postmodernbible

ISBL 4

Just a few books which I am going to have to get hold of - Tom Thatcher's Why did John Write a Gospel. 

And soon to come out Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony published by Eerdmans in September 2006 and Simon Gathercole's The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke - published by Eerdman's apparently in Feb 2006 but only available here in proof form!  Amazon says it is due out in October! 

Interesting thesis from an outstanding young scholar.

Both of these books seem to be stepping out against the whole paradigm that the Gospels are historical reconstuctions with invention at their core.  It will be worthwhile studying them when they come out!

ISBL 3

We went back last night and had beer and watched the match between Germany and Italy...wow! 

Today, there is definite feeling of fatigue about the place as people wind down towards the end of the conference.  Again, there is nothing Johannine!  However, I have met a few people who suggest that there could be some more interesting sections in the future - for example Heath Thomas who is doing some work on eco and lamentations (!!!) with Gordon McConville at Uni of Gloucestershire.  I wonder whether we should be having a section on Eco-based (Ecovian?) readings?  I wonder where all the stuff is on intertextuality as well!

I'm listening a lot because I didn't get my paper proposals in on time!  I need to change this and have a few titles already logged onto the computer and am beginning to put them together, I will have to blog more about them sometime as they come through to be more than proposals.  But basically I need to get some research done...my usual beef!  I just need to do it rather than moan about it.

It's been good to spend time with Brian Johnson from Lincoln Christian College - a fellow Johannine scholar - although he's an SBL hack and chairs things and knows everyone!  I'm such a reserved Brit that I either come across as really unfriendly or just plain boring.  I don't think I am either - just an introvert who doesn't cope well with crowds!  Brian does the crowds well and is good at introducing people to one another.

Interestingly, this afternoon I have been in the Apocrypha section.  Some interesting papers...one in particular, from Petri Luomanen from Helsinki sought to re-appraise the Jewish-Christian apocryphal gospels - basically undermining the concept of three gospels (Hebrews, Nazarenes and Ebionites) to two gospels and some other material (Hebrews, Ebionites, anti-rabbinic collection [=former Nazarenes] and The Iudaikon.  Note how once again we are into a process of being unhappy with what seemed to be a fixed source critical discussion.  Does this link with what I was saying yesterday...a general re-appraisal of 20th Century scholarship in a new paradigm shift???  Not sure...

Tonight - Truth and Consequences and Jimmy Dunn on Antioch.  Sounds good!

Pete

ISBL 2

Hi from Edinburgh,

One of the problems with this conference is that all the Johannine Sessions were on the first day - that means that I have been going round to other sessions either hunting out Johannine papers somewhere else, or trying to find something interesting to listen to!  So, on Wednesday morning, I am sat in one of the David Hume lecture theatres listening to Jayhoon Yang of Hyupsung University talking about God as a prayer vending machine!  Don't ask!

Last night, there was an excellent lecture by Rolf Rendtorff of Heidelberg asking where the Yahwist has gone.  He basically covered the last thirty years of Documentary Hypothesis studies (JEPD...you know what I mean!) and the general trend to leave Wellhausen well behind.  Many of the latest Pentateuchal studies tend to end up with P as the only source document - and how can you talk of a source theory with only one source?

Interestingly, this fits in with other things that have been said, and books which are being touted, about a wholesale reappraisal of source critical studies.  Paul and Mark are being linked.  Mark and John.  Q's existence was openly questioned by a leading scholar in one of the main lectures (at last!).  There seems to be a move away from the old norms and towards new paradigms.  One of the most interesting statements I have heard during the week was Colleen Conway's comment - if the Johannine Community was so obvious, why did it take scholars 2000 years to identify it? I can see what she is saying...although I am not so convinced about her theories for replacing it...

At the end of the Rendtorff lecture, David Clines was asked to respond.  Rather than object to what the magisterial Rendtorff had said, Clines talked about how new paradigms are developed.  Basing what he said on Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. As everyone knows, Kuhn argues that new paradigms do not simply pop up!  First of all, old paradigms go through a process of death by a thousand modifications - a kind of crisis of confidence in the old paradigm.  This then leads to a kind of vacuum where no paradigm exists - or people get on with more important things - and only then will a new paradigm gradually emerge - often because adherents to the old paradigm die off!

I see the point in this...it makes sense.  Part of me see the whole change of direction of New Testament Studies in the light of the creation of new paradigms - and the move towards literary and other criticisms in the last two decades represented the death by a thousand modifications.  The question is whether the move towards literary readings was a detour away from the problem but that now we are happier to move back towards the central issue - what is the provenance of canonical gospels/Paul...or something like that - or whether, as I think Clines wants to argue, literary and ideological studies are actually much more important than working out where the texts came from in the first place!  Deal with the text, stupid!

Overall, Rendtorff and Clines presented a stimulating and historical event.  I really felt that this was what SBL was for - although I hear very strongly what Clines also said about power - in the end it will not be rational argument which changes the paradigm.  It will be when the power brokers (publishers, prestige universities, benchmarking processes) change their mind - there are plenty of power brokers associated with old forms of new testament criticism and plenty of people who pursue new forms who are belittled and marginalised for striking out in new directions.

Of course, any emerging church people who have read this far will realise how much this applies to emerging church as well as biblical studies.  Let the reader understand.

Pete

ISBL

Am up in Edinburgh at ISBL.  I've been to the opening session by Professor Barstadt - Old Testament paper and didn't understand it!  Then today has been Johannine papers...will have to add some comments later in the week if I get time to write them up.  Some good, some less good!  This evening Loveday Alexander was excellent on theological interpretation of the Bible, at the moment a dear friend [let the reader understand] from Kentucky is speaking about generous texts...I persuaded someone I am with to come along...I am in trouble!

ISBL remains a strange thing - papers read but with little time for feedback.  Ideas thrown around.  Is this really a guild?  What would that mean - surely some sense of control or quality assurance but it would seem here that anything goes and few seem to be challenged about their interpretation.

Will blog more!

What is generosity...this guy is saying that you need to hunt out the generous texts and get rid of the rest.  But what is generous - the Israelite story vs the Canaanite story?   By selection you always reject...it's all a powerplay!  There is nothing that is not powerplay.  Sorry, Eugene, I don't agree.  Does that mean I am being ungenerous or that you are?  Apparently all that is allowed from the 2nd Testament is Good Samaritan and the Feeding of the 5,000.  Oh for goodness sake...

Pete