant hot water in my house with A/C, after a big breakfast with all my healthy kids, living a life that the vast majority of humanity across time would give their left foot for: "Dear God, life is hard, I could really use some more money"
What they should say is that it’s not true, or at least no more true than it’s ever been. There’s really no point in thinking about the global. You only have one mortal body, as does your mother and your father and your children and so on. The amount that you can be tortured and killed is exactly the same as it’s always been through human history.
If you were living out on the frontier, and some strangers came through on horseback and executed your father and then raped and tortured your mother and your sisters before finishing you off, then that’s the same (well, way worse) as dying in a thermonuclear war or being pulverized by a rogue AI.
You only have one life. That life can’t get any bigger or smaller based on technological or social progress.
The ways in which you could be tortured and killed, were in the past much smaller, more personal, more localized… but I don’t know why you’d belong for that.
The only way forward is for adults to stop lying to children about how uniquely bad this world is.
100% this. That suffering is fundamental to human life is a fundamental tenet of basically every traditional religion or proverbial wisdom tradition. Somehow modernity (w/help from sanitized lives of others via media) has persuaded us otherwise & that our suffering is unique.
So much damage is done by the idea that there is a majority of people for whom life is straightforward. The world was designed for them, they effortlessly comply with societal demands and get over their life stresses easily. They never wonder whether there is something different about them, or criticise themselves for minor failings. They sail through school and work. They have meaningful relationships with only transient conflict. Their emotions are manageable and in proportion. They are round pegs in round holes.
The neurotypical
Some people look like this from the outside. Hardly anyone reports being like this from the inside. Yet more and more books and training programmes promote the idea that if you’re not like this, you must be neurodivergent. Wired differently.
We have pathologised the human condition.
Yes, the world is considerably better in 2026 than in 1985, 1995, 2005, or even 2015. And lots of people in each of those years thought there wouldn't be a world worth living in by this point. Lots of problems, but still better. Recognizing that alone should help lots of people.
Replying to @Riemerville
Before commenting, please acknowledge the reality we’re living in
2026 is NOT 1985, 1995, 2005, or even 2015. The world has changed dramatically, and pretending otherwise doesn’t help anyone
If we can agree on that, we can start having meaningful conversations
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Paul was neither a traditionally nomistic Jew (for whom traditional Torah fidelity was compulsory for Jews for justification in the present and salvation in the future), nor an antinomian (proto-Lutheran) Jew, but a "teleonomian," "natural-branch Israelite," who had, in the Messiah and the Spirit, attained to the telos toward which the good Torah had always been pointing.
(N.B. *not* saying this is simple or obvious and just playing with various formulations as I continue to work on this book project).
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Researchers followed a group of people who said their marriage was really unhappy. Almost 8 out of 10 who didn't get divorced said they were happily married five years later. The ones who did get divorced weren't any happier for it.
This was a University of Chicago team led by sociologist Linda Waite, working off a national survey of more than 5,000 married adults. 645 of them said they were unhappily married. The researchers checked back five years later to see how the people who left were doing compared to the people who stayed.
Across the whole unhappy group, about two-thirds of the ones who stuck it out were happy in their marriage again. And the couples in the worst shape at the start had the biggest turnarounds, which is about the opposite of what most people would guess.
The divorce group never came out ahead on any of the 12 measures of well-being the researchers tracked, including depression and self-esteem. Getting out took care of some stress and piled on new kinds, mostly custody fights and money problems.
Here's the number that makes sense of it. In three out of four of these unhappy marriages, the other spouse was happy with the marriage. So most of the time it's one person going through it, and a lot of what makes someone miserable in year seven, a job going sideways, depression, a brutal couple of years with little kids, either passes on its own or follows them into the next relationship.
That's pretty much what couples told the researchers when they interviewed 55 who had turned things around. Plenty of their problems just ran their course. Some put real work in. And some stopped waiting on their spouse to make them happy, went and built that for themselves, and the marriage got better along the way.
To be fair to the two women in that clip, wives do have a real complaint here. Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld found women initiate about 69% of divorces, but when unmarried couples break up it's close to 50/50 who ends it. Something about being a wife specifically wears on people, and that's worth taking seriously. Abuse is a completely separate situation too, and 86% of the unhappy spouses in Waite's data said there was no violence in the marriage at all.
These were regular people having regular bad years.
Telling a woman the answer is always yes means comparing her husband at his worst to a guy who doesn't exist yet, and the five-year numbers say most of those marriages came back.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Meet "The Palantir Guy"
Asked 148 UVA female students: which 30-year-old makes most appealing husband?
C) Shy, supersmart physics major making $400K at Palantir: 58%
A) Socially adept ex-frat brother making $200K at BofA: 29%
B) Sensitive, smart SAHD making $35K: 6%
Emotional intelligence is nice. Brains & good paycheck nicer for my UVA students.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Replying to @jasonstaples
Executive functioning can be acquired through study & therapy in extreme cases. If you're ADHD medication can sometimes help as well. This culture of learned helplessness is why I pulled my dyslexic kid out of public ed and homeschool him. It's a disease.
Or maybe you’re just an adult who underappreciates the degree to which brains are plastic even in adulthood and is using “neurodivergence” as an excuse for not doing the hard things that will reshape the brain to give it the neural machinery for better executive function
Replying to @nuel_szy
The real this is : You weren't a prodigy who got lazy. You were a neurodivergent kid whose raw intelligence masked a severe executive function deficit until the demands of adulthood finally outpaced your ability to wing it.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Moralisation of sex is less of a historical accident than is sometimes suggested
I always thought that the ancient Romans were tolerant about sexuality, until the rise of puritanical Christianity. Reading Kyle Harper, I learnt that this picture is not exactly false, but it is extraordinarily misleading:
worksinprogress.co/issue/wer…
- Sexual penetration of a free Roman man was severely punished, possibly by death. Consenting to penetration was also seriously punished. Lesbianism was not criminalised, but was regarded with contempt.
- The one great subject of permissiveness was the penetration of enslaved people. Although relatively few people owned slaves, many prostitutes were enslaved and prostitution was ubiquitous, so coerced sex was widespread.
- In some parts of the empire, many married women probably seem to have worn face veils in public.
- There was not even theoretically a norm of male fidelity: although wives were required to be faithful to their husbands, the inverse was not even aspirationally true.
- Early Christianity wrought a kind of revolution on ancient morality. All forms of sexuality apart from procreative sex within monogamous marriage were relentlessly and violently condemned, and even marital sex was allowed only rather grudgingly. In effect, the Christians extended to men the restrictions that had previously applied only to women.
- To a limited extent, they also extended the protections previously enjoyed by free men to other groups of people. Although the early Christian record on slavery is mostly very poor, they did introduce the first laws against the forcible prostitution of slaves. Transgressors were to be arrested and sent to the public mines, ‘which is’, the law ran, ‘less of a punishment than that of a woman who is seized by a pimp and compelled to endure the filth of an intercourse that she did not will’.
It is not clear how much behaviour actually changed in practice – the Christians were never able to get people to behave exactly as they wanted. But the change in official norms was revolutionary, and not quite the revolution I expected.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Building the ideal NFL roster based entirely on their relationship situation:
QB: Married to an above-average looking woman he met before he was famous. Attractive, supportive, but not Madison Beer hot. QB1 cannot have distractions.
RB: Knocked up his college girlfriend sophomore year. Still with her. 3 kids. Rumored mistress that everyone in the organization knows about but nobody discusses. May have one domestic violence charge that got dropped.
WR1: Completely single. Zero responsibilities. Following 4,700 women on Instagram. Let him cook.
WR2: Dating an Instagram model with 800k followers. Relationship is extremely toxic. Somehow this makes him better.
Slot WR: White guy married to a beautiful mid blonde. Golden retriever. Two kids. Lives 12 minutes from the facility. Automatic on 3rd & 7.
TE: Dating a famous actress/singer who gets shown during every broadcast. Annoying but necessary for team morale.
LT/RT: Married to high school sweethearts. Southern women. Three kids minimum. Own homes on 5+ acres. Absolutely zero nightlife.
Guards: Also married. Wives are best friends. Joint family vacations every offseason.
Center: Has been with the same woman since 8th grade. She packs his lunch.
WR3: Single, but not famous enough to pull WR1 numbers. Gets the girls WR1 stopped responding to.
Kicker: Wife is inexplicably a 10. Nobody understands how he did it.
Punter: You have literally no idea if he has ever spoken to a woman.
This team goes 14-3.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
I’m done with undergrads submitting papers they’ve “written.” There’s just too much AI use. I’ve decided that next year, students will write short papers during class time. They will conduct research ahead of time, and bring printed out sources they’ll use as references.
Jason A. Staples retweeted
Replying to @PhilipDBunn
It’s also the case, as Michael Ward has shown, that it’s wrong to think of Narnia as lightweight. Apart from Michael, what Lewis does with Plato’s allegory of the cave on The Silver Chair is brilliant. Best fictional treatment of it extant. And the literary execution of Till We Have Faces excels all fiction in English in the 20th century. It’s the most elegantly composed thing I’ve ever read—up there with King Lear. Moments in the Silmarillion are on par with TWF as a whole.


























