Today I received the program for the conference in Aarhus, Denmark. Not until now did I find out who was going to present the other paper in textual criticism, and it was Barbara Aland. I look forward very much to this conference. I should add that the title of my paper in the program is not the real title, but a preliminary that the organizers proposed. I hope to be able to upload a preliminary version of my paper somewhere for the readers (or simply paste it into the blog without footnotes). Unfortunately, none of us has had time to get the website www.evangelicaltextualcriticism.com working.
Aarhus-Conference 2008
Mark and Matthew. Texts and Contexts I: Understanding the First Gospels in their First Century World(s)
Friday 25.7
RECONSTRUCTING THE ARTEFACTS: TEXT-CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE STUDY OF MARK AND MATTHEW
11.30-12.30 Barbara Aland
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany
“Text critical problems in Mark and Matthew. Recent developments”
14.00-15.00 Tommy Wasserman
Örebrö Theological Seminary, Sweden
“Implications of textual criticism for understanding the ‘original text’”
15.00-16.00 Stanley E. Porter
McMaster Divinity School, Canada
“Linguistics and Semantics in Mark and Matthew”
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM AND THE TRANSMISSION OF ORAL TRADITIONS (MK, MT AND THEIR SOURCES)
16.00-17.00 John Kloppenborg
University of Toronto, Canada
“The Synoptic Problem and its Implications for the Interpretation of Mark and Matthew” (With Q)
17.30-18.30 Mark Goodacre
Duke University, USA
“The Synoptic Problem and its Implications for the Interpretation of Mark and Matthew” (Without Q)
DATES, LOCATIONS, AND GENRE
18.30-19.30 Eve-Marie Becker
University of Aarhus, Denmark
“Dates: The Evidence and its Implications for the Study of Mark and Matthew”
Saturday 26.7
9.00-10.00
“Locating Mark and Matthew”
10.00-11.00 David E. Aune
University of Notre Dame, USA
“Mark and Matthew: Genre and Structure”
IDENTITY FORMATION: THE IMPACT OF MARK AND MATTHEW ON 1ST CENTURY CHRIST-BELIEVING
COMMUNITIES
11.30-12.30 Morten Hørning Jensen
University of Aarhus, Denmark
“First Century Galilee and Syria”
14.00-15.00
Sean Freyne
University of Dublin, Ireland
“Hermeneutics and historical interpretation. The Jewish context of Mark and Matthew”
15.00-16.00 Warren Carter
Brite Divinity School, USA
“Hermeneutics and historical interpretation. The Roman Imperial context”
16.30-17.30 Anders K. Petersen University of Aarhus, Denmark
“Defining Christian Culture: Mark and Matthew”
17.30-18.30 Oda Wischmeyer
Friedrich-Alexander- Universität, Germany
“Building Community Using Text: Mark”
18.30-19.30 Anders Runesson
McMaster University, Canada
“Building Community Using Text: Matthew”
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
Thanks for posting the programme, Tommy. Unfortunately, I will not be attending the conference. When invited last year, I indicated that I was not, at that point, able to commit to it. I received no reply to my last correspondence sent in May last year. Then on Monday this week I received a copy of the programme you too received and which you publish here.
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeletethat is a pity, and it surprises me a lot that you are still in the programme, probably some kind of misunderstanding.
I wonder what to do with the "without Q perspective" at the conference. In my own paper, from the text-critical perspective, the only point where I touch upon Q is the brief discussion about the Minor Agreements.
What is the difference "for the Interpretation of Mark and Matthew with or witout Q" anyway?
ReplyDeleteThe only difference would be that in the first case one has a name for the Matthean source (Q) and in the other case one has no such name.
Wieland,
ReplyDeleteBut Q (Quelle) is variously defined and understood. If the historical tradition - whether oral techings or historical events - miracles, time frames etc were understood as real by all, then the use of Q would be less problematic. The problem enters when one views the Gospel writer's narratives as something other than historic narrations and the authors themselves as something other than authors - i.e., inventors of myths, mere redactors, etc.
Malcolm
Thanks Tommy,
ReplyDeleteLooks interesting.