January 15, 2013
Dear CBA Member,
You are hereby invited to the Baltimore-Washington regional meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association. The meeting will be hosted by St. Anslem’s Abbey, 4501 South Dakota Ave, NE, Washington, D.C. 20017 (see driving instructions below). It will be held on Thursday, February 7, 2013, beginning with registration at 2:15 p.m. The program for the afternoon is as follows:
2:15-2:30 Arrival and registration
2:30-3:15 First Talk: Michael A. Daise, College of William & Mary
“Quotations in Chiasm: Isaiah and Remembrance Formulate in the Fourth Gospel”
In research on quotations in John two tactics have eclipsed certain literary and theological features from view: the decision to treat each quotation in isolation and the penchant to neglect quotations that carry no textual anomalies. This paper aims to uncover some of these features by examining six quotations in light of motific bonds they share with one another. The quotations in John 1:23; 12:38; and 12:40 are linked as the only citations explicitly ascribed to Isaiah; moreover, as the first (1:23) and last two (12:38, 40) citations in John 1-12, they form an inclusio within the Book of Signs. Similarly, the quotations in John 2:17; 12:13; and 12:15-16 are linked as the only citations introduced with remembrance formulae; and, as the second (2:17) and second-to-last two (12:13, 15-16) citations in John 1-12, they, too, form an inclusio within the Book of Signs, which serves as the inner bracket of a chiasm with the aforementioned Isaianic inclusio. Inasmuch as the components of inclusios answer to one another, and inasmuch as the structure of a chiasm underscores the innermost inclusio, the literary structure formed by these six quotations embodies a binary theological declaration. The Isaianic quotations show the Ioudaioi/kosmos to be initially summoned (Isa 40:3), ultimately resistant to that summons (Isa 53:1) and fundamentally made resistant by divine action (Isa 6:10). The remembrance formulae by contrast show the disciples to perceive Jesus’ zeal for the temple (Ps 69:10), his predicted resurrection (John 2:19-22) and his reception as ‘king of Israel’ (Ps 118:25-26; Zech 9:9).
3:15-4:00 Second Talk: Fr. Thomas Lane, Mount St. Mary’s Seminary
“The Gospels Show Christ Forming His Apostles to be Priests of the New Covenant”
Thesis Statement: Many actions of Christ in the Gospels reveal that it was his intention to inaugurate the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant. Methodology: exegesis of the call, formation and commissioning of the Twelve Apostles. Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant according to the Letter to the Hebrews. The Gospels give attention to Christ calling the apostles because they would later be his first priests. Each of the Gospels in its own way shows the Twelve Apostles called out of the larger group of disciples. The Twelve are sent on an experimental mission which is an extension of the ministry of Jesus. During the Last Supper they are consecrated in Truth, a consecration that proceeds out of the consecration of Jesus himself, emanating from his priestly self-sacrifice on Calvary. As Christ breaks bread with them he asks them to do this in remembrance of him. Before his ascension Christ gives the apostles authority to forgive sins as he breathes the Spirit on them in a creation-like action. During his last resurrection appearance in Luke, Christ calls the large gathering of disciples to witness while in Matt and Mark Christ commissions the apostles to preach. It seems clear Christ’s intention was to form the Twelve to continue his ministry. In the early Church, as seen in Acts and the New Testament Letters, the ministers of the New Covenant are not called priests because the Jewish priesthood was still offering sacrifices in the temple; instead the Christian minsters are designated presbyters or overseers.
4:00-4:15 Coffee Break
4:15-5:00 Third Talk: Deborah Furlan Taylor, Independent Researcher
“Statue of a Great King”: The Priority of Dan 2:31b-35
Literary and historical considerations suggest that both the overall narrative framework and the interpretation of the statue as successive political entities in Daniel 2 are secondary. In important respects, Daniel 2 is analogous to the treatment of Jesus’ parable of the sower in the Gospel of Mark. Just as the public- vs. private-speech setting/structure of Mark 4 allowed the author-redactor to present an early-church interpretation of an authentic utterance of Jesus, I argue that the author-redactor of Daniel 2 employed a bifold narrative framework of dream + interpretation (inspired by Genesis 41) in order to present an updated interpretation of the words of a Jewish intellectual who had served in the Seleucid bureaucracy in Mesopotamia. The original historical background of the statue was the cult of the specific king for whom the historical Daniel worked. After Antiochus III created the first official state cult of a living Seleucid king, Daniel predicted that the true God would bring down the would-be-divine Antiochus, ending the rule of his dynasty. The description of the statue - a male nude, of colossal size, metal fabric - mirrors statues of Antiochus, his forebears, and contemporary Hellenistic monarchs. As Antiochus’ descendants continued to govern, the statue’s multi-metal construction “saved” the prophecy - but at the expense of making the other features of the statue virtually irrelevant. Recasting Daniel’s king as Nebuchadnezzar was facilitated because Antiochus III had embraced the title and role of the “king of Babylon” and occasionally been honored in Mesopotamia as “Nebuchadnezzar.”
5:00-5:15 Business Meeting
5:15-5:35 Social “Hour”
5:35-6:00 Dinner (there will be a simple dinner provided by the Abbey)
6:00 Vespers for those who wish to attend
Directions to St. Anselm’s Abbey
4501 South Dakota Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20017
St. Anselm’s is in Northeast Washington, at the corner of Webster Street, 14th Street, NE and South Dakota Avenue -- near Providence Hospital.
From Northwest DC, take Military Road across town. It changes name to Missouri Avenue when it crosses Georgia Avenue, and to Riggs Road when it crosses North Capitol Street. One half mile from North Capitol, after going under the train overpass, bear right onto South Dakota Avenue. St. Anselm’s is about one mile from there on your left (next traffic light after Sargent Road). Come up the driveway, bear left at the sign for the school, passing the Abbey, and the parking lot will be on your left. After parking, walk back to the Abbey for the meeting. Enter the glass doors facing the traffic circle.
From Prince George’s County, MD take U.S. Route 50 or the Baltimore-Washington Parkway into Washington and take the South Dakota Avenue exit. The school will be about two and a half miles from that exit on your right, the next traffic light after you cross Michigan Avenue.
From Montgomery County, MD take the Beltway (495) east to the University Boulevard East (Langley Park) exit. Stay on University Boulevard for about a mile and a half to Riggs Road. Turn right onto Riggs Road and go about another mile or so to Sargent Road and turn left. Take Sargent Road about a mile to South Dakota Avenue and turn left, and the school will be one long block from there on your left.
From downtown Washington, you can take Rhode Island Avenue to 14th Street, NE and turn left onto 14th Street. Travel about one and a half miles and 14th Street dead ends into our driveway. Or take North Capitol Street north to Michigan Avenue and turn right. Take Michigan Avenue to 14th Street NE and turn left. Again, 14th Street dead ends into our driveway.
We will not be meeting in the school but in the Fort Augustus Room in the Abbey.
The Executive Committee, Baltimore-Washington Region, CBA
Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., Chair; Michael Barré, S.S., Vice Chair
To view or download this invitation letter in PDF format, please click here.