Seminars

This work-in-progress investigates the types of covers and cover art used for biblical scholarship, viewing the cover of scholarly books as a museum unto itself. The discussion takes seriously the paratextual qualities of biblical scholarship and analyzes/deconstructs the utilization of typography, art, and ancient objects for communicating the contents of scholarly work.

During the first few centuries of modern biblical scholarship, the largely Protestant, historical-critical guild of New Testament studies had a well-documented anti-ritual tendency. In the words of J. Z. Smith, “ritual was to be classed with superstition (shallow, unreasoning action) or with habit (a customary, repetitive, thoughtless action).” One generation later, the fields of New Testament and early Christian studies have finally opened up to the scholarly approaches from ritual studies. This presentation first explains the historical anti-ritual bias in New Testament studies, and then it charts the different categories of ritual studies that have recently been applied to the New Testament. It will proceed to offer new exegetical fruits about two New Testament topics. Once a reader’s consciousness has been shaped by ritual theory and ritual studies, its encounter with a familiar biblical text can be reoriented. I have chosen two distinct topics from the New Testament which have not been imagined through a ritual-studies approach, and I aim to show how a ritual-first perspective generates new exegetical insights. The first example is about time, and the second is about the very nature of God.

Scholars have periodically noted how the field of biblical scholarship both studies the utopian imaginary in the Bible and is itself a utopian project. This paper draws on the interdisciplinary field of Utopian Studies to question and clarify the heuristic and metacritical value of thinking about utopianism in and with the Bible. Focusing particularly on conceptualizations of the early Christian assemblies and democracy, I examine how and whether utopian/dystopian spatialization, method, and affect might make sense of certain coalescing and dissolutions of agency and imagination for individual and social transformation in and around the letters from Paul. This work-in-progress is part of a larger project on utopian politics and Christian beginnings.

In Galatians 2, Paul refers to "Cephas" and to "Peter." Most interpreters, ancient and modern, have regarded these as two names for a single individual. The alternative view (attested in antiquity and championed periodically ever since) claimed that Cephas and Peter were two different figures. One of the strongest reasons to equate "Cephas" and "Peter" has been the belief that both names mean "rock." But this belief is not well founded. In fact, as I will try to demonstrate, the Greek kēphas is not a transcription of the Aramaic word for "rock"; rather, it is the transcription of a well-attested Jewish name. This presentation will explore the literary and epigraphical evidence for the name in question; explore whether it was a proper name or a nickname; and reflect on the significance for the identities and monikers of leading figures in the Jesus movement.

his paper derives from a chapter in my current book project, which focuses on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s reception and use of apocalyptic literature, thought, and motifs in his sermons and writings. In this particular chapter, I specifically explore how King utilizes elements of apocalypticism to protest and resist segregation, injustice, and racism.

This essay defines and discusses a category of early Roman-period religious actors here called “emissaries,” people whose authority derives from direct commissioning by a sending deity, as opposed to, say, textual expertise or institutional imprimatur. We consider two well-known examples from the eastern Roman Empire—Apollonius of Tyana and Alexander of Abonoteichus—before comparing at greater length Jesus, Paul, and other prophets and apostles attested in New Testament and related sources.