Friday, May 09, 2008
Orality and Literacy I: Exaggerated contrasts with our culture?
In a lot of recent New Testament scholarship, there has been a welcome corrective to our natural tendency to make the world of the evangelists into a very textual, a very literary world, to conceptualize it in anachronistic fashion as being similar to our own. There has been a renewed stress on orality and the importance of understanding oral communication and how processes of spreading oral tradition might have impacted on the formation of the Gospels. In a series of posts, I would like to offer some of my own reflections on this scholarly trend. This will be done as an experiment in "thinking out loud" as I think through the literature and reflect on certain elements that have been insufficiently discussed in the past. As always with blog posts, these are at best snapshots of my thinking at a given point, and not the result of detailed, mature reflection ready for print publication.
I would like to comment here on one of the elements in the way that the case is argued in the scholarship. When contemporary scholars are attempting to contrast our culture with that of the ancient world, they sometimes greatly exaggerate the literary nature of our culture. (By "our culture" here I mean early twenty-first century life in the west, particularly the English speaking west). James D. G. Dunn is a case in point. In his important article, “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,” New Testament Studies 49/2 (2003), 139-75, he writes:
Outside of that academic sub-culture, the world we live in is a world still dominated by orality. Many more people receive their news through television and radio, oral media, than through newspapers. And many who do use newspapers are now no longer simply reading them but they are combining the reading experience with watching online videos, listening to podcasts and so on. I describe myself as an avid Guardian "reader" because of the familiarity of that expression, but my "reading" in fact incorporates Guardian podcasts and sometimes also video material.
Dunn is inclined to underestimate the extent of orality in our own culture. Later in the article, he writes:
My point here is not to attempt to narrow the gap between the ancient world and our world. The key task of the ancient historian is to convey some sense of the utter difference of the worlds we study from our own, and to avoid anachronistic reading in of our own way of looking at things. My point rather is that in our attempts to conceptualize the ancient world, we should be careful not to lapse into caricature of the modern world. Imagine the person who in a millennium is reading Dunn's article, looking for information about how we communicate with one another in the early twenty-first century -- that researcher would have precious little idea of how we actually live our lives. We live in libraries ("our natural habitat"), we trade in monographs and learned articles ("our everyday currency"). Where Dunn is exploring the analogy of a computer's "default setting", he conceives of the computer solely in word-processing terms, not as a communications device that combines the functions of television, radio, telephone and more.
It may be that the attempt to reimagine the orality of antiquity proceeds in part from the contemporary academic's anxiety about the heavily literary nature of his or her experience of the contemporary world. Dunn is one of the most prolific New Testament scholars ever -- his latest book running, apparently, to 1300 pages. Is it a coincidence that the scholars who stress the attempt to regain access to an ancient oral culture are those who are the most prolific writers in the contemporary culture?
I would like to comment here on one of the elements in the way that the case is argued in the scholarship. When contemporary scholars are attempting to contrast our culture with that of the ancient world, they sometimes greatly exaggerate the literary nature of our culture. (By "our culture" here I mean early twenty-first century life in the west, particularly the English speaking west). James D. G. Dunn is a case in point. In his important article, “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,” New Testament Studies 49/2 (2003), 139-75, he writes:
We here are all children of Gutenberg and Caxton. We belong to cultures shaped by the book. Our everyday currency is the learned article and monograph. Libraries are our natural habitat. (142).There is, of course, a lot of truth in this; no one would deny the importance of the book in our culture. But what Dunn is talking about here is not so much our culture, which is full of orality at every turn, but the academic sub-culture of research and writing. Even within that sub-culture, our literary research interacts with oral and aural elements. Our primary means of communicating our scholarship is the classroom, which is all about speaking and hearing and only minimally about text. For many of us, the oral interaction in the classroom is a major contributor to the development of our thoughts. In the preparation of our scholarship, the oral plays a key role. Dunn's own article began life as an SNTS Presidential address in 2002. A lot of my work has begun life as conference papers, presented orally (and yes, I know that a lot of scholars simply read papers out loud, but even there, the primary means by which their scholarship is being appropriated is aurally). The interaction between written draft, oral presentation, revised drafts in the light of live questioning -- these are the staples of the development of academic work. Thus where Dunn conceptualizes the scholar as living in the library, I prefer to think of the enterprise as one of interaction in which solitary library time is only one feature, and not necessarily the most important feature.
Outside of that academic sub-culture, the world we live in is a world still dominated by orality. Many more people receive their news through television and radio, oral media, than through newspapers. And many who do use newspapers are now no longer simply reading them but they are combining the reading experience with watching online videos, listening to podcasts and so on. I describe myself as an avid Guardian "reader" because of the familiarity of that expression, but my "reading" in fact incorporates Guardian podcasts and sometimes also video material.
Dunn is inclined to underestimate the extent of orality in our own culture. Later in the article, he writes:
In an overwhelmingly literary culture our experience of orality is usually restricted to casual gossip and the serendipitous reminiscences of college reunions. (149).This is a surprising statement in the light of the pervasive orality of our culture. The spoken word is everywhere. For many, the written word is secondary. It is worth reminding ourselves that being literate does not necessarily mean that the written word is primary, or that we always think along literary lines. Consider the specific case of knowledge of the Bible. As any of us who have taught the New Testament know, our students' knowledge of the texts is often received through oral tradition and not through direct familiarity with the text. How many people who think they know the Christmas story get their knowledge directly from reading Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 (or the Protevangelium of James)? Very few. Their knowledge is conveyed through our culture's oral tradition and its harmonized and legendary version of the story so frequently retold.
My point here is not to attempt to narrow the gap between the ancient world and our world. The key task of the ancient historian is to convey some sense of the utter difference of the worlds we study from our own, and to avoid anachronistic reading in of our own way of looking at things. My point rather is that in our attempts to conceptualize the ancient world, we should be careful not to lapse into caricature of the modern world. Imagine the person who in a millennium is reading Dunn's article, looking for information about how we communicate with one another in the early twenty-first century -- that researcher would have precious little idea of how we actually live our lives. We live in libraries ("our natural habitat"), we trade in monographs and learned articles ("our everyday currency"). Where Dunn is exploring the analogy of a computer's "default setting", he conceives of the computer solely in word-processing terms, not as a communications device that combines the functions of television, radio, telephone and more.
It may be that the attempt to reimagine the orality of antiquity proceeds in part from the contemporary academic's anxiety about the heavily literary nature of his or her experience of the contemporary world. Dunn is one of the most prolific New Testament scholars ever -- his latest book running, apparently, to 1300 pages. Is it a coincidence that the scholars who stress the attempt to regain access to an ancient oral culture are those who are the most prolific writers in the contemporary culture?
Labels: orality and literacy
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Review of Biblical Literature Latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the New Testament and related heading (with a catch-up megapost to come):
Paul N. Anderson
The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5879
Reviewed by John Painter
April D. DeConick
The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5655
Reviewed by Stephan Witetschek
Mikael C. Parsons
Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5830
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha
Reviewed by Patrick E. Spencer
Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, eds.
Moving beyond New Testament Theology? Essays in Conversation with Heikki Räisänen
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5492
Reviewed by Jan van der Watt
Richard L. Rohrbaugh
The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5956
Reviewed by Stephan Joubert
C. Kavin Rowe
Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5966
Reviewed by Christopher Tuckett
Brad H. Young
Meet the Rabbis: Rabbinic Thought and the Teachings of Jesus
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5912
Reviewed by Verlyn D. Verbrugge
Paul N. Anderson
The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by John Painter
April D. DeConick
The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by Stephan Witetschek
Mikael C. Parsons
Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha
Reviewed by Patrick E. Spencer
Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, eds.
Moving beyond New Testament Theology? Essays in Conversation with Heikki Räisänen
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by Jan van der Watt
Richard L. Rohrbaugh
The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by Stephan Joubert
C. Kavin Rowe
Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by Christopher Tuckett
Brad H. Young
Meet the Rabbis: Rabbinic Thought and the Teachings of Jesus
http://www.bookreviews.org
Reviewed by Verlyn D. Verbrugge
Labels: Review of Biblical Literature
End of the Philo Blog, Birth of the RPBS blog
I have been meaning to comment for some time on the sad news of The End of Torrey Seland's Philo of Alexandria Blog, announced at the end of March. It seemed sad to me because Torrey's blog was one of the earliest of the biblioblogs and he was on the panel with us at the SBL session on blogging in November 2005, when the panel for that session effectively chose itself. But it's good to see that with death comes new birth, and the R B P S Blog (Resource Pages for Biblical Studies Blog) comes onto the scene. I am greatly encouraged by this development because I have continued to think about the future of the New Testament Gateway, and I am encouraged that one of the pioneers of the gateway site (RPBS predates the New Testament Gateway by a good couple of years, and the New Testament Gateway is now over a decade old) is still working on his site and thinking of fresh ways to keep it vibrant.
Labels: Biblioblogs, NT Gateway future, research tools
Ehrman vs. Wright Smackdown
If you haven't already seen it, there is an interesting exchange between Bart Ehrman and N. T. Wright over on Beliefnet. It's the kind of thing they used to call a "smackdown" but they have replaced that term with the more gentlemanly "Blogalogue - Debates with Spirit":
Is Our Pain God's Problem?
You have to read them from the bottom up if you navigate from that page, or you can begin with Ehrman's first and proceed through each contribution (three each) by clicking through at the top of each page. The debate is interesting but ultimately frustrating. As is also characteristic of the old "smackdowns" on Beliefnet, the scholars who are debating with one another are celebrity scholars and their tendency is to use the opportunity to expound their own views afresh, often using the other's views only as prompts. In other words, one never gets the feeling of rigorous intellectual exchange of the kind where the scholars are thinking fresh thoughts. At the end of Ehrman's last post, for example, he asks Wright if he agrees on any one of four of the leading claims in his new book. Wright does not answer the question directly, but implies that it is the wrong question. To be fair to both, I do feel that each one is trying to listen to the other, but perhaps what we need on these occasions is a live debate with a chairperson who can hold each one to account, and direct each one to speak in bite-sized chunks rather than mini-essays.
Is Our Pain God's Problem?
You have to read them from the bottom up if you navigate from that page, or you can begin with Ehrman's first and proceed through each contribution (three each) by clicking through at the top of each page. The debate is interesting but ultimately frustrating. As is also characteristic of the old "smackdowns" on Beliefnet, the scholars who are debating with one another are celebrity scholars and their tendency is to use the opportunity to expound their own views afresh, often using the other's views only as prompts. In other words, one never gets the feeling of rigorous intellectual exchange of the kind where the scholars are thinking fresh thoughts. At the end of Ehrman's last post, for example, he asks Wright if he agrees on any one of four of the leading claims in his new book. Wright does not answer the question directly, but implies that it is the wrong question. To be fair to both, I do feel that each one is trying to listen to the other, but perhaps what we need on these occasions is a live debate with a chairperson who can hold each one to account, and direct each one to speak in bite-sized chunks rather than mini-essays.
Labels: Bart Ehrman, beliefnet, N. T. Wright
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Summer Writing
I finished grading undergraduate papers at 6.45am yesterday and although I still have several projects on my desk, I begin now to look forward to that happy time in the academic's life, the summer writing season. It is similar in length for the British academic and for the American academic but it begins and ends at different times, May to August in the US, June to September in the UK. Usually speaking, I begin the summer full of optimism about how much I am going to write. I then get about half of that done, with all those other projects on my desk crowding it out, reading and editing manuscripts, writing shorter articles for multi-author works, reviewing books, and continuing to excavate the email mountain, to say nothing of housework, family and, I hope, relaxation and travel. This summer I am determined to get more of the top grade kind of writing done (book and articles), spending less time on the "jobbing" kind of writing. The latter is necessary but the former is where one gets the most satisfaction and intellectual stimulation. For this process, lots of discipline is required and I have decided to make a few rules for myself:
(1) Email correspondence will be limited to early mornings and evenings. The day is for writing. In line with this, I have switched off my automatic alerts so that I cannot be distracted by the arrival of interesting (or threatening) looking emails that drag me in.
(2) Pidgin will be switched off all day. The day is for writing.
(3) My best writing time is the morning; I will therefore focus specially on the nitty gritty of writing in the mornings.
(4) I will resist chasing references and following hunches during the day. The day is for writing.
(5) I will only blog during the day if it is directly related to the topic of the book or articles I am writing. Broader blogging is for early morning or evenings.
(6) The New Testament Gateway requires some serious work, but cannot be a priority at this stage. The day is for writing. If I can get back to the New Testament Gateway in due course, that will be fantastic. If I cannot, I am going to have to be selfish and prioritize writing.
These are a few rules I am setting myself. I am also making myself accountable to my blog. The book I am working on at the moment is provisionally entitled Thomas and the Gospels and is about the relationship of the Gospel of Thomas to the Synoptics. My hope is to break the back of this this summer, ideally also finishing a couple of articles I am working on. I'll check in again in August to see what the progress is like.
(1) Email correspondence will be limited to early mornings and evenings. The day is for writing. In line with this, I have switched off my automatic alerts so that I cannot be distracted by the arrival of interesting (or threatening) looking emails that drag me in.
(2) Pidgin will be switched off all day. The day is for writing.
(3) My best writing time is the morning; I will therefore focus specially on the nitty gritty of writing in the mornings.
(4) I will resist chasing references and following hunches during the day. The day is for writing.
(5) I will only blog during the day if it is directly related to the topic of the book or articles I am writing. Broader blogging is for early morning or evenings.
(6) The New Testament Gateway requires some serious work, but cannot be a priority at this stage. The day is for writing. If I can get back to the New Testament Gateway in due course, that will be fantastic. If I cannot, I am going to have to be selfish and prioritize writing.
These are a few rules I am setting myself. I am also making myself accountable to my blog. The book I am working on at the moment is provisionally entitled Thomas and the Gospels and is about the relationship of the Gospel of Thomas to the Synoptics. My hope is to break the back of this this summer, ideally also finishing a couple of articles I am working on. I'll check in again in August to see what the progress is like.
Labels: academic writing
Monday, May 05, 2008
Verhoeven Jesus book -- bringing his film project closer?
Here on the NT Gateway Blog, we've been keeping an eye for some years on the proposed Paul Verhoeven Jesus film. There has been nothing to report for a long time, but now it seems that Verhoeven has published his own Jesus book as a step on the road towards his Jesus film. Predictably, the media has mainly latched onto some of the more sensational elements in the book. Matt Page, on Bible Films Blog, is, as usual, up to speed with developments.
Labels: Verhoeven Jesus Film
Biblical Studies Carnival 29
Jim West has done an excellent job with the latest Biblical Studies Carnival:
Biblical Studies Carnival 29
It's a great way of catching up if you've had an enforced absence from the blogosphere for a bit. First class job, Jim.
Biblical Studies Carnival 29
It's a great way of catching up if you've had an enforced absence from the blogosphere for a bit. First class job, Jim.
Labels: Biblical Studies Carnivals
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Passion: More Q&A
It has been a few weeks since The Passion aired on BBC1 and I have not blogged on it for a while. It may be over, for now, in the UK, but there are important things to look forward to. The first will be the DVD release at some point in the coming months. The next will be the American broadcast next year on HBO. No doubt there will be other broadcasts too throughout the world at different stages, and I will keep my eyes open for what is going on. I may also, from time to time, offer further reflections on The Passion as time goes on. My recent return to England was quite refreshing in the number of people who talked to me about their experiences of watching The Passion -- there was so much positive feedback. I don't have a lot more to talk about at the moment, but I want to draw attention to one more addition to the BBC's Passion website, more "Q & A" with Nigel Stafford-Clark (producer) and Frank Deasy (writer):
The Passion: Questions and Answers II
These questions and answers relate primarily to episodes 3 and 4, on the crucifixion and resurrection (warning: contain spoilers!).
The Passion: Questions and Answers II
These questions and answers relate primarily to episodes 3 and 4, on the crucifixion and resurrection (warning: contain spoilers!).
Labels: BBC Passion
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Death of Krister Stendahl
I was very sorry to hear of the death of Krister Stendahl, one of the giants of New Testament scholarship, tonight (Jim West's blog).
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Travel Diary: Synoptic Problem Conference IV
Thursday, Heathrow Airport, 15.34: Checked out of Lincoln College this morning, after a nice breakfast which featured two slices of British back bacon. Last time I will get any of that until August. I was disappointed to have to miss the last couple of sessions, the first of which featured Christoph Heil on Reconstructing Q, Stephen Patterson on Thomas and Eric Eve on the Synoptic Problem without Q. Heil's paper was not online before the conference, so it was a particular shame to miss his. Eve's was so full of good sense that I doubt I would have had any comments of my own to throw in. Patterson's was one of the papers I would have particularly liked to have discussed -- the subject is one of great interest to me in my current research. There was also a plenary scheduled for people to reflect on future directions. But I was already on the coach to Heathrow, listening to the Russell Brand podcast and reading the latest Doctor Who Magazine. I met up with the family, who had come down from Peterborough, and we are about to fly. There is no wireless here, so I will upload this post when I get back to Raleigh. It will be pretty late because we are flying into DC and driving down from there.
This conference has been excellent. It was very well organized and ran very smoothly; congratulations to Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster, John Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden for a job very well done. The catering at Lincoln College was excellent, and the location ideal -- bang in the centre of Oxford (and right next to my old college). In spite of the number of papers, the programme did not feel crammed, and I appreciated the free time on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, and the free time again after 9pm or so. The number present, forty or so, was about right to ensure good discussion after each paper and set of papers. Any more, and it would have become unwieldy. By the end of the conference, one had the feeling of having got to know almost everyone.
Each session worked very well, with a general theme and three or so presentations followed by discussion. The only one that did not quite work, in my opinion, was the session that paired David Peabody with Kathleen Corley -- these were such very different papers that the discussion was less focused than it was for the other sessions where things were more naturally related.
The academic quality of the papers and the discussion was very high. I have to admit that I was initially a bit sceptical about the decision not to invite "position papers", or to have individuals arguing in favour of given theories, but it turned out that this was a brilliant decision. The encouragement to all presenters to be as balanced and fair as possible, and the invitations to read papers on specific themes, led to pretty helpful discussions with a marked lack of polemic; there was more light than heat, to use the cliché.
All in all, an excellent conference and a very enjoyable few days away. Congratulations to all involved!
[Actual time of upload, Friday, 15.25, back in Raleigh, North Carolina.]
This conference has been excellent. It was very well organized and ran very smoothly; congratulations to Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster, John Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden for a job very well done. The catering at Lincoln College was excellent, and the location ideal -- bang in the centre of Oxford (and right next to my old college). In spite of the number of papers, the programme did not feel crammed, and I appreciated the free time on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, and the free time again after 9pm or so. The number present, forty or so, was about right to ensure good discussion after each paper and set of papers. Any more, and it would have become unwieldy. By the end of the conference, one had the feeling of having got to know almost everyone.
Each session worked very well, with a general theme and three or so presentations followed by discussion. The only one that did not quite work, in my opinion, was the session that paired David Peabody with Kathleen Corley -- these were such very different papers that the discussion was less focused than it was for the other sessions where things were more naturally related.
The academic quality of the papers and the discussion was very high. I have to admit that I was initially a bit sceptical about the decision not to invite "position papers", or to have individuals arguing in favour of given theories, but it turned out that this was a brilliant decision. The encouragement to all presenters to be as balanced and fair as possible, and the invitations to read papers on specific themes, led to pretty helpful discussions with a marked lack of polemic; there was more light than heat, to use the cliché.
All in all, an excellent conference and a very enjoyable few days away. Congratulations to all involved!
[Actual time of upload, Friday, 15.25, back in Raleigh, North Carolina.]
Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries
Travel Diary: Synoptic Problem Conference III
Oxford, Thursday, 00:47; last full day of the Synoptic Problem conference. First session, 9a.m.: Andrew Gregory chaired what was perhaps the meatiest section yet, four papers on issues relating to compositional issues and the Synoptic Problem. Three of the presenters were present and Gregory summarised the fourth paper, Kirk's, on "Memory, scribal media and the synoptic problem". Alex Damm spoke first on "Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem"; then Robert Derrenbacker talked about "Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem"; then Gerald Downing on "Writers' use or abuse of written sources". Discussion was wide ranging and enthusiastic. There was perhaps most discussion on Gerald Downing's paper, and some comment on his claim that the minor agreements are in fact problematic for all synoptic theories. Several of us have picked up the feeling that this session provided a good indication of where the debate is likely to develop in the coming years -- compositional issues are clearly going to be key in future discussion of the Synoptic Problem.
After morning coffee, the next section was chaired by John Kloppenborg and featured two main papers, Eugene Boring on "The 'Minor Agreements' and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem" and Peter Head on "Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem". John Kloppenborg also read out a summary of Robert Stein's paper, "Duplicate Expressions in Mark". The discussion focused mainly on Gene Boring and Peter Head's papers. I attempted to make my point, with respect to Eugene Boring's paper, that the postulation of a "Revised Mark" may not actually aid the Two Source Theory with respect to the Minor Agreements since a Revised Mark might, in fact, have been less like our Matthew and Luke than our Mark is. On such a scenario, there might in fact have been more minor agreements in the earliest texts, and not less. I had only limited success articulating this point, however, and it may be that I need to think carefully about how to articulate it more clearly on future occasions -- or to drop it.
Before lunch, there was a group photograph. Just as we were gathering, I had a phone call from Q; we had planned to get together today, as we usually do when I am in the UK. Someone suggested that Q take the group photograph, which he was delighted to do. I hope that some kind person will email me one of the photographs taken so that I can upload it to the blog. After the photograph, Q and I wandered to the covered market, as we used to do when we were students together, and enjoyed a splendid lunch in Mortons.
The next event on the schedule, after tea, was my paper, the third of the main papers, on "The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem". I enjoyed speaking on the topic, and was honoured to have it chaired by my Doctorvater John Muddiman. I began my talk by sending Michael Goulder's greetings to the conference. (I had spent Sunday afternoon with him). The discussion after my paper was perhaps a little more subdued than some of the other discussions, and I hope that that was not a reflection on its quality or interest. Nevertheless, there were lots of useful and interesting questions, including from the chair.
Drinks were at 6.30; dinner was at 7. The main course was duck and it was excellent. Once again, the relatively early end to proceedings allowed a little time for additional socializing for those so inclined.
Alas, I have to miss the last morning of the conference. I need to get the coach to Heathrow to meet the family and get the plane back to DC, and I don't think I will be able to make it to any of the morning activities. Nevertheless, I hope to add concluding comments tomorrow. Needless to say, an excellent conference, intellectually stimulating and conducted in a generous, positive spirit. Congratulations and thanks to the convenors, John Kloppenborg, Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster and Joseph Verheyden, who have done a superb job.
After morning coffee, the next section was chaired by John Kloppenborg and featured two main papers, Eugene Boring on "The 'Minor Agreements' and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem" and Peter Head on "Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem". John Kloppenborg also read out a summary of Robert Stein's paper, "Duplicate Expressions in Mark". The discussion focused mainly on Gene Boring and Peter Head's papers. I attempted to make my point, with respect to Eugene Boring's paper, that the postulation of a "Revised Mark" may not actually aid the Two Source Theory with respect to the Minor Agreements since a Revised Mark might, in fact, have been less like our Matthew and Luke than our Mark is. On such a scenario, there might in fact have been more minor agreements in the earliest texts, and not less. I had only limited success articulating this point, however, and it may be that I need to think carefully about how to articulate it more clearly on future occasions -- or to drop it.
Before lunch, there was a group photograph. Just as we were gathering, I had a phone call from Q; we had planned to get together today, as we usually do when I am in the UK. Someone suggested that Q take the group photograph, which he was delighted to do. I hope that some kind person will email me one of the photographs taken so that I can upload it to the blog. After the photograph, Q and I wandered to the covered market, as we used to do when we were students together, and enjoyed a splendid lunch in Mortons.
The next event on the schedule, after tea, was my paper, the third of the main papers, on "The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem". I enjoyed speaking on the topic, and was honoured to have it chaired by my Doctorvater John Muddiman. I began my talk by sending Michael Goulder's greetings to the conference. (I had spent Sunday afternoon with him). The discussion after my paper was perhaps a little more subdued than some of the other discussions, and I hope that that was not a reflection on its quality or interest. Nevertheless, there were lots of useful and interesting questions, including from the chair.
Drinks were at 6.30; dinner was at 7. The main course was duck and it was excellent. Once again, the relatively early end to proceedings allowed a little time for additional socializing for those so inclined.
Alas, I have to miss the last morning of the conference. I need to get the coach to Heathrow to meet the family and get the plane back to DC, and I don't think I will be able to make it to any of the morning activities. Nevertheless, I hope to add concluding comments tomorrow. Needless to say, an excellent conference, intellectually stimulating and conducted in a generous, positive spirit. Congratulations and thanks to the convenors, John Kloppenborg, Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster and Joseph Verheyden, who have done a superb job.
Labels: conferences, Oxford, Synoptic Problem, Travel diaries
![[Valid Atom]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
