James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Friday, February 13, 2009

Badiou and the Incident at Antioch: Glasgow

I'm off to this and I may blog on it:

Paul, Political Fidelity and the Philosophy of Alain Badiou: a
Discussion of Incident at Antioch.

13th and 14th February 2009, University of Glasgow


----------------------------

13th February, 2009 (Western Infirmary Lecture Theatre)

14.30-16.00
Reading of Selections from Alain Badiou’s Incident at Antioch

----

16.00-16.30 Break

----

16.30-18.00
Interview with Alain Badiou
Ward Blanton (University of Glasgow) and Susan Spitzer (Los Angeles)

18.00-19.15 Reception

----------------------------

14th February, 2009 (Wolfson Medical School, Seminar Room 1)

10-11.15
The Use of Forcing: Badiou, Paul and Messianism
Kenneth Reinhard (University of California, Los Angeles)

11.30-12.45
Paul, Badiou and the Event as Gift
John Barclay (University of Durham)

----

13-14.30 Lunch

----

14.30-15.30
Ernst Bloch and Aristotle’s dynámei ón: Not-Yetness, Hope and the
Promise of the Universal
Peter Thompson (University of Sheffield, Ernst Bloch Centre)

15.45-16.45
Theatre and Politics, Althusser to Badiou
Patrick Lyons (University of Glasgow)

17-18.10
Response & Invitation to Open Discussion
Johan Van der Walt (University of Glasgow, School of Law)


I now of course expect at least 100 comments. How could there not on such a topic?

9 Comments:

Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

It never happened.

February 13, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Pre 70 there was no mission to Gentiles. Reference to such in the Gospels, Acts and the pauline epistles is all superimposed, as is reference to Jesus and Pharisees. The NT should be viewed entirely in a Jewish context.

On page 133 of his book Why Christianity Happened, James makes this observation: "This sustained and dense use of bread and bread-related language in Mark 6:30-8:21 is hardly likely to be coincidental." Yet James has no answer to these coincidences. So do we have something more original in the text here that was of vital importance to our understanding of what was going on with the prophet in the context of first century Judaism? Is it a clue to the answer to those "eating" issues that the prophet is questioned about? It seems that it was not to do with eating with unclean hands, it was more a question of WHAT the prophet and his fellows were eating or rather what they were NOT eating. They were eating bread because they were vegetarian and they did not eat meat that had come from animal sacrifices. And the reason they did not eat such meat was because they rejected animal sacrifices.

February 14, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

So now you know why there were two fish. Obviously they had a fish pond in the temple.

February 14, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Also on page 133 of Why Christianity Happened, James refers to "the clueless disciples' wondering about the significance of bread." (Mk.8:16-21). The story makes them appear clueless, but in reality, they knew what the game was alright. Eating bread, and not eating meat from animal sacrifices, showed where their allegiance lay, and it wasn't with the priests and the temple cult of animal sacrifices.

February 14, 2009

 
Anonymous roland said...

James, stop pretending you are Geoff Hudson!

February 15, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Galatians was originally a letter written by James from Rome to Judeans. James had come to Rome 14 years previously (Gal.2:1). He had been proclaiming the Spirit in Rome for 14 years to Jewish brothers. So it wasn't the fictitious Peter who came to Antioch (Gal.2::11), it was the real Ananus, the high priest and destroyer of James who came to Rome. James opposed him to his face. (Gal.2:11). And I suggest that James said to Ananus in front of all the brothers (i.e. Jewish brothers) to the effect, "a man is not cleansed by sacrifice, but by obedience in the Spirit." (propagandistically inverted to form the extant text of Gal.2:16).

I further suggest that James would have written: "You foolish Judeans, Ananus has bewitched you. Have you suffered so much for nothing -- if it really was for nothing? I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you RECEIVE THE SPIRIT by sacrifices, or by obeying the Spirit you heard? Are you so foolish? After receiving THE SPIRIT, are you now trying to attain your cleansing by sacrifice? DOES GOD GIVE YOU HIS SPIRIT because you sacrifice, or because you obey the Spirit you heard?

The text in capitals is explicit.
It wasn't a question of "what" (in the extant text) they had "heard", it was a matter of who they had heard - God in the Spirit.

Here endeth the first lesson.

February 15, 2009

 
Blogger andrewbourne said...

James could you give us an account of the conference when you get back. Also I know I have not been in touch re meeting up but life has been a little bit hectic at present. I am interested in doing my MA Dissertation on `Paul in an age of terror` putting paul in the 21st situation, also have you seen The Busybody blog re `Jesus in an Age of Terror`. I believe we both read a different book Best wishes from Castleford

February 15, 2009

 
Blogger James Crossley said...

There you go Andrew... And come by anytime to discuss that topic: sounds well worth it!

Roland, it's the only way I can admit I got it all wrong.

February 15, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Hopefully, James, you'll have plenty of time to correct all your mistakes.

February 15, 2009

 

Post a Comment

<< Home