Maurice Casey’s ‘Jesus’ At the British New Testament Conference

They’ve had a panel discussion of Maurice Casey’s massive ‘Jesus’ at BNTC and, according to the tweeter from T&T Clark (though I’ve edited the tweets into complete sentences and corrected the grammar)-

[There has been a] panel review of Maurice Casey’s Jesus of Nazarethhere at #BNTC. Some took issue with [the] degree of Casey’s reconstruction of Aramaic backgrounds [and the] early date [he asserts] for Mark [as well as his] over reliance on Mark as [a] historical source. But all acknowledged [the] book as [a] huge achievement. [It] ‘easily takes its place alongside the most important historical Jesus books of [the] last 30 years’, [said] Eddie Adams.

We had a colloquium with Maurice on his book on the Biblical Studies list and there are other items related to Casey’s work here.

2 thoughts on “Maurice Casey’s ‘Jesus’ At the British New Testament Conference

  1. How revoulting. Maurice has been extremely unwell and was unable to attend. All the papers arrived late this week, which was slack if not plain rude, and he barely had time to read them. Two of them were pretty bossy and dogmatic and appalling. Took issue eh? Well good for them. I could take issue with two of the papers. Mind you it wasn’t really the BNTC. This year it took the vision of theology. When the prissy miss at registration mistook me for an intruder because I wasn’t dressed like a nun, she reminded me that “This is the BRRRRRitish theology conference”.

    I had an argument with a professor who said theology must be religious and cannot be studied critically or from a secular perspective or using interdisciplinary approaches. He rubbished a book by a Catholic nun PhD who was inspired to study by her faith, in a review. He dismissed her interdisciplinary approaches as inappropriate and accused her of not exploring a religious approach. Missed the point entirely. You’d probably agree with him but that belongs in the church not the university in the 21st century. I don’t do theology. I was at the wrong conference. I’m interested in critical interdisciplinary approaches to the history of religion. Of religions not just Christianity.


  2. I’d be interested to know if they had any arguments this time when they ‘took issue’ instead of just dismissal and dislike as is normally the case. I know that Crossley’s dating of Mark has never been constructively criticised and one of those on today’s panel still hasn’t responded. Most of them don’t understand the Aramaic arguments and are happier to follow what scholars at the SNTS say instead.


Comments are closed.