Last week, my friend, Kevin Scull, and I attended the Enoch Graduate Seminar in Budapest, Hungary (see his post about the experience). The seminar was unlike any conference I’ve ever experienced or even heard about. It was run more like a graduate seminar course at a university than a conference, but even more intellectually fulfilling than that. It had both Kevin and I wondering about conferences that we’d like to see happen in the future.

Format. We all distributed our papers ahead of time. Our presentations were supposed to be more like introductions to the discussion than a verbatim recital of our written work. We had ten minutes to make these introductions, and then the discussion was scheduled for one hour past that. Inevitably, some discussions might bore you to death (the nature of things), while others would stimulate promising new thoughts. Unlike most conferences, you were expected to stay for all the sessions, read all the papers, and contribute to the discussions (as you are able).

The conference lasted about four days, two of which were full with six papers, two of which included only three papers. Most days ended with a final paper/lecture from a scholar. Except for Wednesday, when we took a “field trip” over to the city of Budapest, we ended our day at 7pm. As you might imagine, the conference was exhausting. And, while the host campus was a beautiful little spot outside Budapest, it appears that Hungarians do not believe in air conditioning. Sitting through roughly eight hours of discussion/presentations until the early evening in a hot and humid seminar room made for a more “memorable” experience.

The Enoch Grad Seminar is the graduate student version of the larger Enoch Seminar, which gathers to discuss a particular topic each time. I understand that the larger conference for established scholars (invite only) does not have the same kind of intimacy as the graduate seminar, but I like the idea of having a set topic. Their first meeting, if I heard correctly, was to discuss the proofs of George Nickelsburg’s Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch. To me, that sounds like a fabulous idea, and easily transferable to other fields.

Content. The Seminar is not only about Enoch, as the name of the conference might suggest. Rather, Enoch is used more as a reference point because, as Prof. Boccaccini noted, “Enoch is everywhere!” It’s used as a way of marking off a couple centuries before and after the turn of the common era. On the whole, it was a conference mainly on Second Temple Judaism, with only about four or five papers explicitly dealing with New Testament documents. When Christianity was discussed, it was as a part of the larger umbrella of Second Temple Judaism. Unlike the lip service I’ve seen given to this idea in the past (that the early Christian movement was a part of early Judaism), the discussions from this conference represented a really robust approach to Second Temple texts and issues.

Boccaccini offered a kind of plea for New Testament scholars to engage in greater depth with the texts and issues of Second Temple Judaism. He also seemed to have a desire to have studies of Second Temple texts interact more directly with New Testament texts. As it stands, they are two different fields, when they really should be more integrated.

International Connections. At the conference, we had five grad students from the US (UCLA, Michigan, and Marquette), one from Canada (McGill), three from the UK (Cambridge, Durham, and Nottingham), three Hungarians, an Argentinian currently studying at the Sorbonne, and individuals from Greece, the University of Copenhagen, Israel, and Russia. The intensity of the experience helped us all to deepen our global networks, not to mention friendships. We all had a great time together.

The next Enoch Grad Seminar is more accessible for those of us in the states at Notre Dame. I certainly recommend grad students in the field to seek out this conference in two years, when it comes around again. I’m worried that it will not be quite as international as this one was, given the location, but I imagine it will still be fulfilling either way.

Someone recently mentioned the upcoming Hebrew Bible conference at Notre Dame (“My Ways Are Not Your Ways“), which I hadn’t heard of before. This makes me wonder: what else am I missing? I hear of some cool conferences in the UK, but what biblical studies conferences (other than the obvious national and regional SBL meetings) are happening in the US? Is there a go-to website for this sort of information? I’d be interested in gathering not only info about conferences that are coming up, but knowing far enough in advance to find their calls for papers.

Update: Some Organizations’ Conferences to Follow:

• American Schools of Oriental Research: A nonprofit organization that supports and encourages the study of the peoples and cultures of the Near East, from the earliest times to the present. It is apolitical and has no religious affiliation. Annual meeting held in the days leading up to the SBL annual meeting in the same location. Regional meetings often held in tandem with SBL regional meetings.
• Catholic Biblical Association: From the context of faith, but you don’t have to be Catholic! The latest meeting was held Aug. 1-4, 2009 at Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska. I don’t see information for next year’s meeting or calls for papers.
• Context Group: A relatively small gathering of biblical scholars interested in sociological methods for interpretation. The 2010 annual meeting will be held March 18-20, 2010 at the Menucha Center near Portland, OR.
• Evangelical Theological Society: Annual and regional meetings for those who ascribe to the ETS “Doctrinal Basis” (which affirms the Bible as “inerrant in the autographs”). Annual meeting held the days leading up to SBL’s annual meeting in the same location.

In his lecture today, Prof. Bartchy referenced an intriguing article in the NY Times about current study of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is considered by Muslims to be the very words of God, spoken through the prophet (peace be upon him) who spoke the words of God for his companions to transcribe verbatim. For Muslims, then, the Qur’an represents the actual words of God–without a hint of human authorship: the final revelation of God. Prof. Bartchy often says that many Christians (namely, conservative Evangelicals) wish the Bible was the Qur’an. That is, many Christians wish that the Bible was wholly God’s word without any human influence.

Those of us who believe in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, but also engage in true critical scholarship, must be honest about the humanity which drips from every holy page. By accepting the Bible’s (divinely inspired) humanness, I am able to tackle difficult questions of history while also living my life in accordance with the divinely inspired message of the text. This position may make me a liberal to my more conservative Evangelical friends, while it makes me a conservative to my more “secular” friends. However you categorize it, this is the sort of position that is uber-controversial for devoted Muslims to hold when related to the Qur’an.

But are things changing a wee bit at a time? A recent conference at the University of Notre Dame, “The Qur’an in Its Historical Context,” represents a burgeoning intellectual movement seeking to apply critical research to the Qur’an. The site describes the conference as “a major international conference addressing the most recent theories, controversies, and discoveries in the field of Quranic Studies.” It builds off an earlier conference held at Notre Dame, intending to be “a unique forum for a discussion of the historical circumstances in which the Quran was formed, and of its relationship to earlier literature, notably the Bible.” A glance at the conference schedule reads like sessions in the program book for SBL.

Nicholas Kistof’s NY Times article makes an interesting parallel to critical scholarship of the Bible:

“We’re experiencing right now in Koranic studies a rise of interest analogous to the rise of critical Bible studies in the 19th century,” said Gabriel Said Reynolds, a Notre Dame professor and organizer of the conference.

The Notre Dame conference probably could not have occurred in a Muslim country, for the rigorous application of historical analysis to the Koran is as controversial today in the Muslim world as its application to the Bible was in the 1800s. For some literal-minded Christians, it was traumatic to discover that the ending of the Gospel of Mark, describing encounters with the resurrected Jesus, is stylistically different from the rest of Mark and is widely regarded by scholars as a later addition.

Likewise, Biblical scholars distressed the faithful by focusing on inconsistencies among the gospels. The Gospel of Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while Acts describes him falling down in a field and dying; the Gospel of John disagrees with other gospels about whether the crucifixion occurred on Passover or the day before. For those who considered every word of the Bible literally God’s word [i.e., objective historical truth], this kind of scholarship felt sacrilegious.

This is my favorite bit from the article:

One scholar at the Notre Dame conference, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for safety, has raised eyebrows and hackles by suggesting that the “houri” promised to martyrs when they reach Heaven doesn’t actually mean “virgin” after all. He argues that instead it means “grapes,” and since conceptions of paradise involved bounteous fruit, that might make sense. But suicide bombers presumably would be in for a disappointment if they reached the pearly gates and were presented 72 grapes.

This point gets at the profound task that Quranic (or biblical) scholars have to undertake. An otherwise harmless word study has profound implications for how religious followers understand and act upon their faith. With Bartchy, I think this parallel has profound pedagogical relevance when teaching critical biblical studies to committed Christians.

I am pleased to announce that my paper, “The Agents of Jesus Meet ‘All the Nations’: Adapting Jesus’ Cultic Reform for the Eschaton,” has been accepted for the 2009 Annual Meeting program unit Construction of Christian Identities at the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. Though I have presented at the regional SBL meeting for the west coast, this will be my first presentation at the national conference.

The basic thesis for the paper is that Jewish eschatological texts anticipate a time when the Gentiles/nations will one day worship the one true God, and with Jesus’ inauguration of the eschaton, his followers carry out the Gentile mission in partial fulfillment of that vision. Here is the abstract:

The Gospels portray Jesus of Nazareth as both cultic reformer within the house of Israel (akin to Amos) and an apocalyptic herald announcing the end of the age. As a reformer, Jesus seeks to extend God’s compassion to groups marginalized by contemporary practices within the Judean cult (e.g., women, the sick, the poor). While Jesus’ inclusivity here is radical, his program is limited to the house of Israel (e.g., Matt 15:24). This paper argues that Jesus’ role as an apocalyptic herald inaugurates not only the eschaton, but also the inclusion of the Gentiles (the “nations”). The role of the Gentiles in the coming judgment is a muddled area within Second Temple Jewish texts. Some texts anticipate a war with Gentile oppressors of the Judeans, other texts see God using the Gentiles as bringing God’s justice upon unfaithful Israelites/Judeans, while many texts also suggest that the Gentiles will some day worship the true God and will join the people of God. The latter category provides the foundation for this paper. From the perspective of Jesus’ followers, Judean cultic leaders have rejected Jesus’ message of radical inclusivity. As Jesus’ death and resurrection marks the beginning of the new age, the followers of Jesus act as his agents to reinterpret his cultic reforms for a mission to the Gentiles—thus initiating the Gentile inclusion anticipated in eschatological texts. One can see the shift in the disciples’ role as Jesus’ agents to the house of Israel first (Matt 10) and later to “all the nations” (Matt 25:31-46; 28:16-20). The pragmatic and theological implications of such a shift dominate the conversation of the early Jesus movement. This paper contrasts this phenomenon with the sectarian particularism of the Qumran community, which constitutes a contemporary group also identified by both cultic reform and apocalyptic eschatology.

And here is information for the program unit (see all program units):

Construction of Christian Identities

Edmondo F. Lupieri Mauro Pesce

Description: Interdisciplinary study of the making of Christianity as a complex phenomenon (“Early Christianities”), and of conflicting intercultural relations among Mediterranean/Near-Eastern religious groups as contributing to diversified evolution inside early Christianities. Identifying different early Christian groups as matrix of different early Christian writings.

Call for papers: For the Annual Meeting of New Orleans 2009, this Unit plans to invite the speakers for one of its sessions (panel discussion) and to accept papers for the other. The title of the panel discussion is: “From Christianity to Christianities: Ways Back to the Origins.” We would like to explore the possibility to move back from the consolidated situation of Christianity we know better (that of a “Great Church” and of “heresies”) to the complexity of the origins. The title of the open session is: “Rituals, Texts, Individuals and Associations: Competing ways to Construct Identities?” We invite contributions which analyze first century events and/or phenomena pertaining to cultural mechanisms which could have contributed to the construction of a group identity, both among the followers of Jesus and in comparable groups. Please, feel free to send any proposal for papers, the content of which corresponds to the specific subject of the open session and to the lines established in the General Description of the Section.