Abstracts and Handouts

FRIDAY, MARCH 13

6:30–8:00 pm

Keynote Lecture   Driscoll Hall – Rm134

Respondents: Andre Price (United Lutheran Seminary) and
Leslie Virnelson (United Lutheran Seminary)

Abstract: This paper explores the parallels between Jon Levenson’s covenant theology and Ronald Dworkin’s philosophy of law. It argues that both emphasize fidelity, rather than power, as the sustaining force of legal systems. While Levenson highlights a mutual love between God and the community as the basis for religious law and moral order, Dworkin asserts that law is grounded in moral principles (not rules) that require ongoing interpretive fidelity. The paper then turns to the Reconstruction Amendments to show how covenant theology clarifies the moral foundations of the rule of law in the U.S., particularly during times of social upheaval. Black Christian efforts after the Civil War exposed the gap between legal ideals and their practical administration. Ultimately, the paper concludes that covenantal fidelity, rather than mere sovereignty or efficiency, is the hallmark of the rule of law.

SATURDAY, MARCH 14

8:30–9:30 am

Major Paper Presentation   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium

Mark S. Smith (Princeton Theological Seminary)
"Double Selves and Genres: The Case of Psalms 42-43"

Abstract: Psalms flow. It is part of their magical power to move, shift course, move sidewards (or not), revoice and recast earlier elements, all the while speaking to the heart.  When I was a student, it was baked into my young mind that each psalm basically had a single genre.  It might also include optional elements associated with that genre, and it could have additional elements known from other genres.  Still a single genre per psalm was commonly the operating assumption.  While this scholarly presupposition does not hold the sort of sway it once enjoyed, it still seems a dominant way of thinking about the psalms.  One reason it does is because many psalms can be associated with particular genres with relatively little difficulty.  However, what has struck me in teaching psalms over the past decade is how many do not seem to follow the script that a strong genre approach prescribes.  Psalm 42-43 is an exquisite example of how genre shifts over the course of its verses; in one way of characterizing it, it moves from lament to trust.  Yet, there is more: the psalm contains two selves, “the I-voice” and the napši, “my life-force” addressed by the “I-voice.”  With notes of trust, the “I-voice” consoles the napši who is in a state of lament. This presentation will explore this reading of Psalms 42-43.

9:30–11:00 am

Paper Session1   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium

• Helen Buckwalter (University of Virgina)
  "A Weeping God: The Theological Development of Divine Mourning in MT
  and LXX Jeremiah"
  Abstract: One of the greatest paradoxes within the prophetic corpus of the Hebrew Bible is the relationship of God to the destruction of the Temple and the Babylonian Exile. Although God allows it to happen to Israel—and, indeed, necessitates it as his method of correction for a people who have strayed from the laws he set before them—the prophetic corpus also describes a God who is deeply affected by it. God is a father grieving over his child; God is a husband grieving his unfaithful wife; God is a shepherd, desiring to bring his flock of sheep back home to the fold. This paper will explore several key differences in the longer version of Jeremiah, attested in MT, and the shorter version of Jeremiah, attested in Qumran fragments (Hebrew) and the Septuagint, that demonstrate an ancient wrestling with the notion of God as mourner alongside God as judge. The textual traditions of Jeremiah 9–10 contain a number of variants, most notably in two sections of lament: Jeremiah 9:17–18 and Jeremiah 10:17–22. In both cases, the pronouns are changed from one version to the other to eliminate the ambiguity of whether God himself is lamenting and weeping over Jerusalem, or whether he is speaking only of Jeremiah and the people of Israel lamenting. Although it is usually assumed that the shorter version of Jeremiah is original, with the longer version (MT) growing out of that tradition, the variations here are theologically significant either way. This paper argues that the changing of pronouns to suggest that God is weeping, or to eliminate that possibility, demonstrates an ancient theological development in the notion of a mourning, injured God. 
  
  
• MaryKristel Nwuba, D.D.L. (Pontifex University)
  "Unveiling the Mystery of the Divine Name: YHWH in the Heart of Israel's Covenant and Worship"
  Abstract: The divine name YHWH, a focal figure in the Hebrew Bible, stands for the unique character of God within ancient Israel’s religious context. This paper delves into the intricate significance of YHWH, investigating its etymology, theological inferences, and its progression throughout biblical and post-biblical traditions. The origins of YHWH trace back to the Hebrew root h-y-h, expressing models of existence and being, intently joined to the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. Significant scriptural incidents, such as the theophany at the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:1-15), disclose God’s desire for a relationship with His people while confirming His committed task in their history. The reverence associated with the name is additionally highlighted through its application in worship contexts, comprising the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the ceremonies surrounding the Tabernacle and Temple. Over time, the pronunciation and depiction of YHWH underwent substantial changes, specifically with the adoption of “Kyrios” in the Septuagint and the replacement of “Adonai” in subsequent Jewish traditions. This evolution reveals a growing sanctity ascribed to the name, climaxing in its reduced use during the rise of early Christianity. Finally, the study demonstrates how the divine name YHWH summarizes profound topics of presence, faithfulness, and holiness, presenting deep perceptions into the nature of God and His enduring relationship with humanity.

11:15–12:45 pm

Paper Session 2   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium

• Jon Ahn (Howard University)
  "How Late is the Book of Numbers: Chapters 16-17 Are Telling"
  Abstract: Past critical scholars have reviewed and even made mention of the manufactured Judean myth of Numbers 13-14 (Spy narratives) as seminal and even the Mitte (Dennis Olson). In more recent years, however, Numbers 16-17 have taken the book by storm. That is, identifying the late authorships and redactions (Reinhard Achenbach, Echkart Otto, Thomas Dozeman, Jaeyoung Jeon, Katharina Pyschny, and others) of theocracy-minded Zadokite priests or broadly Levitical scribes that shaped the units and ultimately the entire book. (Numbers 11-12 are important backgrounds.) Within Num 16-17, there are three redactioned  stories that are truly telling; that is, on dating how late the composite text(s) really is/are. They are Korah's call for "proto-democracy" (reframing rebellion), the story of the seventy or seventy two (most important), and the desire to eat meat/quail (the Book of Daniel). These independent units all have Hellenism or Hellenistic literary motifs.    
  
  
• Christopher Moriconi (The Catholic University of America)
  "Sir 15:11–20 andSir 22:27(33)–23:6: A Comparative and Reception Exegetical Study"
  Abstract: Ben Sira’s œuvre is not a pastiche of unrelated doctrines, but unsystematic lecture notes that can be elaborated and organized. This presentation concludes that interpreting Ben Sira requires intertextual analysis. It will study how Sir 15:11–20 relates to Sir 22:27(33)–23:6 and contributes to the understanding of free will in Ben Sira. If Sir 15:11–20 develops a positive outlook on humanity’s capability of exercising free will, Sir 22:27(33)–23:6 advances the discussion by stressing that humanity needs God’s protection so that the destructive potentiality of his freedom does not lead him into sin (Sir 23:3) and death (Sir 15:17). The impulse to connect passages from Ben Sira’s corpus is not a recent development but rather forms a part of patristic exegesis as well. 
  In Augustine’s De gratia et libero arbitrio 16.32, he elaborates on the directive to pray for those who are unable to adhere to the commandments by relating Sir 15:16(17) to Sir 22:27(33)–23:6. Augustine asks, “Why would the sage teach about human free will and the need for God’s assistance through prayer in Sir 22:27(33)–23:6, if the human will could choose the good without God’s grace?” Rather, reading these texts together demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach to combat faulty readings of Ben Sira’s teaching. Augustine’s contribution is to show that Sir 15:11–20 cannot be read through the lens of Pelagianism, which teaches that humanity can choose the good without the assistance of God’s grace. Augustine accomplishes this through his intertextual method of interpreting Sir 15:11–20 in conjunction with Sir 22:27(33)–23:6. Although Ben Sira would not formulate the doctrine of grace as Augustine has, the bishop of Hippo’s teaching is a natural outgrowth of Ben Sira’s especially when Sir 15:16(17) is related to Sir 22:27(33)–23:6.

 HANDOUT  

1:45–2:45 pm

Major Paper Presentation   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium

Matthew Novenson (Princeton Theological Seminary)
"Apokatastasis in the Letters of Paul?"

Abstract: This paper starts from the observation that Origen of Alexandria derives his doctrine of apokatastasis chiefly from the letters of Paul, in particular from 1 Corinthians 15, where death is finally eliminated and God becomes all in all. From there, we consider some recent discussion, from a quite different angle, about Stoic-sounding language of cosmogony and eschatology in the letters of Paul. It is proposed that this modern discussion dovetails, quite by accident, with Origen’s account. While there is also some unassimilated evidence – which may, in the final analysis, just be counterevidence – we can nevertheless see at least the contours of an argument for apokatastasis in the Letters of Paul.

2:45–4:15 pm

Paper Session 3   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium

• Paul Danove (Villanova University)
  "Jesus’s Procedure for Deducing What Is/Is Not Permitted (ἔξεστιν) in the Gospel of Mark"
  Abstract: This paper develops the Marcan Jesus’s procedure for determining what is/is not permitted (ἔξεστιν). The introductory discussion establishes that, within the Gospel of Mark, ‘be permitted’ references actions that the statements of commandments in the Scriptures either require or prohibit. The discussion then specifies the procedures for determining what the commandments do/do not permit implicit in the statements of John the Baptist, the Pharisees and other authorities, and Jesus. Examination of the remaining contexts referencing the commandments further clarifies Jesus’s procedure. The discussion concludes with a consideration of the manner in which disciples may apply Jesus’s procedure in their own determination of what commandments do/do not permit.
  
  
• Kim Gunter (Villanova University)
  “Demons, Dogs and a Daughter – How a Slave Woman Defied the Rules to Corner Jesus into Healing Her Child”
  Abstract: The Gospels of Matthew (15:21-29) and Mark (7:24-30) describe Jesus’s encounter with a non-Jewish woman, whom both gospel writers identify by gender, ethnicity, class, behavior and words. Scholars often focus on how Jesus’s response is influenced by the woman’s ethnicity and class. This paper engages with scholars like Stephen D. Moore and Mitzi J.
  Smith who respectively posit that this non-Jewish woman was a slave and possibly of mixed-race. It then explores her significance and why her story sheds light on ancient Near Eastern, non-Jewish women’s astounding faith despite all odds. I will further suggest generative implications of this story for contemporary, marginalized women engaging the Bible.

4:30–6:00 pm

Paper Session 4   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium

• Lisa Deak (Villanova University)
  “God's Impartiality”
  Abstract: This paper examines Matthew 5:43-45 and Acts 10:34-35 to better understand early Christian communities’ concept of God’s impartiality and love of enemies. How did early Christians navigate cultural and theological obstacles to dismantle innate biases and divisions? In Broken Hearts & New Creations, James Alison emphasizes the non-discriminatory love of God where there are no “insiders” nor “outsiders,” and all of humanity is impartially loved by God. This paper critically applies Alison’s model of the “forgiving victim” found in Christ’s life, death and resurrection, exposes God’s non-rivalrous love and impartiality toward humanity, and proposes that Matthew 5 and Acts 10 are a useful starting point for evaluating contemporary conceptions of social justice teaching.
  
  
• James Garcia (Villanova University)
  “Two Swords: The Gospels in Just War Theory”
  Abstract: Thinkers that have been associated with the Just War tradition have ranged from Greek philosophers to Roman statesmen and from Catholic theologians to secular jurists.  For theologians, the justifications for war are drawn from Old and New Testament texts as well as patristic, medieval, and early modern Christian writings.  When Augustine, Aquinas, and others looked to the Gospels for insight on how to approach the subject of war, they inevitably pointed to the same few examples: John the Baptist’s advice to soldiers (Luke 3:14), Jesus’ praise for the centurion (Matt 8:10/Luke 7:9), the “two swords” passage (Luke 22:38), and the brief but violent clash during Jesus’ arrest (Matt 26:52/Mark 14:48/Luke 22:49-51/John 18:10-11).  These instances provide a starting point for contemplating scriptural understanding of soldiering, violence, and war.  But how can we reconcile Jesus’ dominant messages of love and peace with tangential instances that seem to justify the profession of arms or the right to wield weapons in self-defense?  This presentation will critique the interpretation of key Gospel passages from a Just War Theory perspective, and address how Just War Theory looks to the Gospels for guidance.

7:30–8:30 pm

Keynote Lecture   Bartley Hall – PWC Auditorium