BNTC Jesus Seminar
I've just found out that Mark Goodacre has updated the BNTC seminar pages. Firstly, thanks to Mark for this, esp. as he won't even be at the BNTC.
Here's the Jesus seminar list (abstracts found here):
Maurice Casey, 'The Solution to the Son of Man Problem'
Andy Angel, 'Like a bad penny - the son of man, again!'
Rafael Rodriguez, 'Discoursing Jesus: Memorializing the Healings of the Historical Jesus'
Maurice Casey's paper is a continuation or perhaps even completion of his work on son of man over the past 30 years or so. The basic idea is that the Aramaic idiom can be used with a general level of meaning with particular reference to the speaker.
Andy Angel learned Aramaic under Maurice Casey in a class of 2 (I was the other one) so this should be a very interesting, if not incestuous session. Andy Angel did his PhD on all sorts of weird and wonderful monsters and the Chaoskampf motif in Second Temple Judaism. He takes a different approach to Maurice Casey arguing that if the Aramaic idiom was present it would have been translated by a different and available phrase from 'Semitic Greek'. Consequently, he argues, the gospel idiom would have referred to specific individual.
Rafael Rodriguez is a PhD student at Sheffield with particular interest in historical Jesus studies and theories of memory and reputation. He argues material that may well have been added by earliest Christians and gospel writers is not useless in reconstructing the historical Jesus. On the contrary, memory can also provide some key insights. There are some interesting connections here with Dunn's recent book on Jesus.
I have not really done justice to the papers so, again, look at the abstracts.
There is also one paper in the Synoptics seminar which is of particular interest to me:
Kenneth A. Olson, You Who Would Destroy the Temple
The use of dramatic irony elsewhere in Mark's gospel, and particularly in the sayings of Jesus' opponents in the passion narrative, suggests that the repeated accusations that Jesus said he would destroy the temple (Mk. 14.58, 15.29) were composed after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. All of the accusations and taunts that Jesus' opponents bring against him in the trial and crucifixion scenes are true, not in the way that the opponents intend, but in ways the Christian audience of the gospel is meant to understand. This implies that author of the gospel knew that the temple had been destroyed at the time he wrote and expected his audience to know it as well.
I have made some comments on this material and obviously I would take a different approach. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of the paper or something.