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

Monday, July 13, 2009

BNTC 2009

The abstracts for some of the Seminar Papers and all of the Short Papers for BNTC 2009 are up on the website. The Jesus seminar abstracts will be up soon but here is an exclusive...
The Lukan Presentation of Herod Antipas and His Involvement in the Death of Jesus
Douglas J. Dalrymple

This paper will address the tensions in the Lukan narrative on the conduct of Herod Antipas. First there is the tension between the Pharisees’ report of Herod Antipas’ hostility towards Jesus and Pilate's assertion at the trial scene that Herod Antipas had found Jesus innocent of the charges that had been brought against him. Secondly there is the tension between Pilate's thrice repeated declaration of the innocence of Jesus in the trial scenes with the subsequent assertion by Luke that the Jerusalem community believed that both Pilate and Herod Antipas had acted together against Jesus. Luke is the only canonical gospel that suggests that there was antipathy between Herod Antipas and Jesus. Mark, Matthew, Luke and Josephus attest to the involvement of Herod Antipas in the death of John the Baptist. Luke merely states that Herod Antipas has beheaded John whereas Mark, Matthew and Josephus provide different explanations as to the causal factors for the Baptist's execution. Using the criteria adopted by scholars for the study of the historical Jesus, this paper will explore possible reasons why Herod Antipas may have acted against Jesus and attempt to reconcile the tensions in the Lukan narrative from the perspective of rhetorical criticism.


The Politicisation of the Historical Jesus
James Crossley

The political location of historical Jesus scholarship is nothing new, the most obvious example being the Nazi Jesuses. That dominant cultural and political trends influence scholarship despite contradictory personal politics is also nothing new, the most obvious example being mid-twentieth century anti-Jewish scholarship from scholars opposed to fascism and the Nazi party. This paper will look at the ways in which the historical Jesus has been politicised in present day critical scholarship with particular reference to trends in Anglo-American political and popular culture and with the assistance of the political and cultural analysis of Gramsci, Chomsky, Herman, Said and others. This paper will further develop issues relating to the contextualisation of Jesus as a ‘Mediterranean’ (often located in the contemporary ‘Arab world’) alongside the lip service paid to Jesus ‘Jewishness’. In addition to the intense popular interest in the contemporary Middle East, these scholarly trends will also be located in the context of certain popular post-Sept 11 debates over atheism, secularism, and conservative religious beliefs, and how these debates have been reflected in some of the most prominently conservative and prominently radical secular scholarship in decades. Issues of intentionality will be covered with examples of how a given scholar’s personal political views (of whatever persuasion) typically end up buying into the dominant positions in Anglo-American elite political debates in their scholarly output, even, to some extent, the consciously radical anti-imperial Jesuses of some contemporary scholarship.


The Death and Vindication of a Beloved Son: Mark 12.1-12
Maurice Casey

The purpose of this paper is to present a reconstruction and interpretation of Mark’s Aramaic source of this passage. I argue that it is an abbreviated but accurate account of Jesus’ parable and its significance at the time. The parable was inspired by Isaiah 5.1-7. God is the owner of his vineyard, Israel. The tenants are the chief priests, scribes and elders, together with authorities such as Herod Antipas. The servants whom God sent are the prophets, whom Israel’s leaders rejected, maltreating some and killing others. The ‘beloved son’ is Jesus, the term being taken from his call vision (Mark 1.10-11). He is sent ‘last’ because Jesus was God’s final messenger to Israel, and he expected the ‘tenants’ to kill him (Mark 12.7-8), which would be his atoning death for the redemption of Israel. Jesus threatened God’s judgement on the chief priests, scribes and elders, when God’s vineyard Israel would be given to ‘others’, Jesus and the Twelve, who would sit on thrones judging the ingathered twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus supported this picture by quoting Ps. 118.22-23, one of the Hallel psalms set for Passover. He is the stone rejected by the ‘builders’, as Simeon the Rock said in a speech to ‘the builders’ a few weeks later (Acts 4.10-11), following Jesus’ interpretation that he would become ‘a head of a corner’ when God raised him from the dead. This is when Jesus also expected that God would finally establish his kingdom.

Mark 12.12 correctly portrays the reaction of the chief priests, scribes and elders (cf. Mark 11.27). They were seeking to destroy Jesus, but for practical reasons they waited until Judah of Kerioth handed Jesus over in a place safely away from the Passover crowds.

33 Comments:

Anonymous steph said...

Absolutely bloody fantastic. Long live the BJS.

July 13, 2009

 
Blogger Jim said...

i wish i could be there

July 13, 2009

 
Anonymous steph said...

You can and you should!

July 13, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

The Lord comes at harvest time (Succoth or Booths).

Mark - 12:3,4,5 - I have no doubt that the prophet had certain individuals in mind who had been persecuted.

12.6 - "He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved" is interpolation. 12.6 should be: "He came himself last of all, saying, 'They will respect me'."

Thus it was the owner who came last of all.

12.7,8 - "But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the owner. Come let's REJECT him, and the vineyard will be ours.' So they REJECTED him, and threw him out of the vineyard."

12.9 - "what then will the OWNER of the vineyard do? He will come and give the vineyard to others."

The vineyard would be taken from the priests and given to the prophets.

12.10 - "Haven't you read this this scripture: 'The stone the builders REJECTED has become the capstone'."

The altar for sacrificing animals had been sealed by the Spirit of God.

July 13, 2009

 
Blogger James Crossley said...

Thanks Geoff, I'll pass those comments on to Maurice posthaste.

July 13, 2009

 
Anonymous steph said...

He's changed his mind, rewritten his paper and dedicated it to Dr Geoff.

July 14, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Like heck! But, Steph, challenge what I have written.

Mark does indeed have some hints of originality. It is probably the only Gospel that does. I mean Steph, what do you think the text labelled The Triumphal Entry was all about (Mark 11), if not Succoth or Booths.

July 15, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

The capstone pointed heavenwards. It was an imaginary stone like the top of an Egyptian pyramid. God was going to communicate directly with man, the prophets, by his Spirit. Animal sacrifices would no longer be required.

A cornerstone is the wrong analogy.

July 15, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And what has Herod Antipas got to do with a trial in Jerusalem, for heavens sake.

July 15, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Antipas was king of Galilee, and an enemy of Rome. What hope did he have of any say in the trial at Jerusalem?

July 16, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Ant.13.3

1.But now Caiphus removed the high priest’s sacred stones which was done without the knowledge of the prophets, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they interceded with Caiphus many days that he would restore the stones; while yet they persevered in their request.
On the sixth day he ordered his guards to have their weapons privately.

2.So he bid the prophets himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the guards a signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Caiphus had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not.

3. Now there was about this time Judas, a prophet; for he was a teacher of such prophets as receive the Spirit with joy. He drew over to the Spirit both many of the prophets and many of the priests.

4.There was at Jerusalem a woman whose name was Mary; one who was the daughter of Ananias, the high priest, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great purity. She was betrothed to Caiphus and was in every way answerable to him in purity.

5. Judas was in all respects a righteous man. He, then professed to instruct men in the Spirit of God. He procured also three other prophets, to be his partners. These men persuaded Mary, Ananias’s daughter, and one that had embraced the Spirit, to join them. Whereupon Caiphus ordered all the prophets to be banished out of Jerusalem.

Ant.13.4

1.But the prophets did not escape without tumults. Caiphus was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the prophets might be displeased; so he bid them to get together at the sanctuary, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all places, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred stones which were laid in that place, because he put them there.
So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of Caiphus probable. They desired to go up to the sanctuary in a great multitude together; but Caiphus prevented their going up, by seizing upon the courts with his guards; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal Judas, Caiphus ordered to be slain.

2. The prophets sent to king Agrippa, and accused Caiphus of the murder of Judas. So Agrippa ordered Caiphus to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the prophets. So Caiphus made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Agrippa, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

3.But Agrippa released the prophets of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that they sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest's sacred stones, and to have them under their custody in the temple, which power they used to have formerly. Agrippa also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananias, the former high priest, to succeed him.

July 17, 2009

 
Anonymous steph said...

I suppose to his credit he doesn't belong to any 'a' social sub group. But more eclecticism than independence of mind.

July 18, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

You just don't get it do you Steph. The writings attributed to Josephus have been heavily edited by Flavian authors bent on twisting the facts. Eclecticism doesn't enter into it. They filled passages with all sorts of useless information, the interpolation of Paulina and Mundus at a critical point being one very clear example. Just look at some of the language. It is obvious obfuscation: "about the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder; and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis in Rome" in a passage that is supposed to be about the history of the Jews.

We now have a link with the stone the builders rejected. It was the sacred stones that the prophets used to assist with the guidance of the Spirit. The high priests had removed them from from the prophets.

Mary always was a virgin.

Agrippa I was king.

Pilate was earlier.

July 18, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And Joseph Caiphas was removed from the high priesthood, a fact of great significance in this passage. But the Flavian editors had it at the end as incidental. Vitellius was yet another example of Flavian obfuscation. Agrippa was king at the time.

Incidentally, the Jewish records only have one king Agrippa, Agrippa the Great. He was a supporter of the prophets.

July 18, 2009

 
Anonymous steph said...

Nobody gets it except you, Geoff.

July 18, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

At least yourself Steph.

What do you think the incident in the temple was all about, if not 'the arrest scene in the garden of Gethsemane'? We even have 'Peter' turning up with two swords - a hint that some were more than pacifist, and that there was more going-on than the Gospels let-on. The prophets were after the sacred stones.

You don't have to believe every word in the writings attributed to Josephus, you know.

July 18, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

And of coarse, we now know why there is stone language in the NT. It was started by the prophets seeking to have the high priest's sacred stones in their safe keeping.

And the origin of 'everyone deserted him and fled' (Mark 14:50) is: 'and others of them they put to flight' of Ant.13.4.1.

But Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss is pure fantasy, isn't it Steph.

July 18, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Sorry, it should have been Ant.18.3and 18.4.

Ant.18.5

1.About this time Herod the tetrarch and Agrippa had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had married Herodias his sister. When Herod was once at Caesarea Philippi, he stayed with Herod Philip, who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Simon's daughter. Philip ventured to talk to Herod about an alliance between them.

So Antipas , when he was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Philip, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she went to Jerusalem,
without informing him of any of her intentions; and she soon came to her brother, and told him of Herod's intentions.

So Agrippa made this an occasion of war between him and Herod. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed, together with those of the tetrarchy of Philip joined with Herod’s army.

3.Agrippa went up to Rome, in order to treat of the affairs with the emperor.

July 19, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Conveniently, at the end of Ant.18.4 {immediately before Ant.18.5) you will find a long-winded explanation of the death of Philip, brother of Antipas.

Having invented John as a forerunner of their Jesus the Flavian editors had to find some way of quickly disposing of him. Unfortunately, the Flavian editors of Josephus had John executed after Jesus. There was indecision with what to do with John.

July 19, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

The story about Vitellius in 18.5.1,3 is very imaginative. It is entirely fiction. In effect, Vitellius does nothing.

And Agrippa didn't "go up to Rome" as I previously wrote. Chapter 18.6is fictitious, at least as far as Agrippa is concerned.

July 20, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Ant. 18.5...................
all Herod's army was destroyed, together with those of the tetrarchy of Philip joined with Herod’s army.

Ant. 18.7

1.But Philip, who was tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulonitis, took this authority of Agrippa in an envious manner. He excited Antipas, and desired him that he would sail to Rome, to court honours equal to his.

2. But for Herod, he opposed Philip’s request at this time, out of having a suspicion of the trouble he should have at Rome. But the more Philip saw him draw back, the more he pressed him to it, and desired him to leave no stone unturned in order to be king. So he got all things ready, after as sumptuous a manner as he was able, and spared for nothing, and went up to Rome, and took Philip along with him.

But Agrippa, when he was made sensible of their intentions and preparations, as soon as he heard they set sail, he sent Fortunatus, one of his freed-men, to Rome, to carry presents to the emperor, and letters against Herod, and to give Caius a particular account of those matters, if he should have any opportunity.

Now Caius looked upon the letters which Agrippa had sent him, and which were written in order to accuse Herod; wherein he accused him, that he had been in confederacy with Philip against his kingdom. Caius was moved at this information, and asked Herod whether it was true; and when he confessed, Caius took that to be a sufficient proof of the accusation. So he took away from him his tetrarchy, and gave it by way of addition to Agrippa's kingdom; he also gave Philip’s tetrarchy to Agrippa, and, by way of punishment, awarded them a perpetual banishment, and appointed Lyons, a city of Gaul, to be their place of habitation.

July 20, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

In Ant. 18.7, we really do have a clash between Antipas and Agrippa. It is obviously over the fact that Antipas teamed-up with Philip to go to war with Agrippa, and not with Aretas who is nowhere to be seen in this Chapter. Herodias is dissimulation.

July 21, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Ant.18.1 PRIESTS AND PROPHETS – what it was all about

1.NOW Agrippa, one who was of great dignity, came at this time into Judea, being sent by Caesar to be a king of our Nation. There was one Ananias, a high priest, of a whose name was Hanan, who, taking with him Caiphas, a high priest, who both said that this was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honour and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about obeying the Law, and not grow weary in executing the same; so the priests received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.

2. The Jews have had for a great while the order of the prophets, and the order of the priests.

3. Now, for the priests, they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe the Law’s dictates for practice. And when they determine that all things are done by the Law, they take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a Law, whereby what he wills is done. They also believe that spirits have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have obeyed or disobeyed the Law; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall rise again; on account of which Laws they are able greatly to persuade the order of the priests; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their Laws.

5.The teaching of the prophets is this: that all spirits of man come from God. They teach the immortality of spirits, and esteem that pure spirits are to be earnestly striven for; and when they come into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices because they have pure spirits of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer themselves in the sanctuary; yet is their course of life better than that of the priests; and they entirely addict themselves to husbandry. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to purity, and this in the Spirit; and indeed to such a degree, that as the Spirit hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand prophets that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men, who are to get their corn and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from the others of the prophets in their way of living, but they do not marry.

July 24, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Ant.18.2

2. Agrippa was exercising his office of king. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the prophets came into the temple, and drove-out the sacrificial animals}, from the cloisters; on which account the high priests afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done.

July 24, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

The original was probably the source of John 2:13-17.

13.When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14.In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
15.So he made a whip out of cords, and grove all the cattle from the temple area.
16.To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my father's house into a market!"
17.His disciples remembered...."

The true incident had nothing to do with buying and selling, and exchanging money. It was to do with the prophet's distaste of animal sacrifice.

August 01, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

There was more than one prophet driving animals from the temple courts, and this was was done secretly at night, before the temple guard could be alerted.

August 01, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

More likely, it wasn't that "his disciples remembered", but that the editor of John knew what had really happened in the recent past.

August 02, 2009

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geoff: who are you writing to? No one is reading.

August 02, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Don't you believe it.

August 02, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

Tell Maurice that the "stone the builders rejected" was a fabrication, despite Psalm 118:22.
And the same goes for the prophecy forecasting the destruction of the temple: "not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down". (Mk.13:2). These fabrications have their origin in the high priests "ornaments", the sacred stones that the prophets valued for prophecy. They were restored to the care of the prophets supposedly by Vitellius (actually Agrippa). (Ant.18.4.3). They were originally removed from the care of the prophets by Caiphus (supposedly Pilate). They were contained in the high priests's breastplate a type of pouch.

August 05, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

The longer I study the NT the less it gets in original material.

August 06, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

In fact Jesus disappears along with Judas. And we are left with a prophetic movement, probably led by James, nearly according to Eisenman.

August 14, 2009

 
Blogger Geoff Hudson said...

There is certainly something to be made out of the Gospel of Mark, but without Jesus and his trips to Galilee. The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John are probably completely fabricated. Some of the the pauline epistles undoubtedly have an original form. The original epistles did not mention Jesus or the mission to Gentiles or the journeys of Paul to Gentile areas. They were all written from Rome to the prophets of Jerusalem. And Acts took place in Rome, except for the final sea journey back to Caesarea, and Jerusalem (the reverse of the extant document).

August 21, 2009

 

Post a Comment

<< Home