Durham-Duke Symposium: Identity (2)

I gave all the official details in post 1, but I thought I’d give a few of my impressions and experiences here.  This was quite an experience. 

One of the most exciting parts was the first NT paper given by Francis Watson on ‘Beyond the New Perspective’.  Watson challenged many of the NPP ’doctrines’ and said this would be the last of his works on the NPP.  As Nijay noted, the audience included Richard Hays, Tom Wright, Jimmy Dunn, Joel Marcus, and John Barclay, among the rest of us.  It wasn’t unlike SBL, but just a more intimate environment.  Joel Marcus asked a probing question for Francis that still hangs in the air: Was Paul’s characterisation about Judaism right, or was it just a caricature?  I don’t think that was adequately answered, but on the whole Watson’s critique of the NPP showed its weaknesses without turning back uncritically to the old perspective.

As one of the organisers, I got the opportunity to chat with all of the Duke people at one time or another.  The best meal was that at Bishop Tom Wright’s home at Auckland Castle at Bishop Auckland.  I had the fortune to share the table with Tom Wright and Richard Hays and several others.  But even cooler was going into the chapel at the castle.  It was awe-inspiring to see the lists of bishops dating back to 900 AD or so.  Two of England’s greatest NT scholars and also bishops in Durham–JB Lightfoot and BF Westcott–were buried there.  It gives a sense of the ancient faith that has been carried along by the leadership of the church. 

The end cap of the weekend was the opportunity to drive Richard Hays to the airport because his flight was too early to catch a train.  He was gracious enough to let us bend his ear for a couple of hours.  He had good things to say about my thesis topic and that it is timely.  He mentioned specifically that 20+ years ago hardly any in the NT guild would ever think we could learn about Paul from patristic writers, but now the field is ripe for studies like this.  That was encouraging.  He also mentioned the need to have a manageable scope–like not trying to do all of Paul.  That will be harder advice to take since the patristic writers don’t focus on just one passage when talking about theosis.  So somebody has to do the big picture stuff, right?

At the castle dinner I heard Tom Wright comment that he would have benefited in his postgrad days to have participated in an event like this.  It was good to see scholarship at its best and also to get to know people personally as well.  It will be one the highlights of my time here.

 

Durham-Duke Symposium: Identity (1)

Last weekend 9 faculty from Duke came over to Durham (UK) for a colloquium on identity.  Besides those listed as presenting (below), Richard Hays and Ed Phillips also came. John Barclay was the point person on this side, and he asked me to help out a bit with the organisation. It took a bit of my time but the conference came off pretty well.

Plenary Session: Seth Kunin (Durham), ‘De-essentialising Models of Identity’

Old Testament
Stephen Chapman (Duke), ‘Ecclesiocentric Interpretation of the Old Testament in America’
Rob Barrett (Durham/London), ‘Identity against Empire: Learning from Judah and Assyria’
Richard Briggs (Durham), ‘The Virtuous Reader: Identity and the Implied Reader of the Old Testament’
Thea Portier-Young (Duke), ‘Languages of Identity and Obligation: Daniel as Bilingual Book’
Nathan MacDonald (St. Andrews), ‘Narrative Identity, the Old Testament, and the Regula Fidei’

New Testament and Early Christianity
Francis Watson (Durham), ‘Once Again: Beyond the New Perspective on Paul’
Loren Stuckenbruck (Durham), ‘The Pentateuch and Biblical Interpretation in the Enoch Literature from the 2nd Century BCE’
Joel Marcus (Duke), ‘The Birkat Ha-Minim, the 18 Benedictions and Jewish and Christian Identity’
Lucas van Rompay (Duke), ‘Fourth Century Syriac Christianity: Between Jews and Marcionites’
Short Papers:
a. Clare Stancliffe (Durham), ‘Church, Heresy, and the Emergence of Separate Welsh and English Identities’
b. Andrew Louth (Durham), ‘Defining Orthodox Identity in the 7th and 8th Centuries’

Theology and Religion
Wesley Kort (Duke), ‘Autobiography and Religious Identity’
Douglas Davies (Durham), ‘Identity, Death and Eschatology’
Mary McClintock Fulkerson (Duke), ‘Feminist Theology and the Challenges of Identity Politics’
Gerard Loughlin (Durham), ‘Excitable Christian Speech: Hatred, Homosexuality and Law’
Paul Griffiths (Duke), ‘The Staurocentric Fulcrum of Politics: Expropriating Agamben on Paul’

I thought I’d give the general info in this post and then my impressions in a second post.

 

SBL Abstracts

Here are the two abstracts I sent off this morning.  If it’s your first submission it says that you need to send off the paper in advance.  But when you go to actually submit the abstracts, it says that you only have to submit the paper if requested by the chair.  I have both papers already 95% complete, so I guess I’m good either way.  I will say having the papers written did help me craft my abstract more precisely. 

Pauline Epistles: The Motif of Glory (Doxa) in Romans
While glory is often discussed in relation to the Corinthian letters, the motif in Romans is also significant for Paul’s argument, with 22 occurrences of doxa and its cognates. Through social scientific analysis commentators have rightly highlighted the sociological aspects of doxa as a primary term in Paul’s honour discourse. However, Paul also applies doxa language ontologically with relation to the nature of God, the effects of the fall, and the eschatological salvation of believers. Regarding this ontological use, Paul directly intertwines glory with immortality/incorruption language, such that the experience of divine life is the primary referent of doxa language (e.g.. 1.23; 8.21; 9.22-23). Thus, when Paul describes all people as having lost the glory of God, he is primarily referring to their experience of mortality due to sin. For Paul the solution to this problem is justification, which leads to a restoration of life. Accordingly, the glory connection further clarifies our understanding of righteousness as new creation in addition to forensic pronouncement, which provides evidence that Paul does not separate participation and forensic categories. Finally, this human experience of the divine opens doors for discussions about theosis or deification in Paul.
[This horse should be about dead, but I figured I'd beat it a few more times. I hear the odds of getting accepted are about 1/4 in this group so pray for me!]

History of Interpretation: Irenaeus, Psalm 82, and Paul
That the psalmist’s pronouncement “I said you are gods and sons of the Most High” (Psalm 82.6) plays a central role in Greek Patristic views of deification goes without dispute. Irenaeus was not the first theologian to interpret Psalm 82 as describing Christian deification, but the grid he uses to explain the Psalm served as the basis of several later writers. Interestingly, Irenaeus does not refer to Jesus’ use of this passage (John 10:34), but rather he focuses exclusively on texts from Paul’s letters—Gal 4.4-7, Rom 8.15, and 1 Cor 15.53-54. Examining Irenaeus’ four discussions of this Psalm in his Against Heresies, I explore how these Pauline texts fit within his presentation of deification. From his use of Paul we understand that Irenaeus primarily presents deification as a relationship through the metaphor of adoption. Through this deifying adoption, believers are able to partake of the inheritance promised in the scriptures, namely a restored creation and incorruption of the body. This provides further evidence for the growing consensus that Irenaeus’ use of Paul is by choice rather than by obligation to save him from the heretics. Irenaeus’ vision of deification in Paul invites further investigation to Paul’s letters in light of this, particularly for those of us in the western tradition.
[This is a chunk out of my Irenaeus chapter that I have reworked.]

 

Society for the Study of Theology - 2008 Conference

St. John’s College here at Durham University is hosting the 2008 Conference of the Society for the Study of Theology, which is meeting 31 March-3 April.  The deadline for the call for papers is 22 February.  The seminar topic is Theology and Politics, and seminar papers are requested for these areas: Ecclesiological Investigations, Feminism and Theology, Theological Ethics, Theology & Philosophy, Theology, Culture & the Arts,  and Trinity & Christology.

 

2007 SBL Trip

So this is quite belated, but I am finally getting around to doing a quick post about my 2007 SBL trip.  I had a good time, but the lack of sleep definitely began to wear on my by the end of it.  I went to ETS, IBR, and SBL.  I particularly enjoyed meeting quite a few bibliobloggers this year and other US-UK postgrads.  I also heard several good papers, and the session between Tom Wright and John Barclay was both entertaining and enlightening–it’s always good to hear your supervisor explain his overarching view of your subject area!  I also had a nice breakfast with Mike Gorman (along with Nijay Gupta).  My research interests overlap at points with Mike’s and he graciously offered to chat about it with me. 

Main book purchases: LSJ on Logos; The Apostolic Fathers (Greek-English, 3rd ed.) by Holmes; St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by J. McGuckin; Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alex.’s Exegesis and Theology by R.L. Wilken; On the Unity of Christ by St. Cyril of Alex. (trans by J.A. McGuckin); The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus (trans by J. Behr); and A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight.

The best part of the trip was getting to hang out with one of my best buds from my Ouachita days–Lee Cook, who lives in the LA area.  Look out for his work in the future–he’s a pastor at heart with the mind of an academic, who is making steps towards publishing. 

 

In the US

I’m hanging out here in San Diego, so my posting will be nil for a while.

 

SBL Room?

I just heard that a prospective roommate for SBL won’t be coming, so I’ve got a room for 4 reserved but right now only 2 of us are confirmed (Friday night, 16th-Tuesday, 20th).  If anybody doesn’t have reservations/plans, we’d be interested in talking with you.  Assuming 4 people the cost will be about $50/night per person. 

The hotel is Westin San Diego (formerly Wyndham Emerald Plaza, 400 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101).  It’s number 11 on the SBL meeting booklet (see pages 8-9).

Mass murderers, psychopaths, and preterists need not apply. 

 

The Motif of Glory in Romans

Here’s a copy of the paper I presented at BNTS 2007, Exeter: Glory-Romans-BNTS

The first half of the paper is probably the strongest. There are still a few sources that I need to track down were I to get this in a publishable state. Definitely give me any feedback.

Lessons learned? I might print out the paper double spaced or 1.5 spaced so as to have room for hand edits, of which there were a few. Budget for about 100 words per minute for a paper rather than my previous estimate of 110-120 wpm–I found I throw in a phrase or two periodically and that adds to the time.

Abstract
While glory (doxa) is often discussed in relation to 2 Corinthians, the motif is also significant for Paul’s argument throughout much of Romans. Several commentators note how glory is a key motif in the letter, but they do not often integrate this into their larger discussions. Spread evenly throughout the letter, doxa and its cognates occur 22 times in Romans, and I propose that this motif gives important insights into Paul’s argument and theology, in particular his anthropology, soteriology and eschatology. I argue that along with a contribution to his honour discourse a central aspect of Paul’s conception of glory in Romans is immortality. Within this discussion I explore particularly the relation of glory to righteousness and also the present-future timing of glorification. And finally, I discuss the implications of this motif for recent interest in the theology of deification(theosis), or participating in the divine attributes.

Keywords: Romans, glory, doxa, δόξα, glorification, immortality, life, resurrection, theosis, deification

 

Review: British NT Conference 2007

I had the pleasure to attend the BNTC 2007 in Exeter at the end of last week. It was one of the most enjoyable conference experiences I’ve had. Although it was 6 hours oneway, I had a great train trip down and back with Kristian Bendoraitis and Kevin Bywater, fellow NT postgrads. And the conference itself was very enjoyable. Here are a few thoughts…

Attendants: There were around 140 attendees. A nice size that allowed one to mix with others as you wanted. I noticed a low Oxbridge participation (e.g., no J Lieu, PJ Williams, M Bockmuehl) and John (Barclay) noted that is a common occurrence, though Simon Gathercole was there. But I suppose 3 of the 5 Durham lecturers also didn’t attend–just John and F Watson. We also noted that it seemed that there was a really low number of postgrads in attendance. The far south location was probably a strong influence. It seemed that there were only about 10-15 there, and four of us were from Durham. From the sign-up list, it looks like maybe up to 30 were signed up (based on no ‘Dr’ designation), but unless they were all middle aged, we didn’t see near that many.

Papers
Plenary: (90 min) Unfortunately I only got to hear 2 of the 3 but they were very good. Morna Hooker kicked it off with a talk about Paul as Pastor. She noted that Paul’s repeated credal statements of Christ dying for us are also the basis of several of his ethical commands. (Credal Summaries: 1 Thes 4.14; 5.11; Gal 1.4; 2.19-20; 3.13; 4.4-5; 1 Cor 15.3ff.; 2 Cor 5.14-15; Rom 4.25 // Ethical application: 1 Cor 5.7; 8.6; 8.11; 2 Cor 5.21; 6.14-18; 8.9; Phil 2.6-11; 3.4-11, 17-21). ‘The self sacrificial love of Christ is our model of the true ethical behaviour to be applied especially in morally ambiguous areas.’ The second session was Larry Hurtado giving a summary of his book on ancient manuscripts as artefacts. I never realised how ‘innovative’ early christians were with the use of the codex (vs scrolls) for manuscripts, which hint towards the importance of reading aloud scriptures. Also, I didn’t realise how popular the Shepherd of Hermas was, a writing in the Apostolic Fathers corpus.
Short Papers: (45 min) Bruce Longenecker gave a helpful adjustment to Friesen’s Graeco-Roman Poverty Scale. But I was most impressed with Nijay’s paper on Phil 1.21-22. It was stimulating, and he did great on responding to questions. That’s right, our own Nijay Gupta. There were only 2 papers going on at the time, so he had about half the conference attendees in his session. John mentioned that it is rare to have a postgrad present in this session, much less a 1st year postgrad (where it is even uncommon for a seminar paper). So props to Nijay.
Seminars: (25-90 min) I enjoyed the Paul seminar. Since they distribute the Paul papers before hand, it allows for more depth in discussion b/c a smaller amount of time is spent summarising the paper before questions start. I’m glad John is my supervisor because he regularly asked the key (sometimes ‘bombshell’) questions that struck at the heart of the papers. I’m glad he’s asking me those questions in private so my public presentations are stronger from the beginning. I had a 90 minute slot in the Hermeneutics Seminar–session 2–all to myself. We had 6 of us in there. I felt really good about it. The questions weren’t too challenging, but key issues did arise to help me better focus the paper for when I try to publish.

Meeting People
One of the best parts of the BNTC that really sets it apart from other conferences that I’ve been to is the communal nature of it. Almost everyone stays onsite, and all meals are shared together as a group. I had two meals with Morna Hooker, my academic grandmother, which was great. I also had good discussions with Angus Paddison (Nottingham), Sean Winter (Manchester), Ward Blanton (Glasgow), Darrell Hannah (vicar in Oxford), and David Horrell (Exeter). In addition to talking those I also got to meet quite a few others such as Eddie Adams and postgrads from St Andrews. The cap stone of the event was the train ride home. Larry Hurtado was in the car next to ours, so after an hour or so we got the idea to invite him to come chat with us. He graciously accepted and we got to pick his brain and chat for about 45 minutes before he had to switch trains. Who could ask for a better ending.

Durham postgrads were definitely well represented with Kevin, Nijay, and me presenting. I’m glad that I took the opportunity to present a paper, and I’m already looking forward to when the conference comes to Durham next year.

 

One Step Closer…

I had a meeting today with John Barclay to get his thoughts on my BNTS paper on ‘glory’ in Romans. He had some good comments about methodology the difference between doing a ‘concept’ study vs. a ‘word’ study. See, James Barr’s, The Semantics of Biblical Language (who is critical of Kittel’s naive biblical theology in TDNT)–he argues that meanings are more tied up in sentences rather than words themselves. The distinction then for me was that the section of my paper that deals with the generic concept of giving glory to God really falls under a larger concept heading of giving honor to God, praising God, etc., which is not that unique. The unique piece is the more loaded aspects where there is an ontological status that is tied up. For example, in Rom 3.23: ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ So that just means that I rearrange the sections a little and set up the distinction, but otherwise the content will stay the same.

The more important aspect is that he only asked for clarification of some of my language and that I convinced him that immortality is closely linked to glory. After seeing his critique of others when they have weaker arguments, I was expecting something like that, but the case does seem fairly straight forward. Once I clean it up some more, I’ll post sections for your feedback.