Bloggers Review SBL

Since I was unable to go to SBL, I read various comments about the sessions and social life over Facebook and Twitter (though I refuse to join Twitter in addition to email, facebook and blogging).  Below are some summaries of other bloggers about their experiences at SBL.  I am especially interested in hearing the news about the sessions about Kloppenborg on Q, Thomas and the Synoptics, the provenance or sources of Mark, new methods on the historical Jesus, book reviews, engaging the media (e.g., the session with Jacobovici, Tabor, Cargill, Rollston), Acts in the 2nd century or any other interesting sessions and I would like to continually update the links below as more posts come in:

• John Hobbins posted his paper online
• Joel Watts posted a video of his paper online and several pictures
• James McGrath posted his paper online and speaks about the bloggers gathering.  He also adds thoughts on John Dominic Crossan’s presidential address about the resurrection in Eastern Iconography (and thanks James for linking to this post)
• Jim Davila posted his paper online
• Larry Hurtado reviews the Jewish Annotated New Testament
• Amanda MacInnis reviews the ETS meeting here, here, here, and here
• Marc Cortez will be blogging on his paper on Barth mentioned by Amanda above
• James Tabor speaks about the involvement of the UNC Charlotte Department of Religion at SBL
• Brenda contrasts the atmosphere of a session on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture with a Taizé service
• Brian LePort reviews the people he met and sessions he attended
• Mark Hoffman reviews the conference experience and sessions he attended
• Anthony Le Donne had a better experience than others at the sessions (he presented at the same session as my PhD advisor).  He also challenges a colleague Gunnar Sammuelsson with whom he shared a panel on whether Jesus was executed on a cross
• Ben Myers reviews an AAR session on James Cone in poetic verse
• Mike Z. covers sessions on Intertextuality, the literary sources of Mark, presenting at SBL, Crook’s Gospel Synopsis and Biblioblogging (see also that he mentioned Gathercole’s response to a question he asked in the session on Thomas in the comments of his post)
• Ken Schenk has a few thoughts on SBL here and here
• Steve Wiggins has some sobering thoughts about the relevance of AAR/SBL to thoe outside the guild
• Jim Linville had a little too much to drink.  Oh, and he has just added some reflections on the two papers he gave at the Metacriticizing Biblical Scholarship section, another session I think would have been fun to sit in on.
• Ferrell Jenkins reflects on NEAS and SBL as well as posting the plenary sessions at ETS.
• Mark Goodacre reviews the conference and the use of Twitter, his role in chairing the Media and Archaeology session, and participating in other sessions (Thomas and the Synoptics, reviewing Zeba Crook’s Interlinear)
• Peter M. Head reflects on a text criticism section and the Tyndale Breakfast (oh, and did anyone take advantage of the supersale of the book The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission?)
• Sean Winter covers the good and the bad at this years SBL; among the good was a paper by Dale Allison for the John, Jesus and History unit and a festschrift for Christopher Rowland.
• Matthew Novenson highlights contributions to SBL from scholars from Edinburgh
• Loren Rosson posts Zeba Crook’s rebuttal to Mark Goodacre’s critique of his Gospel Synopsis and Goodacre’s rejoinder (Joel Watts also weights in on the discussion)
• Roland Boer reviews the best and worst sessions he attended having to do with Imperialism and Theory at SBL/AAR.
• Cory Taylor posted his paper on biblioblogging and factors that increase traffic to blogs.
• Nijah K. Gupta covers the session for the Institute of Biblical Research on the use of the OT in the NT and his two papers for the Johannine Literature and Religious World of Late Antiquity groups.
• Tony Burke mentions some new books on the Apocrypha he picked up at SBL and also gets readers excited for his forthcoming book on “Secret Mark” by posting the cover and positive reviews on the back.

Other SBL sessions on Mark

Of course, there are a number of other sessions outside Mark that I look forward to hearing about from other bloggers, but this is a blog on Mark so here you go (there are surely others scattered throughout the sessions, so if you are presenting or attending a paper about Mark that I have missed please let me know in the comments):

Markan Literary Sources 11/17/2012 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM Room:S403b – McCormick Place

Theme: Literary Sources for Mark 3 – 6

Tom Nelligan, Dominican Biblical Institute, Presiding

Anne Vig Skoven, Københavns Universitet Did Mark read Romans? (10 min)

David B. Peabody, Nebraska Wesleyan University The Case for Mark’s Conflation of Matthew and Luke in Mark 3:20-6:6a (10 min)

Matthew Montonini, Ashland Theological Seminary Of Kings and Mark: A Case of Mimesis in the Second Gospel (10 min)

Richard L. Arthur, Unification Theological Seminary Perfect tenses and the Synoptic Problem (10 min)

Jesus Traditions, Gospels, and Negotiating the Roman Imperial World 11/17/2012 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM Room:W184d – McCormick Place

Theme: Mark and John in the Roman Empire

Warren Carter, Brite Divinity School (TCU), Presiding

Beth M. Sheppard, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary Optimus Princeps:  Character and Virtues in Pliny’s “Panegyricus” and the Fourth Gospel (30 min)

Jason J. Ripley, Saint Olaf College Glorious Death, Imperial Rome and the Gospel of John (30 min)

Eric Thurman, University of the South Writing the Nation/Reading the Men: Some Novel Thoughts on Manliness in Mark’s Gospel (30 min)

Adam Winn, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Resisting Honor: The Messianic Secret and Roman Imperial Ideology (30 min)

Benjamin Laugelli, University of Virginia Markan Monsters: Reading Allusion to Daniel 7.13-14 in the Gospel of Mark (30 min)

Markan Literary Sources 11/18/2012 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM Room:W181a – McCormick Place

Theme: General Studies on Markan Sources

Adam Winn, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Presiding

Tom Nelligan, Dominican Biblical Institute Criteria for Judging Literary Dependence and the Gospel of Mark (10 min)

Thomas L. Brodie, Dominican Biblical Institute Mark’s Links to Acts 1:1-15:35: Indications of a Careful Literary Transformation (10 min)

Cosmin Pricop, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main The Transfiguration and the Giving of the Law on Mount Sinai: The Mother Earth of the Gospel of Mark (10 min)

Mark 11/19/2012 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM Room:N135 – McCormick Place

Theme: Social Location and Mark’s Modern Readers

James Voelz, Concordia Seminary, Presiding

Melanie Howard, Princeton Theological Seminary Casting Out for Outcasts: Reading Mark with Children with Disabilities and Their Caregivers (10 min)

Elizabeth Shively, University of St. Andrews How Apocalyptic Discourse Functions as Social Discourse in Mark’s Gospel (10 min)

Olugbenga Samuel Olagunju, Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary Reading Jesus’ Healing Miracles (Mark 6:13; 7:31-37 and Mark 8:22-26) in African Context (10 min)

SBL topics on Mark

Unfortunately I am unable to attend SBL this year, so I have to miss the fun of eating and drinking with other bloggers (see here)  Since I am only at Leipzig for a 3 month exchange period, I found it too difficult to squeeze in a trip to Chicago as well, so I guess I will have to wait to the international conference at St Andrews.  On the plus side, a PhD friend here is letting me teach one of her undergraduate classes (in English) on the Apocrypha course.  Anyways, if I was attending SBL this year, this is the one Mark session I would definitely attend:

Mark 11/18/2012 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Room:N135 – McCormick Place

Theme: The Provenance of Mark

Larry Hurtado, University of Edinburgh, Presiding

Steven Richard Scott, Concordia University – Université Concordia, Structure and Provenance (10 min), Discussion (30 min)

The question of the provenance of Mark is compounded by the three levels of the tradition found within the gospel: the level of the words and deeds of Jesus, the level of transmission, and the level of the final author. One should thus have evidence of at least three provenances: the Palestine of Jesus and the earliest followers, the Greco-Roman world of the mixed Jewish and non-Jewish Christian communities, and the location of the final author. This paper will focus on the provenance of the final author. One way to discover the provenance of the gospel author is by studying his arrangement of the Jesus tradition. This paper will analyse the arrangement of the material of Jesus at the temple mount, which is arranged in two sections: Jesus answering questions at the temple and the mini-apocalypse. In both there are clear chiastic arrangements which provide evidence for the provenance of the author. The first section indicates a time after the destruction of the temple, and the second the location of Rome. The advantage of this methodology is that it places the focus solely on the provenance of the final author and not on the provenance of early stages of the transmission and origin of the tradition. It will be shown to be most useful in determining the date of composition, namely, the early 70s. It is possible that the material was arranged outside of Rome, but the author seems to have close ties to the Roman community. This analysis thus gives weight to interpretative analyses, such as that of Incigneri, that argue that many passages reflect the situation in Rome.

Brian Incigneri, Victoria, Australia, The Difference Rome Makes – Reading Mark in Its Very Particular Historical Context (10 min), Discussion (30 min)

Provenance matters a great deal when reading Mark’s Gospel because it was crafted to address the dire situation of Christians in a very specific, short-lived, historical moment, and its rhetoric will not be understood unless its context is appreciated. I have previously argued that this Gospel very well matches the situation in Rome in late 71 when Christians faced a new crisis: the return to Rome of Titus, destroyer of the Jerusalem Temple, who was said to be “another Nero.” They had watched the triumph of Vespasian and Titus processing through the city, proclaiming the victory of Jupiter over the God of Israel and displaying the spoils from his Temple. After having suffered terrible losses under Nero, they now feared the prospect of further martyrdoms, so Mark wrote for them a Gospel which is essentially the story of a martyr who leads the way. This was an emotional time: they held painful memories of lost loved ones, friends and leaders, and bitter memories of their betrayal by fellow Christians who had denied Christ under pressure. Matching the mood, Mark wrote an emotional Gospel, which has not been fully recognized. Insufficient attention has been paid to the emotions of the recipients (not just the characters) because that prime tool of ancient rhetoric—the appeals to the emotions—has been almost entirely ignored. Mark, writing according to the expectations of his rhetorical culture, triggered his readers’ memories by allusion to a number of recent events and experiences, expecting to stir their emotions and hoping to thus build a new resolve to trust in God rather than surrender to fear. Therefore, awareness of what the original hearers already knew is critical to interpretation; one example is their keen awareness of Peter’s martyrdom—the key to understanding Mark’s treatment of the disciples. A number of examples will be provided that show how reading Mark in that situation produces a very different understanding of major features of the Gospel. Indeed, appreciating Mark in this way, it will be argued, resolves many long-standing debates about puzzling aspects of his composition.

Tim Wardle, Furman University, Mark, the Jerusalem Temple, and Jewish Sectarianism:  Why Geographical Proximity Matters in Determining the Provenance of Mark (10 min) Discussion (30 min)

In this paper I investigate a hitherto unexplored line of reasoning that bears directly on the question of the provenance of Mark’s gospel; that of the sectarian nature of Mark’s presentation of his gospel. It is my contention that the Gospel of Mark displays remarkable similarities to Jewish sectarian documents of Mark’s day, and that that this shared sectarian outlook necessitates that the composition of this gospel occurred in close geographical proximity to Jerusalem and its temple. In the latter half of the Second Temple period, sectarian momentum generally coalesced around dissent against the current overseers of the Jerusalem temple, specific interpretations of the Jewish law, and the authority by which one undertakes this interpretation. Mark has these three elements in spades. In his gospel Mark presents a sustained argument against the temple and its priests; in his first mention of the temple, Jesus briefly shuts down all activity in it (11:16), and in his final remark on the Jerusalem sanctuary the temple veil is torn in two (15:38). Significantly, critical assessment of the temple and priesthood in the Second Temple period appears to have arisen almost exclusively in circles geographically and socially contiguous to these two institutions, with virtually all of the condemnation originating in Judea and its environs. Moreover, the legal issues which are of concern to Mark (e.g. marriage, Sabbath observance, purity issues), and the authority by which one makes these interpretations, are precisely those which were of great concern to Mark’s sectarian contemporaries in and around Jerusalem. Building upon the insights of those like Marcus and Theissen who argue for a Syrian provenance, this paper argues that placing Mark and his community in close geographical proximity to Jerusalem helps not only to make sense of the sectarian tendencies exhibited in the Gospel of Mark, but also provides a rationale as to why Mark takes such a strong stance on the Jerusalem temple and Jesus’ interactions with his contemporaries on specific legal issues.

General Discussion Discussion (30 min)

Forthcoming Conference on the Bible, Zionism and Palestine

A number of bloggers have mentioned plans to chair or present at a session at the international or annual SBL meetings (here, here, here,  here, here, here, here, here, here, here).  I made a proposal for the session on the Synoptic Gospels looking at Lukan redaction of Mark (as well as another proposal for the AAR session) but my plans for where I will be next Fall semester are up in the air at the moment so I had to withdraw the proposals and pass on SBL Chicago this time.  However, I will be participating in the conference organized at Sheffield on The Bible, Zionism and Palestine for May 24-26 and registration is available online (HT Sheffield Biblical Studies blog).  A preliminary program and list of presenters (I just picked whatever Facebook photo I could find ) is also available.  My paper “Who is the True Israel?  Ethnocentrism in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” will look at the importance of “ethnic reasoning” (cf. Buell, Hodge, Lieu, etc) and the Land to Justin’s construction of a Christian identity that continues to influence Christian supersessionism and seeks to challenge the unfair contrast drawn between the alleged ”ethnocentrism” of Judaism with the “universalism” of Christianity in some modern scholarship.  I also want to look at what this means for contemporary ecumenical dialogue as religious Jews and Christians (and Muslims) have identified themselves as the people of God with connections to the land and scriptures of Israel and how to value the identity of one’s own group while respecting the rights of the Other.

SBL Recap

My highlights of the annual SBL conference at San Francisco:

• It was a new experience to not only present twice but have an official respondent for each.  I enjoyed the session on Jewish-Christian relations and overall the respondent agreed with my central thesis on ethnic reasoning in the epistle of Barnabas with good critical questions.  The second paper was in an intimidatingly large room as I guess many are interesting in testing out the arguments for a second century date for Luke-Acts (this was the first of a three-year plan to test the second century hypothesis).  Although it still seems quite plausible to me that the portrait of John Mark may be influenced by traditions linking a Mark with Paul (Phlm 23; Col 4:10) or a Mark with Peter (1 Pet 5:13; Papias - his tradition passed down from “the elders” [i.e. elder John] since turn of the century), I recognize the strength of Dr. Loveday Alexander’s objection against a direct literary relationship with Papias is that the two may perhaps reflect familiar rhetorical topoi from preface conventions.  Had a good chance to have nice discussions/feedback afterwards from Loveday Alexander, Margaret Mitchell, Heikki Leppä and others and Richard Pervo signed a copy of Dating Acts for me so that was cool.
• Always fun to meet fellow bloggers at these conferences.  Some I knew beforehand (James Crossley is my supervisor, Tyler Williams my undergrad professor, Jim Linville a fellow UofA alumni, others such as James McGrath, Jim West, Chris Tilling, Ken Brown, etc. I have gotten to interact with at past conferences) while others I had an opportunity to meet for the first time (Joel Watts, Deane Galbraith, Bob Cargill, Christian Brady, Michael Halcombe, Brian LePort).
• I was really bad at catching sessions besides my own.  For instance, despite good intentions I missed all the Mark sessions but I want to note that Joel Watts has covered many of them on his blog here, here, here, here (the least I can do is share the links since Joel generously paid for my expensive drink at the biblioblogger get-together; readers who objected to my pre-70 date for Mark will also be happy to know Joel took me to task as I learned he sees the final redaction of Mark ca 75 CE in interaction with Josephus’ Wars).  I did manage to catch both secularism and biblical studies sessions (including hearing Burton Mack for the first time) and, while I consider myself a Christian believer, I agree it is important not to ever confuse the secular study of biblical (and other Jewish, Christian or Greco-Roman) texts as cultural artifacts of different groups in specific historical & social contexts that we at least attempt to study as honestly and methodologically rigorous as possible and the theological task of attempting to discern how a certain collection texts may be “relevant” within contemporary communities of faith.
• After all responsibilities were completed and nothing was left to do, I might have celebrated a little too much at the Sheffield reception…
• Also caught some of the tourist attractions in San Francisco including a bus tour over the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz (I learned that no escape attempt was ever successful as far as we know, but they didn’t take account of Sean Connery in The Rock ).

SBL in the blogs

Well, SBL is almost upon us, so in the midst of all the sessions, browsing the book stalls, attempting to network, enjoying various receptions and touring San Francisco, one thing to look forward is the bibliobloggers dinner (also announced here, here, here).  I had the opportunity to meet many  at New Orleans a few years ago and London last July so I look forward to it (other bloggers have noted where to get the best coffee or the new dining attire laws).  There has also been discussion about the low rates of female presenters at SBL and abysmally low rate at ETS (here, here, here, here) and I agree with Deane’s analysis about underlying issues with patriarchal structures and values within some conservative versions of Christianity.  So the solution does not seem to me to just to lament the lack of representation among biblical scholars, church leadership or in the “biblioblogosphere”, but to ask ourselves how we can use our scholarship and blogs to take a clear stand on full egalitarianism regardless of gender, ethnicity, culture or orientation and work to change the ethos of these academic societies.  Okay, next week I will actually start posting on the series I announced last week (I hope).

Upcoming SBL presentations

Eventually I will get around to typing up something on the politics of Mark’s gospel, at least before the world ends in 2012.  But the Sheffield blog has posted the upcoming SBL presentations so I want to call attention to my sessions (dates/times on Sheffield blog):

A Contested Covenant: Construction [typo: Constructing]  a Christian Ethnic Identity in the Epistle of Barnabas (25 min)

There was no abstract conception of religion in antiquity, but religious beliefs and practices were closely intertwined with ethnicity in the Greco-Roman period.  Building on the groundbreaking studies of Denise Kimber Buell, I investigate the use of ethnic reasoning in Christian identity formation with the epistle of Barnabas as a specific case study.  In contrast to some scholars who insist on a sharp “parting of the ways” between Christianity and Judaism in the late first or early second century, the author of Barnabas seems to directly respond to a concern that the socially-constructed boundaries between the two communities remained quite fluid and permeable at the ground level.  Barnabas utilizes ethnic reasoning to create a distinct Christian ethnic identity and to manufacture sharp differences between Christian and Jewish social praxis.  In order to promote the idea of a homogenous Christian ethnic identity with pure origins, Barnabas re-appropriates the legacy of Israel while representing the Ioudaios (“Jew” or “Judean”) as an adversarial foil.

The Flawed Evangelist (John) Mark: Reading Luke-Acts in Light of Papias (25 min)
Due to the popularity of the name Marcus in the Greco-Roman period, there is no necessary identity between John Mark in Acts and the various figures named Mark who appear in the Pauline corpus (Phlm 24; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11), the first epistle of Peter (1 Pet 5:13) or the fragments of Papias (H.E. 3.39.15).  However, in line with recent scholarly efforts to re-date the book of Acts to the first quarter of the second century (Richard Pervo, Joseph Tyson, Dennis MacDonald), this paper will propose that the author of Luke-Acts was not only aware of Mark’s connection with Paul and Barnabas from the Pauline epistles, but, more importantly, was familiar with the developing association of Mark with Peter and the second Gospel found in Papias’s five-volume Exposition of the Logia of the Lord (ca. 110 CE).  If the author of Luke-Acts was ambivalent towards Mark’s Gospel as well as the tradition regarding the evangelist Mark that is represented by Papias, this could provide a plausible explanation for the ambivalent portrait of John Mark in the narrative of Acts.  John Mark is depicted in a privileged position as a younger contemporary of both Peter and Paul (Acts 12:12, 25), yet also as a deeply flawed character who fades into obscurity (13:13; 15:27-29).  In a similar way, Mark’s Gospel is among Luke’s many predecessors that attempted to compile an account of the matters passed on from the earliest witnesses, but it is also judged by the author to be a flawed work that must be supplanted by a more “orderly” account (Luke 1:1-4).

Okay, the first one has nothing to do with Mark but brings me back to my MA thesis on how some second century Christian leaders used “ethnic reasoning” (see Denise Kimber Buell, Caroline Hodge, Judith Lieu, Love Sechrest) to try to forge a distinct “Christian” identity for their own communities that is differentiated sharply from the Jewish people (e.g. claims in the adversus ioudaios literature to be a new or third race, a holy people/nation, true Israel, Abraham’s descendants, etc).  If you are interested in reading on this further, I published an article specifically on Barnabas at Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses.

I recognize that the second presentation may have some skeptical eyebrows raised.  I am treating this more as a thought experiment to see how far I can run with it:  if there is any plausibility to arguments for a second century date of Luke-Acts (ca 115 CE or later based on knowledge of Paul’s letters, Josephus, affinities w/ church fathers), is it just a coincidence that Acts has a character named John Mark that is associated with Paul & Barnabas on the one hand (cf. Philemon, Colossians) and Peter on the other  (cf. 1 Peter; Papias et al) or could the author of Luke-Acts be aware of and critically interacting with the developing traditions on the “evangelist” Mark (see here for further discussions on the evolving picture of [John?] Mark).

I am a little nervous as a student to give two papers at the big conference before a bunch of smarter senior scholars, but I have gone sky diving and bungee jumping so it cannot be any scarier than that, can it???

London SBL overview

Well, another SBL conference has come and gone, and I want to review some highlights.  I managed to catch a variety of sessions from Paul, the Synoptics, the apocrypha to Nag Hammadi & Gnosticism, though unfortunately some clashed with sessions I would have liked to see such as ones on whether the term “monotheism” should be retained as a useful heuristic lens to study the biblical literature (see Ken Brown’s review).  I enjoyed all the papers in my session on Catholic Epistles  which reflected many diverse perspectives, from my view that the references to Peter/Silvanus/Mark in 1 Pet 5:12-13 are a literary fiction to construct the epistle as apostolic and give the impression of unity between Petrine & Pauline factions to the paper after mine arguing a conservative view that we should consider the hermeneutical consequences of differing views on authorship and suggested that the case against the authenticity of 2 Peter needs to be rethought, and  my paper received a mixed reception of both critical feedback and positive encouragement  (one aspect that may need to be improved is that some spotted an inconsistency in how I evaluated the historicity of the picture of John Mark in Acts; my view is that Acts depends on the Pauline epistles in [rightly] placing John Mark with Paul/Barnabas but the single association of John Mark with Peter in Acts 12:12 reflects a similar ideological development as in1 Peter to create a bridge between Peter and Paul).  The bibliobloggers meal, as noted by James McGrath and Sean Winter, was pretty well attended and good fun eating and drinking with friends.

To cover papers relevant to the Gospel of Mark, the first paper I attended was on the Similitudes and the Son of Man, which was a rejoinder to Steven Richard Scott’s article (first brought to my attention by the good anti-bishop Wrong) that argues for a distinction between the Lord of Spirits and the Name of the Lord of Spirits who is identified with the Son of Man and thus describes the Similitudes as binitarian.  If Scott is right, this has huge implications for Mark’s Son of Man christology, though the SBL paper provided a decent rebuttal to his position and it will be interesting to see how the debate unfolds (it was also cool to get to meet Steven at the conference).  It was also interesting to learn about archaeological excavations in Bethsaida, an important site in the Synoptic tradition and the home of Peter/Andrew/Philip according to John 1:44 (though cf. Peter’s mother-in-law in Capernaum in Mark 1:29).  Another paper I found largely convincing was by Alexander Kirk who challenged the view of Wright and France that the coming of the Son of Man in Mark 14:62 reflects the vindication and enthronement in heaven of the Son of Man with the destruction of the temple instead of the more traditional expectation of the parousia - among his points was that there was no single “Jewish” reading of the Son of Man figure in Dan 7 which contradicts France and Wright’s emphasis that first-century Jews could only understand the language as an ascent rather than descent of Son of Man, that Mark 8:29/13:26-27/14:62 all make better sense on the traditional interpretation, and that France & Wright are vague about what it is Caiaphas was predicted to “see”  in 14:62 (the rise of the church? Historical events leading up to the Jewish War?) since he most likely did not actually live to see the destruction of the temple (for an alternate view on the paper see Andrew Perriman, whom I also had the pleasure of meeting at the bloggers dinner.  I agree with him that Daniel may envision thrones set up on earth, but for me that supports the traditional interpretation for the apocalyptic coming of the Son of Man to earth to rule and judge both the pagan oppressors and the Temple elites).  I caught both sessions on Mark and the purity system, the first paper dealing with the relationship of Mark 7 and Romans 14 on the food laws (the co-presenters argued that an original dispute of Jesus over hand-washing and the relative priority of moral over ritual purity has been used in different ways by Mark and Paul rather than either influencing the other; naturally James Crossley was the first to respond ) and the second arguing that Jesus’ healing of the bleeding woman and the dead daughter in Mark 5 (using a sandwich so that both events mutually interpret each other) is not meant to be anti-purity as it was not a sin to become unclean so long as one goes through the prescribed purifications before entering sacred space (i.e. the Temple) and it was naturally expected for healers to touch the sick (cf. Elijah, Elisha).  I don’t think there is any evidence for the historical Jesus superseding any commandments of Torah and tend to think Mark has a pretty detailed knowledge of purity laws.  Finally, I attended  a few papers arguing for a high christology of Mark (one building on Joel Marcus’ excellent scholarship), though I am not quite sure it is nearly as high as what we see in Paul or John, but that probably requires a separate post to interact with the various points made about whether forgiveness of sins was a divine prerogative (Mk 2:7) or if Mark intended to deny that Jesus shared in the goodness of God (10:18) or the curious substition where Jesus tells the Gerasene demoniac to tell how much the Lord has done for him and then who goes on to tell how much Jesus had done for him (5:19-20).  That is what I can recall at the moment, but let me know how your experience went if you attended London SBL..

London SBL Bibliobloggers Dinner

Not sure who all reads my blog yet, but want to pass along a message from Ken Brown for anyone who is interested in getting together for food while many of us are in London for SBL:

For all bibliobloggers [and bibliotweeps! Is that a word?] and those interested in biblioblogs who will be attending SBL in London, I propose that we meet for dinner at 6:30 on the 6th at The Samford Arms, a pub just down the street from the conference (Menu). The Address is:

62 Stamford Street, London SE1 9LX

If you would like to attend, please leave a comment, send me an email (see the About page) or simply show up. If I get enough RSVPs I’ll make a reservation, but otherwise we’ll just go informally. And obviously feel free to spread the word on your own blogs [translation from the German: Please do!}.

So if you are interested, click the first link above to Ken Brown’s blog and let him know in the comments.

More SBL Papers on Mark

I was just browsing the SBL online program book and wanted to highlight some papers relating to Mark.  All the presenters along with their abstracts are available from clicking on the link (and if you are presenting at SBL on Mark, let me know so I can post your paper too).

Methods in New Testament Studies
7/05/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.47 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Methodological Issues

Sandra Hübenthal, Universität Tübingen
Narrative Perspectives and the Mediation of Jesus Images in Mk 6:1-8:21 (45 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/05/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

Martin Ramey, Azusa Pacific University
Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea: The Quest for the Historical Joseph (30 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/06/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

Merrilyn Mansfield, University of Sydney, Presiding
Johanna Brankaer, WWU Münster
The Implicit Epistemology of Mark (30 min)
Steffen Joeris, La Trobe University
The Markan Use of “unclean spirit”: Another Messianic Strand (30 min)
Matthew S. Rindge, Gonzaga University
Reconfiguring the Akedah: Death and Divine Abandonment in Mark (30 min)

Biblical Criticism and Cultural Studies
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:1.13 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Cultural Studies: Critical Theories and Texts

Hans Leander, University of Gothenburg
The Codex is the Message: A Postcolonial Reading of Mark 1:1 (25 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

John P Harrison, Oklahoma Christian University
A Contextual Reading of a Jesus Saying on the Resurrected Body: “neither marry nor given into marriage” (Mark 12:25//Matthew 22:30//Luke 20:35) (30 min)
Alexander Kirk, University of Oxford
Yes, “A Human Figure Flying Downwards on a Cloud”: A Response to N. T. Wright and R. T. France on Mark 14:62 (30 min)

Contextual Interpretation of the Bible (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament)
7/06/2011
1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
Room:2.46 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Papers on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament

Archie Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Presiding
Mary Phil Korsak, Society of Authors-Translators Association
Glad News from Mark (20 min)

Bible and Empire
7/07/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:1.20 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: The Bible and the British Empire  Carly Crouch, University of Cambridge, Presiding
Hans Leander, University of Gothenburg
Nineteenth century readings of the tribute question (Mk 12:17): An Irish anti-colonial cat among British and German pigeons? (20 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/07/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:2.81 – Franklin Wilkins

Johanna Brankaer, WWU Münster, Presiding
Mark Batluck, University of Edinburgh
Revelatory Experience in Mark: How These Events are Christologically Employed in the First Gospel (30 min)
Mitchell Esswein, University of Georgia
Hear, O Israel: The Lord Our God, The Lord is eis: The Implicit High Christology Present in Mark with Special Attention to the Work of Joel Marcus (30 min)
Break (30 min)
Anne Vig Skoven, University of Copenhagen
The Spirit in Mark (30 min)
Cecilia Wassen, Uppsala Universitet
Jesus and Purity Laws (30 min)

Working with Biblical Manuscripts (Textual Criticism)
7/07/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:1.68 – Franklin Wilkins

Theme: Working with Textual Variants

Ronald van der Bergh, University of Pretoria, Presiding
Peter Williams, Tyndale House (Cambridge)
The Case for ‘Filled with Compassion’ in Mark 1:41 (25 min)
Jeff Cate, California Baptist University
Having a Gut Feeling for Anger: Mark 1:41 and Visceral Emotions (25 min)
Tommy Wasserman, Örebro School of Theology
P45 and Codex W in Mark Revisited (25 min)
Break (30 min)

Synoptic Gospels
7/04/2011
8:30 AM to 11:30 AM
Room:2.80 – Franklin Wilkins

Glenna Jackson, Otterbein University, Presiding
Yonatan Adler, Bar-Ilan University
Between Galilean Judaism and Judean Judaism: An Archaeological Perspective on Regional Differences in the Observance of Ritual Purity in First Century C.E. ’Erez Israel (30 min)
Milton Moreland, Rhodes College
Building on Ruins: Post-70 Jerusalem in the Synoptic Tradition (30 min)