Session 1
Kelsie Rodenbiker (University of Copenhagen), ‘Canonical Concern: The Rhetoric of Anxiety Over Ancient Pseudepigraphy’
A forceful rhetoric of concern permeates ancient historiographical discourse around the formation of the canon. Well-known passages contain potent assertions: Eusebius was “compelled” to catalogue forgeries because their character is “exceedingly discordant” with orthodoxy (Hist.eccl.3.25.6–7); For Athanasius, pseudepigrapha have a historical patina to deceive “simple folk”—empty, polluted literature intended to make famous their vainglorious authors (Epist.fest.39.21–22); The Muratorian Fragment decried the combination of authentic and forged works as “gall… mixed with honey” (ll.67); Jerome cautioned Paulina that “it requires great skill to look for gold in mud” (Epist.107.12). I argue that this vivid rhetoric of anxiety and purported protectiveness reflects ancient practices of enargeia and ekphrasis. Discourse surrounding canonization is emotionally-inflected and intentionally constructed. Affective rhetoric is a mode of expression serving to persuade readers of the integrity of scripture and the dangers of pseudepigraphy—and therefore to control the shape of the canon and its use.
Tom Finegan, Mary Immaculate College, ‘A New Reading of Matthew 5:32’
For a host of reasons Matthew 5:32 is a perplexing verse. But if one brackets the divorce clause one begins to see that it is a corrective exegesis of Deut 24:1–4 asserted against the dominant Pharisaic interpretation of Deut 24:1 (as cited by Mt 5:31). This reading makes sense out of the most unusual features of Mt 5:32. Its implications for the divorce clause are particularly noteworthy. Briefly: (a) the clause was an editorial addition to Mt 5:32a; (b) made to clarify that Jesus’ teaching did not impugn Joseph (Mt 1:19); (c) an addition which uses key terms from the relevant Torah passage, Deut 22:13–21 (λόγου πορνείας = accusation of pre-nissuin unchastity); (d) which in turn implies the betrothal view of the clause’s meaning.
Session 2: Joint with Later Epistles
Madison Pierce (Western Theological Seminary), Philip Alexander (Manchester), and Yael Fisch (Hebrew University) will review Nicholas Moore’s (Durham, Cranmer Hall) The Open Sanctuary: Access to God and the Heavenly Temple in the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2024: https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-open-sanctuary/411750).
Session 3
Junette Galagala-Nacion, University of Edinburgh, ‘Paul’s Myth of Gentile Inclusion in Romans and the Olive Tree Metaphor’
As earliest evidence of Christian writing, Paul’s letters showcase the appropriation of what Campbell calls the “Jewish symbolic universe” from which his communities derived their identity. Paul’s converts were gentiles, not Jewish proselytes, and in doing so, their participation in the covenant rested on their retention of their non-Jewishness (Campbell). Such identity is explicated at length in Romans, which deals with intergroup tensions in the mixed assembly. As Jewish believers returned to a primarily gentile congregation after their expulsion by Claudius in 49–50 CE, the Roman ekklesia had to contend with the differing practices and emphases of the Christian faith, with the Jews refiguring the meaning of their traditions and what that meant for the gentiles. I propose that in Romans, Paul crafts a myth of origins for gentiles and assigns them an identity within the new framework of faith in Jesus from a Jewish perspective. One way he constructs this ethnogenesis is through the olive tree metaphor. Paul reworks ancient horticultural conventions to depict the grafted wild olive branch as opposed to Israel as the olive tree’s natural branch. Moreover, Paul appeals to the cultivator’s sovereignty to emphasize God’s sovereignty, parallel to the earlier potter-clay metaphor.
Joshua Crosby, University of Manchester, ‘Josephus’ Temple Descriptions: Moving Beyond Discrepancies’
Within the studies of the Second Temple, particularly the post-Herodian period, Josephus has been used as a resource for the many endeavours to reconstruct the building itself. To this end, he has been of great use, representing the best eyewitness account available to us. Nevertheless, views on his reliability have varied greatly from scholar to scholar, and his accounts have been viewed as competing evidence alongside Tractate Middot in the Mishnah. Instead of attempting to reconcile the source material, this paper will consider both of Josephus’ major descriptions, found in The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, as worthy of individual scrutiny. The differences will be explored, neither to discredit his reliability, nor to synthesise them into a coherent picture. Instead, they will be used to shed light on Josephus’ intentions for each literary project and the character of the Temple itself. It will consider the impact each description might have had on Josephus’ readership and what might have occurred in the intervening years between the compositions for such a change in tack.