Monday, June 22, 2015

Review of Paul within Judaism


Nanos, Mark D. and Magnus Zetterholm, editors. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. x + 350 pp. £25.99 (paperback), ISBN 978-1451470031.

What happens if interpreters do not assume that Paul left Judaism for Christianity? In the wake of the last thirty years of NT scholarship that focused on a more historically accurate understanding of Jewish patterns of life in the first century, Pauline scholars specifically have made steps forward in recovering a more contextually appropriate apostle Paul. However, many scholars do not think that these new insights have been taken far enough, and several of these are included in this crucial collection on Paul’s context. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm have brought together several leading voices challenging interpreters to move beyond the well-worn terrain of both the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Perspective on Paul. There is no one clear label for the views represented here. Sometimes called the Radical Perspective on Paul, Beyond the New Perspective on Paul, or the Re-newed Perspective on Paul, scholars read Paul within second Temple Judaism in such diverse ways that some have simply given up on a label that could encompass them all. Nanos suggests ‘Paul within Judaism perspective’ as a workable title for this group (2).
The collection of essays, each structured around a different crucial research question, opens with an introduction written by Mark D. Nanos. In it, he describes the goal of these essays, many of which originated in the ‘Paul and Judaism’ section of the Society of Biblical Literature: ‘to interpret Paul within his most probable first-century context’ (2). He highlights the way this interpretative paradigm differs from existing perspectives and then provides a detailed summary of each of the chapters in the book.
Chapter 1, written by Magnus Zetterholm, provides an apt survey of the state of the question with regard to Paul within Judaism. He first highlights the all-too-close relationship between NT studies and theological normativity. This connection reinforces the binary relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the traditional Paul-against-Judaism framework. Zetterholm’s purpose in this chapter is to explain why this binary relationship is mistaken and what has caused NT scholars to be influenced by it. He traces an incipient anti-Judaism from the original intra-Jewish polemic in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, to Ignatius and Justin, then to Augustine and Luther, and through to the Tübingen school whose discourse mixed with contemporaneous geo-political discourses that resulted in a Western orientation of opposition to Jews and Judaism. E.P. Sanders brought about a change in the traditional reception of Paul by going back to the Jewish sources. This was followed up by James D.G. Dunn and extended by several other contemporary scholars, one of the most important being William S. Campbell (2013). Zetterholm concludes the chapter with a discussion of Christianity as a third race. This view is one of the foundational elements of the traditional understanding of Paul as against Judaism, and Zetterholm offers several ideas in this section as ways forward for rediscovering a more historically-situated Paul, one who thought ‘he represented the perfection of Judaism’ such that ‘Jewish identity’ was not problematic for the movement (51, emphasis original).
Anders Runesson, in chapter 2, contends that existing scholarship has not attended closely enough to the terminology used to describe the earliest Christ-movement. His concerns relate primarily to the terms ‘Christians’, ‘Christianity’, and ‘church’. He sees these as anachronistic and too ideologically laden to be of much heuristic value. Furthermore, they reinforce a binary relationship with ‘Jews’, ‘Judaism’, and the ‘synagogue’ (54-55). This is not merely an esoteric, methodological discussion but one that, according to Runesson, influences the scholar’s ability to conceive of different categories or schemas: ‘the words we use tend to control the way we think’ (57). Runesson, along with Nanos, suggests ‘Apostolic Judaism’ as a more proper term to describe this alternative vision of Judaism followed by those for whom Jesus is ‘a central figure in their symbolic universe’ and ‘a key for the interpretation of what it meant for them to adhere to Judaism’ (67-68). In a similar fashion, ‘church’ is deemed problematic. Runesson, rightly I think, points out that ekklēsia could refer to various ‘synagogue institutions’, and to translate it as ‘church’ implicitly argues for an early parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. Ekklēsia was, rather, Jewish sacred (and institutional) space (69 n. 32). Runesson, in many ways, sees problems similar to those brought to the fore in Zetterholm’s chapter, those related to the contemporary context. The terms he critiques reinforce separate identities and non-overlapping institutional settings; however, these same terms did not have such implications in the first century. If interpreters follow Runesson’s suggestion they open the possibility ‘to understand Paul as practicing and proclaiming a minority form of Judaism that existed in the first century’ (77).
Chapter 3, written by Karin Hedner Zetterholm, addresses the all-too-often misunderstood category of Torah observance in the first century. Hedner Zetterholm rightly notes that the idea that Paul continued to be Torah observant is a hallmark of the Paul-within-Judaism paradigm and rejected by the traditional perspective on Paul. However, she points out that what is needed on both sides of this debate is ‘a more nuanced’ understanding of ‘what it meant to be a Torah observant Jew in the first century’ (80). Halakic debates were an integral part of first century Jewish life since the general nature of biblical commandments required situationally specific interpretations and applications (cf. debates concerning work on the Sabbath, Exod. 20:8-11; m. Shabb. 7:2). Hedner Zetterholm further points out that we actually know very little about the nature of ‘halakic observance in the first century’ (91). Thus, it is rather difficult to determine what was considered a violation and what was acceptable. She highlights Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and brings it into dialogue with Avodah Zarah in order to determine if this is a good example of ‘Jewish Diaspora halakah for Jesus-oriented gentiles’ rather than a violation of Jewish law (92).  By highlighting attitude and intention, Hedner Zetterholm places Paul well within the ongoing debates among Jews dealing with how to balance living among the nations whilst seeking to follow Jewish law in the context of ‘theological and ethical general principles’ (103).
Mark D. Nanos wrestles with the difficult question of Paul and circumcision. He provides interpretive insights through his understanding of Josephus’s portrayal of King Izates and his advisors’ direction concerning his situationally-specific non-circumcision (see Jos. Ant. 20). Nanos contends that Paul’s rhetoric concerning circumcision, faith, and works should likewise be treated as situationally-specific and not extrapolated out for Jewish Christ-followers or even other non-Jewish Christ-followers in different circumstances. Nanos, further, addresses the longstanding debate concerning the ‘works of the law’. He offers a new way forward suggesting the phrase refers to the works associated with proselyte conversion. In many ways, he narrows the focus to circumcision. Also, this chapter provides further terminological nuances crucial for those seeking to understand Paul within Judaism, especially as related to these very Jewish-acting non-Jews (135). Nanos’s voice has been influential in much of these debates, and that is evident throughout this collection of essays. His nuanced arguments warrant extensive engagement by traditional Pauline scholars.
Chapter 5, written by Caroline Johnson Hodge, discusses the crucial issue of the transformation of gentile identity within the Pauline communities and the way these ‘gentiles-in-Christ’ relate to Israel without becoming Jews (153). She begins by discussing the liminal existence of these in-Christ non-Jews and makes some connections with previous Jewish authors who describe a group of non-Jewish sympathizers, those who lived among Jews but did not convert. Whether these are best described as righteous gentiles or god-fearers, Johnson Hodge has already alerted us to the way a group could be described and uniquely identified within the broader Jewish community. However, the traditional way of understanding ethnē is problematic for Johnson Hodge. These atypical gentiles are in-between in terms of their identity, a sort of hybrid that Paul seems to negotiate through his writings, including them as the seed of Abraham. The imposition of hybridity has been rightly challenged by Kathy Ehrensperger (2013), but Johnson Hodge has alerted interpreters to the problems associated with Paul’s formation of gentiles-in-Christ, though her argument crucially keeps his identity work well within the bounds of Judaism as part of Israel’s continuing story (167).
Chapter 6, written by Paula Fredriksen, takes on the critical question of worship and the conceptions of ritual life that differed between Jews and non-Jews. Paul calls gentiles to cease engaging in the cultic expressions of provincial civic life. Since this was not a requirement for gentile sympathizers to Judaism prior to this time, why the change? For Fredriksen, it was because of Paul’s eschatology and the role the nations played in the redemption of Israel (187). Thus, Jewish restoration theology was constitutive in the formation of ethnē identity in Christ. They enter the kingdom as ethnē and not as Jews; thus the culturally accepted connection between ‘ethnicity and cult’ was ‘severed’ (188, emphasis original). For the social crisis thus created, Paul offers a very Jewish understanding of dikaiosynē ek pisteōs (RSV: justification by faith) that Fredriksen, building on the Law’s Second Table, describes as ‘right behavior according to the Law on account of steadfast attachment to the gospel’ (194). This provides these ethnē who have believed the gospel with a way to express their newfound pistis/fides (steadfastness, conviction, or loyalty; 193). She concludes the chapter with a reading of ‘all Israel’ in Romans 11:25-26 and contends that existing identities continue to be salient in what Fredriksen describes as ‘God’s universalism’ which ‘is a very Jewish universalism’. The details of her reading aside, she has provided a strong set of arguments for the eschatological continuation of existing identities in God’s ‘particular universalism’ (198).
Neil Elliott, in chapter 7, addresses the question of politics and situates Paul as a Diaspora Jew under the Roman empire. For Elliott, the traditional readings of Paul are labelled ‘Christianizing’ interpretations in which Judaism may serve as a background for Paul but his revelation of Jesus serves as his foreground (204). These are evident in the work of Malina and Pilch, Frey, and Barclay who all receive significant critique (his engagement with Barclay is particularly noteworthy). One of the keen insights from Elliott is that ultimately Christianizing interpreters resist political readings of Paul because they align him too closely with his Jewish identity (242). At a more fundamental level, Elliott thinks that a prior commitment to essentialism has led interpreters astray when it comes to understanding Paul within Judaism. When this misguided framework is set aside and a more complex, embodied Diaspora Jewish identity under the Roman empire is allowed to emerge, Paul is no longer seen as an anomalous Jew but as one among other Jews negotiating local expressions of Roman culture and ideology through his writings to his anxious in-Christ non-Jews (236). 
Kathy Ehrensperger addresses the question of gender and relocates Paul in relation to Judaism in chapter 8. She argues that Paul’s instructions concerning women in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 presuppose an institutional setting similar to the mixed gender synagogues. Further, Paul’s teaching coheres closely with what some think may be discerned concerning Pharisaic halakah in t. Demai 2:16-17. In this way, Ehrensperger and Hedner Zetterholm’s reading of 1 Corinthians reveals a halakically oriented teacher of non-Jews. With regard to a gender-sensitive reading of Paul, Ehrensperger contends that feminist scholars have not paid enough attention to the implications of seeing Paul within Judaism. Rather, these scholars tend to uncritically follow male-stream interpreters relying on problematic notions such as Hellenistic Judaism and universalism. She brings out the idea that if Paul thought existing ethnic identities were erased in Christ, then the same logic would apply to gender identities. This conclusion would be untenable for feminist scholars, and thus Ehrensperger contends that those approaching the text within this hermeneutical frame could benefit from relocating Paul as one who envisions the continuation of difference in the midst of the unity of Israel and the nations.
Chapter 9 provides a substantial response by Terence Donaldson who has identified quite closely with the New Perspective on Paul. He offers two primary critiques of the authors. First, Donaldson thinks there is an over-reliance on Jewish restoration theology with regard to the inclusion of non-Jews within Judaism. Second, he is not convinced by the various proposals that have been put forth concerning the liminal or anomalous nature of non-Jewish identity, the ‘ethnē-in-Christ’, especially as it relates to the social implications of describing them as ‘the seed of Abraham’, since, Donaldson notes, Paul in other places actually blurs the distinction between Jews and the ethnē in his argument (298; cf. Rom. 3:21; 10:12; Gal. 3:28; but see Campbell 2014: 74, 99). Donaldson’s concerns, though somewhat overgeneralized, are well taken. The real question here, as noted by Campbell, is why does Paul feel the need to make in-Christ gentiles the seed of Abraham? Donaldson’s thoughtful response provides several areas for further research for those engaged in this area of study and several cautions for those reading Paul within Judaism.
Nanos and Zetterholm are to be commended for bringing together such a collection. This highly recommended work represents an important step forward in repositioning Paul within Judaism. It is not the last word, especially as it relates to the role of Jewish restoration theology and the implications of the seed of Abraham, but it raises questions that will require engagement from traditional interpreters of Paul. A number of these essays came into the collection as conference papers, a format that does not allow for the extended exegetical engagement needed to dislodge some of the existing perspectives, so further clarification is still needed. For identity and ethnicity issues, the T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament provides more resources. Several of the Pauline letter entries there are written from a non-supersessionist point of view and thus align quite nicely with the volume under review. Further discussion on these important issues will go forward from here, but these debates remind us that foundational difficulties often arise because our questions and Paul’s questions are not the same.
Campbell, William S. 2014. Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context. Eugene, OR: Cascade.
Ehrensperger, Kathy. 2013. Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between. London: T & T Clark.

Tucker, J. Brian, and Coleman A. Baker, editors. 2014. T & T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. London: T & T Clark/Bloomsbury. 

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

2015 IBR Identity Formation in the Pauline Letters Call for Papers

Call for Papers for our Friday November 20, 2015 research group meeting in Atlanta meeting in conjunction with the 2015 SBLAAR Annual Meeting. Our session is entitled: “Cultural Anthropology and Identity in Paul’s Letters.” Our Research Group welcomes proposals dealing with the way the use of cultural anthropological theories have been used in order to research Paul’s identity-forming work. Papers may address specific reading strategies such as limited good or broader evaluations of movements such as the Context Group. Alternatively, new applications of contemporary cultural anthropological theories to the Pauline discourse are welcome. Those interested in participating in that should contact the co-conveners for further information: J. Brian Tucker and Jim Miller

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

IBR and SBL Sessions Reviewing The T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament

The T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament will be reviewed in two different sessions this week. Here is the list and the presenters.

Review of Trebilco's Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament

Trebilco, Paul R. Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. xii + 375 pp. £60.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-1107012998.

            Paul Trebilco, Professor of New Testament at the University of Otago in New Zealand, explores the source, use, and purpose of seven self-designations found in the NT: brothers and sisters, believers, saints, the assembly, disciples, the Way, and Christians. This densely argued monograph brings together classical lexical methods and sociolinguistics in order to determine the way these terms were used to form group identity in their recipients. Trebilco allows each section of the NT to speak on its own terms and does not downplay the diversity of the authors; rather, distinct theological emphases are acknowledged. Furthermore, the asymmetrical influence of Israel’s scriptures and, in other cases, the Greek and/or Roman context, are drawn upon by Trebilco for their heuristic values. This results in a study that provides ample textual evidence for addressing the way naming and labelling in the NT contributed to the formation of group identity among the earliest Christ-followers.
The introduction situates Trebilco’s study by noting his interest in two questions: What would Christians have called each other? And how did the various NT authors refer to these individuals in their writings? Thus, throughout the study, Trebilco focuses on both self-designations and labels as a way to distinguish answers to these two questions. He notes that, surprisingly, no full-length monograph has been written on the topic of self-designations in the NT; thus, his work commendably fills this gap. From a methodological standpoint, Trebilco draws on social-scientific insights about the way naming forms identity and about the role that social dialects play in the maintenance of this identity. Here he recognizes the performative nature of identity and the particular significance of insider and outsider discourse in its construction. Trebilco’s contribution to the study of labelling and identity formation is his helpful three-fold distinction between: (1) ‘insider language for self-designation’, (2) ‘outward-facing self-designations’, and (3) ‘outsider-used designations’ (10). These categorizations provide much needed precision in the discussion of group labels in early Christian origins, though the way one determines which category is being used remains an open question. Challenges to Trebilco’s approach that might have been addressed in the introduction include the following two: (1) several scholars doubt that language can form identity to the extent that Trebilco contends (e.g. Holmberg 2008); and (2) a number of scholars doubt if one could claim extensive use of any label by the Christ-movement(s) at this early stage (e.g. Campbell 2008).
Chapter 2 provides a study of ‘brothers and sisters’ (adelphoi). Trebilco begins by surveying the use of this term in the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish literature and concludes that it referred to fellow Israelites. In these contexts as well as in the ‘Greco-Roman’ context, when members of a voluntary association referred to each other, this term could be used metaphorically to cover all ingroup members. Paul, in close continuity with its use in Israel’s scriptures, uses this term as insider language, central to his construction of group boundaries. Trebilco finds no evidence that this term was used for outsiders, though he does conclude that it ‘goes back to the earliest periods’ of the movement and was ‘the most common…designation for Christians in the NT’ (45, 65). Two further comments are in order. First, Trebilco correctly recognizes, I think, that this term cannot be used to support the idea of a radically egalitarian community. Second, because of the use of kinship discourse in Roman imperial contexts, a discussion of cultural translation might have provided further insights into Paul’s use of this group label (see Ehrensperger 2013).
Chapter 3 outlines the use and significance of the ingroup label ‘the believers’ (hoi pistoi and hoi pisteuontes) and contends that it was a term of self-reference that emphasizes faith as a key marker of early ‘Christian’ identity. Especially in Romans, Trebilco sees this label creating, for gentiles, a new boundary between insiders and outsiders, replacing circumcision (81-82). This last nuance is rather helpful since this label does not distinguish these early Christ-followers from non-Christ-believing Jews. In fact, Trebilco contends that this term originated as one of self-designation among Jewish Christ-followers under the influence of the stone discourse found in Isa 28.16. Two further observations should be noted. First, Trebilco is undoubtedly correct in his argument that believing is both something that occurs at conversion and is a component of new life in Christ. Second, it may be too stark to claim that Acts 22.19 supports the idea that believing functions as a cipher for distinguishing Christ-followers from synagogue attendees (105).
Chapter 4 highlights the fascinating phrase ‘the saints’ or ‘the holy ones’ (hoi hagioi) and contends that this self-designation likely began among Jewish Christ-followers in Jerusalem as they sought to maintain their group identity within two communities. Building on Daniel 7, they aligned themselves with the eschatological covenant people Israel as well as with a more narrowly defined subgroup within Israel following the Jerusalem apostles. Trebilco understands Paul to be doing something similar with regard to this first use, but then he expands the referent to include both Jewish and gentile Christ-followers, a significant development (129, 141). This group label brings to the fore a contentious issue among scholars with regard to the way group descriptors originally applied to Israel are used in the NT to describe both in Christ Jews and gentiles (146). The use of this term with an expanded referent may still be understood as intra-muros discourse and need not imply supersessionism.    
Chapter 5 covers ‘the assembly’ (hē ekklēsia), oftentimes anachronistically translated with the English gloss ‘the church’ (164). Trebilco thinks this term goes back to the Hellenistic Jewish Christ-followers in Jerusalem and was chosen because ‘synagogue’ (synagōgē) was already widely used to describe non-Christ-believing synagogues (185, 190). In this way, ekklēsia functions as a social dialect within the movement and suggests a broad relational network, one beyond the local level (181). Two comments are particularly relevant here. First, Trebilco insightfully notes that the earliest members of the Christ-movement saw themselves simultaneously as members of an ekklēsia and a synagōgē (193). Those who argue that the use of ekklēsia indicates an early parting of the ways have overstated their case. Second, though Trebilco does sense the tension (207), a slight corrective may be in order regarding the lack of widespread dispersion of this term since it has recently been persuasively argued that Paul may use hē ekklēsia to refer specifically to the Pauline Christ-movement and not to Christ-followers in general (see Korner 2013).
Chapter 6 discusses the use of ‘disciples’ (mathētai) as a group identifier, one that is prevalent in the Gospels and then all but disappears in the rest of the NT. Building on the criteria for authenticity from historical Jesus studies, Trebilco contends that Jesus did use this term (i.e. the underlying Aramaic talmîdayyā), thus accounting for its presence in the Gospels. However, he also recognizes that this term was not used as a self-designator (226) because it was too closely associated with the historical Jesus and his itinerant ministry and did not translate into the diverse contexts of the emerging Christ-movement (230). However, the use of the term disciple does re-emerge at the time of Ignatius, who provides a model for the way a label from a previous era may be re-contextualized and re-used (mis-used?) by Christians of a later time.
Chapter 7 overviews the use of the phrase ‘the Way’ (hē hodos) as a self-designation that emerged in a Jewish context through reflection on Isa 40.3. It was an early way for members of the movement to describe themselves and other members. This term had broader use and is actually one of the few that covers all three of Trebilco’s categories (Acts 18.25-26; 24.14; 22.4). It was too imprecise, however, and thus quickly fell out of use as a continuing identifier of group identity (268).
Chapter 8 discusses the group label ‘Christian’ (christianos), one that Trebilco considers to have been an outsider-developed term imposed on the Christ-followers in Antioch (Acts 11.25-26). His case for this is based on a passive reading of ‘to be called’ (chrēmatisai). Thus the verse would be rendered, ‘the “disciples” were called “Christians” by others’ (276). The use of this term is often seen as an early indication that believers in Christ could be identified as distinct from other forms of Judaism, but Trebilco, rightly I think, rejects this assertion. There is nothing in the use of the term ‘Christian’ to indicate a correlative and not Jewish (279). First Peter 4.16 may be an indication of a development with regard to this term and may suggest that some were starting to socially identify with this originally derisive term. However, Trebilco appears on target when he points out that Christ-followers ‘would have been reluctant to use it internally’ because it did not sufficiently describe (or say enough about) their transformed identity (more on this below) (292).
The concluding chapter discusses the implications of Trebilco’s argument and provides several keen insights with regard to the social implications for the discoveries of the previous chapters. For example, he suggests that there never was simply one overarching self-designator within the Christ-movement; rather, a variety of these emerged for different contextual reasons. Thus, Trebilco and Campbell are not that far apart in their rejection of the presence of a dominant label among the earliest adherents (302). Second, the pervasive presence of social dialects was crucial to the formation of early Christ-movement identity. However, this also raises the issue of the transformation of identity in Christ, and here I would like to have seen Trebilco go a bit further. In this work, identity seemed to be a textual creation almost to the exclusion of ethnicity and social context. Jew and gentile discourse is ubiquitous and used by the NT writers in ways that cohere with all three of Trebilco’s categories. Thus, it would seem that one area of self-designation and group identity that should have received further attention is the way these writers negotiated broader ethnic and social discourses in the use of these theological indices. Hence Campbell’s reminder to NT scholars: ‘identity precedes theology and … in fact theological constructions emerge to solve the problem of identity rather than create it’ (2008: 52).
Trebilco has written an insightful and helpful monograph on one aspect of the development of Christ-movement identity, i.e. the way naming forms identity. This book deserves wide readership and engagement from NT and early Christian origins scholars. While his attention to lexicography will undoubtedly be seen as methodologically dated by some, he does provide substantial evidence upon which subsequent scholarship can build. This work is highly recommended and provides several insights into the diverse ways Christ-movement identity was formed throughout the Mediterranean basin. 


Campbell, W. S. 2008. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T & T Clark.

Ehrensperger, K. 2013. Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between. London: T & T Clark.

Holmberg, B. 2008. ‘Understanding the First Hundred Years of Christian Identity’. In Exploring Early Christian Identity, edited by B. Holmberg, 1-32. WUNT 226. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Korner, R. J. 2013. ‘Before ‘Church’: Political, Ethno-Religious, and Theological Implications of the Collective Designation of Pauline Christ-Followers as Ekklēsiai’. PhD diss., McMaster University.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Schedule for The NT and Economics Colloquium

The New Testament and Economics Colloquium, 2014
The Land Center for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Riley Center Rooms 237-39

Thursday Sept. 18:
8:00-8:30:        Breakfast
8:30-8:45:        Welcome:        Craig Blaising, Executive Vice President and Provost, Professor of Theology
8:45-9:50:        Session I:         Klaus Issler, Talbot Theological Seminary
The Diversity of Method and Presuppositions in NT Interpretation of Economic / Commercial Factors with Illustrations from Jesus Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30).
9:50-10:05:      Break
10:05-11:10:    Session II:        Jim Hernando, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary
The Economic Substructure in the Parables of Jesus: Implications and Insights.
11:10-11:25:    Break
11:25-12:30:    Session III:       Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary.
Redistribution of Wealth: A Socialist Anathema or a Biblical Fundamental?
12:30-1:30:      Lunch
1:30-2:35:        Session IV:      Ed Noell, Westmont College.
Wealth, Exchange, and the Rights of the Poor: New Testament Teaching in Light of Old Testament Conceptions and Institutions.
2:35-2:50:        Break
2:50-4:05:        Session V:        Terence Mournet, Ashland University.
Wealth in Luke/Acts in Greco-Roman Context.
4:05-4:20:        Break
4:20-5:25:        Session VI:      James R. Wicker, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
An Assarion for Your Thoughts: The Challenges of Translating NT Numismatic Terms.
5:25-6:45:        Dinner
6:45-7:50:        Session VII:      J. Brian Tucker, Moody Theological Seminary
The Jerusalem Collection, Economic Inequality, and Human Flourishing: Redistribution of Money or Relationships of Mutuality or Both?

Friday Sept. 19
8:00-8:30:        Breakfast
8:30-8:45:        Introductions and Prayer: John Taylor
8:45-9:50:        Session VIII:    David Kotter, Colorado Christian University
The Distinction between Greed and Self Interest in the Life and Letters of the Apostle Paul.
9:50-10:05:      Break
10:05-11:10:    Session IX:      John W. Taylor, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Labour of Love: The Theology  of Work in First and Second Thessalonians.
11:10-11:25:    Break
11:25-12:30:    Session X:        Tom Davis, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Business Secrets of Paul of Tarsus.
12:30-1:30:      Lunch
1:30-2:35:        Session XI:       Keith Reeves, Azusa Pacific University
Show Me the Money: Romans as a Fund-Raising Letter.
2:35-2:50:        Break
2:50-4:05:        Session XII:     Aaron Kuecker, LeTourneau University
Liturgical Economics in Philippi: Economic Practice in Union with Christ.
4:05-4:20:        Break
4:20-5:25:        Session XIII:    Round Table/Museum Visit/(Dead Sea Scrolls).

6:30                 Dinner (off campus)