St Andrews Son of God Symposium – Summary Day 2

Day two of the St Andrews Symposium started with a bang, as Michael Peppard presented a strong argument for the need of Christological research to engage with the pervasive imperial cult, rather than merely focusing on the Jewish origins. To put Peppard’s perspective on the imperial cult in his own words it is “not looking under every rock for Imperial ideology but acknowledging that on thousands of rocks the imperial cult is already found….” [through inscriptions]

This second day focused more on parallel sessions, rather than plenaries, with some interesting papers from David Moffitt on parallels to Sonship Christology in Hebrews 1-2 (leveraging Umberto Eco); Mateusz Kusio on divine fictive kinship in Hebrews; David Ritsema on Jewish Divine Messiah expectations and their parallels in John’s Gospel and finally Daniel McClellan on Cognitive theories of Divine Agency (taking an internalist cognitive approach from Cognitive Models of Religion)

Matthew Novenson gave our second plenary for the day on the topic of Sonship and the Messiah, highlighting the breadth of Messiahs who are not the Son of God, and Sons of God who are not Messiahs (presumably some in the former category are merely very naughty boys). Novenson’s overview of the interaction of messianic expectation and patronymics is an area that should be engaged with further.

The second parallel sessions engaged with aspects of Christology and Early Christian Origins. Stefan Mulder presented a heuristic model for describing Docetism in the ancient world (a very good descriptive model); Mina Monier presented on the Christology present within the Epistle of Barnabas; Tavis Bohlinger presented on Messianism in Pseudo-Philo, and I presented on Christological Salience in the First Century.

The second day finished with a lovely string quartet concert headed by the multi-talented Madhavi Nevader, and then dinner at a local pub with plenty of stimulating and erudite conversation. Here is to another good day.

13332878_10154064909870944_1863703367249967073_n

Comments

  1. […] Last month I presented a paper at the St. Andrews Biblical Studies Symposium, which was about Divine Sonship. Lectures and papers surveyed the concept of the Son of God in Jewish tradition, from OT to 2nd Temple literature and the possible influence from Near Eastern traditions. By the end of the conference it was quite clear that the Christology of early Christians and the idea of Jesus’ divine sonship cannot be easily pinned down in a Messianic form here or there. This is not new to anyone searching for an answer to this phenomenon. However, one single paper was different:  Prof. Michael Peppard of Fordham University offered a different route: searching in the imperial cult for an answer to the complexity of Christian eschatology. Peppard’s dissertation was already focusing on the matter. This route is by no means new but it is certainly one of the promising routes that have not been followed properly yet.  It was obvious that Peppard’s proposal to look at the Imperial Cult provides relevant answers to important questions on Christology more than other Jewish texts.  By the end of his lecture, the response of the addressees reflected the curiosity and, sometimes, uneasiness of looking “outside” Judaism. Peppard concluded his answers by saying that we don’t need a Greco-Roman ideology commentary on the NT and that we are ““not looking under every rock for Imperial ideology but acknowledging that on thousands of rocks the imperial cult is already found….” [see more here]. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *