Difference between revisions of "Twelfth Enoch Seminar (2023 online), conference"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
2. Kelley Coblentz Bautch, St. Edward's University, USA (*) | 2. Kelley Coblentz Bautch, St. Edward's University, USA (*) | ||
3. Gabriele Boccaccini, University of Michigan, USA | 3. Gabriele Boccaccini, University of Michigan, USA | ||
* "Paul and Enoch: A Direct Connection?" | |||
4. Arjen Bakker, University of Groningen, NL (*) | 4. Arjen Bakker, University of Groningen, NL (*) | ||
| Line 52: | Line 53: | ||
7. Fiodar Litvinau, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany (*) | 7. Fiodar Litvinau, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany (*) | ||
* "Reception of Hellenistic Traditions in Jewish Pseudepigrapha: Examples from 1 Enoch 69:8 and Apocalypse of Abraham 5" (Litvinau) -- The paper will explore the reception of the Greek mythological traditions in the Jewish pseudepigraphic compositions using the examples of 1 En. 69:8 and Apoc. Ab. 5. The first example, 1 En. 69:8 contains a tradition according to which the angel Penemue taught humans how to write. The composition, surprisingly, regards it critically, similarly to the negative attitude to the invention of the alphabet in the myth preserved in Plato, Phaedrus 274c–275b. The second example is found in the story of burning of the image of god Barisat in Apoc. Ab. 5, which appears to be reworked version of the Greek anecdote, connected with the figure of Diagoras (and other philosophers), who burned the image of Heracles in order to cook a meal. The paper will explore the process of appropriation and application of the Hellenistic traditions in a new context, focusing on the transformations and theological interests of the Jewish writers of the Second Temple Period. | |||
8. Mark Leuchter, Temple University, PA, USA (*) | 8. Mark Leuchter, Temple University, PA, USA (*) | ||
| Line 72: | Line 74: | ||
17. Elena Dugan, Phillips Academy Andover, USA (*) | 17. Elena Dugan, Phillips Academy Andover, USA (*) | ||
* New Philology and the Discovery of New Works: Enoch in the First-Century CE | * New Philology and the Discovery of New Works: Enoch in the First-Century CE" (Dugan) -- Scholars working on fragmentary, damaged, or incomplete manuscripts are often bound to perform some degree of restoration—but how much? And to which imagined ‘whole’ do we affix our fragments? This talk will explore 1 Enoch as an exploration into how New/Material Philology can illuminate negative space in our archive of ancient literature. New Philology can guide scholars towards new clarity in describing and accounting for what is present in our manuscripts, and even more crucially, what is not. By not assuming an absolute presence of a certain work in every document, we can let attention to the phenomenon of absence open the way to newly dynamic stories of the evolution and development of ancient literature. In this case, new recognition of patterns of absence from our earliest manuscripts will clear the way for a new hypothesis: the re-dating of a crucial part of 1 Enoch to the heady early days of the first Jewish Revolt, and the tumultuous environs of the first-century CE. | ||
18. Philip Esler, University of Gloucestershire, UK (*) | 18. Philip Esler, University of Gloucestershire, UK (*) | ||
| Line 83: | Line 84: | ||
21. Daniele Minisini, University of Rome, Italy (*) | 21. Daniele Minisini, University of Rome, Italy (*) | ||
22. Ariel Feldman, Brite Divinity School. (*) “Noah’s Flood as Purifying Bath in 1 Enoch and Other Early Jewish | 22. Ariel Feldman, Brite Divinity School. (*) | ||
* “Noah’s Flood as Purifying Bath in 1 Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts” (Feldman). | |||
23. Michael Langlois | 23. Michael Langlois | ||
| Line 96: | Line 98: | ||
28. Ralph Lee | 28. Ralph Lee | ||
* Christian Commentary on 1Enoch: The Gunda Gunde Commentary ( | * "Christian Commentary on 1Enoch: The Gunda Gunde Commentary" (Lee) -- This paper seeks to develop our understanding of 1Enoch and its Christian commentary developed in Ethiopia. Although there no known sources of great antiquity, the manuscript evidence shows that reflection on 1Enoch had developed well by the 16th century, although the commentary focusses on certain portions of the book: the Book of Watchers, sections from the Book of Parables, the Astronomical Book, some sections of the Book of Dreams, and the Apocalypse of Weeks. Very significant in the extant Gǝʿǝz commentary is that found in the monastery of Gunda Gunde in two 16th century manuscripts. This commentary again only comments on portions of the text, very briefly and in four sections, which match well the commentary found throughout the extant literature. As the only known commentary on 1Enoch as a whole this commentary represents an important summary of how 1Enoch was used as part of the corpus of books in the EOTC. This paper seeks to explore in detail aspects of this commentary on the four ‘visions’ that are in , 1Enoch 1:3-11:2; 39:3-53:1; 70:1-70:3; and 82:4-91:16, seeking to understand the way in which 1Enoch is used in relation to other literature in Ethiopia’s biblical corpus. | ||
29. Anne Kreps | 29. Anne Kreps | ||
Revision as of 07:38, 21 October 2022
TITLE (tentative): "Enoch Studies in the 2020s"
FORMAT: online
DATE: June 19-22, 2023
DESCRIPTION: The conference will focus on the work of scholars who have done new work on 1 Enoch. In other words, after an opening session in which we should grant a second round of "Enoch Seminar Life Achievement Awards", we will devote one hour to the work of each scholars, witha 15-20 min presentation followed by a panel of 2-3 respondents plenty of time for discussion. At the end we conclude with a wrap-up session.
Schedule (EST Time)
Day 1
9am-11am Opening Session
11:30am-1:30pm
2:30-4:30pm
or 9:15-10:30 -- 10:45-12 // 2:00-3:15 -- 3:30-4:45
Day 2
9am-11am
11:30am-1:30pm
2:30-4:30pm
Day 3
9am-11am
11:30am-1:30pm
2:30-4:30pm -- Wrap-up session
Participants
Confirmed speakers
1. Loren Stuckenbruck, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany (*)
2. Kelley Coblentz Bautch, St. Edward's University, USA (*)
3. Gabriele Boccaccini, University of Michigan, USA
- "Paul and Enoch: A Direct Connection?"
4. Arjen Bakker, University of Groningen, NL (*)
5. Daniel Schumann, University of Tuebingen, Germany (*)
6. Logan Williams, University of Exeter, UK (*)
7. Fiodar Litvinau, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany (*)
- "Reception of Hellenistic Traditions in Jewish Pseudepigrapha: Examples from 1 Enoch 69:8 and Apocalypse of Abraham 5" (Litvinau) -- The paper will explore the reception of the Greek mythological traditions in the Jewish pseudepigraphic compositions using the examples of 1 En. 69:8 and Apoc. Ab. 5. The first example, 1 En. 69:8 contains a tradition according to which the angel Penemue taught humans how to write. The composition, surprisingly, regards it critically, similarly to the negative attitude to the invention of the alphabet in the myth preserved in Plato, Phaedrus 274c–275b. The second example is found in the story of burning of the image of god Barisat in Apoc. Ab. 5, which appears to be reworked version of the Greek anecdote, connected with the figure of Diagoras (and other philosophers), who burned the image of Heracles in order to cook a meal. The paper will explore the process of appropriation and application of the Hellenistic traditions in a new context, focusing on the transformations and theological interests of the Jewish writers of the Second Temple Period.
8. Mark Leuchter, Temple University, PA, USA (*)
9. Henryk Drawnel, University of Lublin, Poland (*) hdrawnel@yahoo.com
10. Jonathan Ben-Dov, Tel-Aviv University, Israel (*)
11. Joshua Scott
12. Ruben Bühner, University of Tuebingen, Germany (*) <r.buehner@uni-tuebingen.de>
13. Jolyon Pruszinski, Princeton University, USA (*) <jolyonp@princeton.edu> <jolyon.pruszinski@gmail.com>
14. Alexander McCarron (*)
15. Dan Machiela, University of Notre Dame, USA (*)
16. Mjriam Bokhorst, University of Halle, Germany (*)
17. Elena Dugan, Phillips Academy Andover, USA (*)
- New Philology and the Discovery of New Works: Enoch in the First-Century CE" (Dugan) -- Scholars working on fragmentary, damaged, or incomplete manuscripts are often bound to perform some degree of restoration—but how much? And to which imagined ‘whole’ do we affix our fragments? This talk will explore 1 Enoch as an exploration into how New/Material Philology can illuminate negative space in our archive of ancient literature. New Philology can guide scholars towards new clarity in describing and accounting for what is present in our manuscripts, and even more crucially, what is not. By not assuming an absolute presence of a certain work in every document, we can let attention to the phenomenon of absence open the way to newly dynamic stories of the evolution and development of ancient literature. In this case, new recognition of patterns of absence from our earliest manuscripts will clear the way for a new hypothesis: the re-dating of a crucial part of 1 Enoch to the heady early days of the first Jewish Revolt, and the tumultuous environs of the first-century CE.
18. Philip Esler, University of Gloucestershire, UK (*)
19. Ariel Hessayon, University of London, UK (*)
20. Helen Jacobus, University of Manchester, UK (*)
21. Daniele Minisini, University of Rome, Italy (*)
22. Ariel Feldman, Brite Divinity School. (*)
- “Noah’s Flood as Purifying Bath in 1 Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts” (Feldman).
23. Michael Langlois
24. Daniel Assefa
25. Ida Froelich
26. Matthew Goff
27. Archie Wright
28. Ralph Lee
- "Christian Commentary on 1Enoch: The Gunda Gunde Commentary" (Lee) -- This paper seeks to develop our understanding of 1Enoch and its Christian commentary developed in Ethiopia. Although there no known sources of great antiquity, the manuscript evidence shows that reflection on 1Enoch had developed well by the 16th century, although the commentary focusses on certain portions of the book: the Book of Watchers, sections from the Book of Parables, the Astronomical Book, some sections of the Book of Dreams, and the Apocalypse of Weeks. Very significant in the extant Gǝʿǝz commentary is that found in the monastery of Gunda Gunde in two 16th century manuscripts. This commentary again only comments on portions of the text, very briefly and in four sections, which match well the commentary found throughout the extant literature. As the only known commentary on 1Enoch as a whole this commentary represents an important summary of how 1Enoch was used as part of the corpus of books in the EOTC. This paper seeks to explore in detail aspects of this commentary on the four ‘visions’ that are in , 1Enoch 1:3-11:2; 39:3-53:1; 70:1-70:3; and 82:4-91:16, seeking to understand the way in which 1Enoch is used in relation to other literature in Ethiopia’s biblical corpus.
29. Anne Kreps
Confirmed participants
- Daniel Assefa
- Kenneth Atkinson
- Al Baumgarten
- Gabriele Boccaccini
- Kelly Coblentz Bautch
- John Collins
- Paula Fredriksen
- David Hamidovic
- Angela Harkins
- Michael Langlois
- Jim McGrath
- Hindy Najman
- Adele Reinhartz