Chairs: Dr John Lyons and Dr Helen Bond
Session 1:
'Implications of reading mark's account of demon possession with African Christians for contemporary biblical Scholarship'
Western scholars have made an immense contribution to the study of Mark's gospel especially on Jesus' struggle with evil from the temptation to the cross. With the help of Western scholars, we get an understanding of the temptation narrative and its impact on the exorcism (demon possession) cases-whether the exorcisms are mopping-up operations or whether they are real struggles between Jesus and the demons. We know how the demons behave in the presence of Jesus, the meanings of the titles the demons use in addressing Jesus, the difficulty Jesus encounters in one spirit possession case, and we also get to know how Jesus defeats these demons. However, there are areas which are not addressed by these Western scholars.
A series of studies conducted with groups of Ghanaian Christians in London sheds light on how readers with a lively belief in the demonic approach these Markan texts. This in turn suggests the kinds of questions with which Mark's own readers may have approached these texts. A comparison with Western scholarly readings leads to proposals for new areas of scholarly enquiry.
'Jesus and the Sabbath Law'
It is multiply attested in all four gospels that Jesus healed on the sabbath, was criticized for it and answered these criticisms. I shall argue from passages in the gospels that while the rules of the received halakhah were based on the sabbath commandment as recorded in Exodus which emphasized the sacral nature of the sabbath, Jesus based his theology on the version of the commandment in Deuteronomy which emphasizes the liberation from Egypt. I shall argue also that while Jesus challenged the received halakhah his style of argument was halakhic and that his arguments can be understood in terms of general principles found in the Hebrew scriptures and the Mishnah.
These considerations add to our understanding of Jesus. They portray a Jesus who was well versed in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, and who put a priority on meeting the needs of the people while reinterpreting scripture to justify his action. His theological thinking was liberational and designed to justify his praxis.
Session 2: Joint Symposium with the Acts Seminar
This symposium will discuss the relationship of Luke and Acts, led by three speakers:
Dr Michael Bird (Highland Theological College) will introduce the seminar by providing an overview of where the debate is since Parsons and Pervo's protest in Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts in 1993, including some attention to what difference the view we take on the 'unity' question makes to the way we read and interpret Luke and Acts.
Dr C. Kavin Rowe (Duke University) will speak around issues raised by his stimulating article ‘History, Hermeneutics and the Unity of Luke-Acts' in JSNT 28.2 (2005) 131-57, the responses by Luke Johnson and Markus Bockmuehl (both in the same issue of JSNT) and subsequent discussions.
Dr Andrew Gregory (University of Oxford) has provided this title and abstract:
'The Reception History of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts'
My title is deliberately open ended, but depends on two major assumptions. One is that Luke and Acts each appears to have had a distinctive reception history of its own, often as if they were two separate works. The other is that there are clear indications in the text of Luke-Acts which suggest that it is a unified narrative consisting of two volumes that one author composed in such a way that readers who read and interpret each volume in the light of the other will gain a fuller understanding of both volumes.
Juxtaposing these assumptions raises questions about how one relates to the other, not least the question of whether the majority of the readers of Luke and of Acts have-for whatever reason-read these texts as two discrete books or as elements within two discrete divisions of the New Testament canon rather than as two volumes of one narrative whole. I shall consider examples of different readers who have treated Luke and Acts in each of these ways and shall ask to what extent their various reading strategies are of importance in assessing the unity of Luke-Acts.
Session 3:
'Varying grounds for 'forgiveness of sins' in Luke 24:47'
In Luke 24:47, the risen Jesus commissions his disciples with the task of proclaiming repentance for the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations. The paper considers the different ways in which the uncials Bezae,Vaticanus and Sinaiticus ground this proclamation in the death of Jesus. Bezae offers no theology of atonement: rather, the event of Jesus' death and resurrection is made the basis for a universal call to repentance, and forgiveness is given to those who recognise his lordship: the emphasis is on the need for human response. Vaticanus rightly includes the longer text of the Lord's Supper (22:19b-20): the new covenant in Jesus' blood guarantees forgiveness to those who repent and thus provides a more transactional view of forgiveness, but Luke fails to develop the new covenant theme. Sinaiticus rightly also includes Jesus' prayer for the forgiveness of those who are crucifying him (23:34), and this offers a perception of divine forgiveness as being granted by God the Father who witnesses his son suffering as a victim of wanton cruelty and injustice and who still determines to respond with forgiveness rather than vengeance.