Reviews of

Archive for the ‘SEMINAR REPORTS’ Category


Fr. Andrew Louth, “The Reception of the Fathers in Byzantium 650 – 1080”

In Andrew LOUTH, Durham, Justin A. Mihoc, Patristics, SEMINAR REPORTS on February 25, 2011 at 1:14 am

This is a report on a paper presented by Fr Prof Andrew Louth, member of the British Academy of Sciences, formerly Professor of Patristic and Byzantine Studies in the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham University, and currently Professor at the Free University, Amsterdam, at the Patristics Research Seminar at the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, 24th of February 2011.

The list of forthcoming papers in the Patristics Research Seminars at Durham University can be found here.

In his characteristic clear and concise way, Prof Louth presented a very interesting paper covering more than four centuries of Eastern Christian thought and theology. A revised form of this paper is to be published shortly as a separate chapter in a collective monograph. Read the rest of this entry »


Morna Hooker, ”Paul’s Understanding of Holiness”

In Cambridge, Morna HOOKER, New Testament, Paul, Samuli Siikavirta, SEMINAR REPORTS on February 23, 2011 at 5:43 pm

Report on a senior seminar paper by Morna Hooker, Lady Margaret Professor Emerita, University of Cambridge, 8 Feb 2011.

The list of forthcoming papers in the New Testament Seminars at Cambridge can be found here.

Morna Hooker presented a survey of Paul’s holiness language and theology throughout the Pauline corpus. She expressed at the outset that her reason for giving a seminar paper on this particular topic was the neglect which sanctification/holiness has faced in New Testament scholarship particularly in areas affected by the Protestant overemphasis of justification over against sanctification. What also requires clarification is the confusion of terms in English: holiness terminology in Paul can be rendered in English with such words as holy, saints, holiness, sanctification and consecration. Read the rest of this entry »


Lutz Doering, “Paul and Ancient Jewish Letter Writing”

In DSS, Durham, Justin A. Mihoc, Lutz DOERING, New Testament, Paul, SEMINAR REPORTS on February 12, 2011 at 12:30 pm

This is a report on a paper presented by Dr Lutz Doering, Reader in New Testament and Ancient Judaism in the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham University, at the New Testament Research Seminar at the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, 29th of November 2010.

The list of forthcoming papers in the NT Research Seminars at Durham University can be found here.

Dr Doering presented in this paper some very interesting ideas which are to be included and developed in his forthcoming monograph on Jewish and early Christian letter writing. Whilst trying to define the characteristics of Paul’s epistles, he gradually analysed the stylisation of the author, co-senders and addressees of the letters and their use within early Christian communities and, also, epistolary formulae such as the Proem and the structure of the Prescript. Read the rest of this entry »


Markus Vinzent, “The Resurrection of Christ in Second Century, Early Christianity”

In Cambridge, Marcion, Markus VINZENT, New Testament, Nicki Wilkes, Q, Second century, SEMINAR REPORTS on January 2, 2011 at 8:04 am

This is a report on a paper presented by Professor Markus Vinzent, Professor of the History of Theology at King’s College London, at the Patristics Seminar at the Department of Theology and Religion, University of Cambridge, 29th of November 2010.

The programme of the Patristics Seminar in Cambridge will be published here.

Is Marcion ‘Q’ ?

In a recent fascinating and astoundingly controversial patristics seminar held at the University of Cambridge, Professor Markus Vinzent offered a précis of his soon to be published book: Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity. The focus of his presentation was the lack of attestation to the resurrection of Christ in early Christian literature between the time of Paul and Marcion. Read the rest of this entry »


Judith Lieu, “Heresy and Scripture”

In Durham, Heresy, Judith LIEU, Justin A. Mihoc, Scripture, Second century, SEMINAR REPORTS on December 27, 2010 at 5:30 am

This is a report on a paper presented by Professor Judith Lieu, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, at the New Testament Research Seminar at the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, 13th of December 2010.

The list of forthcoming papers in the NT Research Seminars at Durham University will be found here.

In her paper, Prof Lieu examined the ideas of ‘heresy’ and ‘Scripture’ as reflected in the writings of the 2nd century Christian theologians Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian. The discussion on heresy is centered on the figure of Marcion and his ‘Gospel’ as a ‘falsification’ of Scripture.

The idea of (Christian) ‘Scripture’, and therefore canon, was coined surprisingly late, beginning with Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293-373) who mentions a list of books in his 39th Festal Letter. Read the rest of this entry »


Markus Bockmuehl, “Jewish and Christian Origins of Creatio ex Nihilo”

In Dan Batovici, DSS, Genesis, Markus BOCKMUEHL, SEMINAR REPORTS, St Andrews on December 19, 2010 at 10:23 pm

This is a report on a paper presented by Markus Bockmuehl, Professor of Biblical and Early Christian Studies and Fellow in Theology at Keble College, Oxford, in the Theology Research Seminar at the School of Divinity, St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, 15 December 2010.

The full list of this term’s papers in this seminar is available here.

The article coming out of this paper has now been published. See here.

The starting point of this paper is that it does not hold the idea of creation as a self-evident truth: the notion that all that exists was created by a supreme God constitutes a great intellectual device; obvious to some, but obvious nonsense for others.

As opposed to the Greek philosophy, the Jews and later the Christians were convinced that believers in the God of Israel and readers of the Scriptures do not have the luxury of evacuating the divinity or God from the creation. Read the rest of this entry »


James Keith Elliott, “New Testament Textual Criticism: Recent Developments”

In Durham, James Keith ELLIOTT, Justin A. Mihoc, New Testament, SEMINAR REPORTS, Textual Criticism on December 13, 2010 at 11:48 pm

This is a report on a paper presented by Emeritus Professor Keith Elliott, formerly Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds, at the New Testament Research Seminar at the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, 6th of December 2010.

The list of forthcoming papers in the NT Research Seminars at Durham University can be found here.

Prof Elliott, one of the greatest authorities in modern textual criticism, conferenced on the new trends and developments in the area of biblical so called ‘lower criticism’ (being the discipline which reads and compares all manuscripts containing the literature written prior to the invention of printing, along with analysing their textual history). He proposed a presentation of the most important editions of Greek New Testaments and discussed the differences between them. Read the rest of this entry »


Shane Berg, “Ben Sira, the Genesis Creation Accounts, and the Knowledge of God’s Will”

In Ben Sira, Durham, Genesis, Justin A. Mihoc, SEMINAR REPORTS, Shane BERG on November 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm

This is a report on a paper presented by Shane Berg, Assistant Professor in New Testament in the Department of Biblical Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, in the New Testament Research Seminar at the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, 25 Oct 2010.

The list of forthcoming papers in the NT Research Seminars at Durham University can be found here.

In his paper, Shane Berg presented an interesting view on religious epistemology by analysing Ben Sira’s reading of the Creation account in B S 16:24-17:17 and the possibility of Law obedience in 15:11-20, and by comparing them with the theme of the knowledge of the Torah as found in 4Q417 l i 16-18 and 1QHa VII, 12-14.

Following Greg Schmidt Goering’s view [see Goering’s Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel, JSJ Sup 139, (Leiden: Brill, 2009)], Berg opines that Ben Sira’s unique approach to wisdom represents a departure from natural reaction to the wisdom theology, through linking wisdom to the Torah. Read the rest of this entry »


Richard Bauckham, “The ‘Individualism’ of the Gospel of John”

In John, Richard BAUCKHAM, SEMINAR REPORTS, St Andrews on November 4, 2010 at 7:09 pm

The paper in the title of this post was presented by Richard Bauckham, Professor Emeritus, University of St Andrews, in the Biblical Studies Seminar at the School of Divinity, St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, 4th of November 2010.

The full list of this term’s papers in this particular seminar is available here.

A report on the same paper, previously red at this year’s British New Testament Conference in a main plenary session, is offered on the Postmodern Bible blog, and can be read here.

A schedule of papers offered by Richard Bauckham is available here.

Yep, and R. Bauckham’s books The MacBears of Bearloch and The MacBears and the Bishbirds are available here.

DB


Andrew T. Lincoln, “Contested Paternity and Contested Readings: Jesus’ Conception in Matthew 1:18-25”

In Andrew T. LINCOLN, Dan Batovici, Matthew, SEMINAR REPORTS, St Andrews on October 30, 2010 at 1:22 am

This is a report on a paper presented by Andrew T. Lincoln, Portland Chair in New Testament Studies, University of Gloucestershire, in the Biblical Studies Seminar at the School of Divinity, St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, 28 Oct 2010.

The article is now published in JSNT, here.

Andrew T. Lincoln’s paper revisited the arguments of two opposing readings of Matthew’s account of the conception of Jesus. The traditional view (exemplified in the paper by Brown, Davies/Allison, Luz) is to read in Mt 1:18-28 that Jesus’ conception is a virginal one, while the “revised” reading (Schaberg, Catchpole, Miller) sets out to argue that, at least in Matthew, a virginal conception is not necessarily implied.

Three indicators were presented in support of the traditional reading of the conception in Matthew: the conception by Holly Spirit in 1:18 and 20, the citation from LXX Isa. 7:14 in 1:23 where the παρθένος is mentioned, and, in 1:25, the lack of marital relations before Jesus’ birth. Jesus is then the “adopted” son of Joseph, and was conceived through the agency of the Holy Spirit. This happened not in a sexual manner, detail confirmed in 1:25 – no marital relations before the birth. Read the rest of this entry »