Chairs: Dr Wendy Sproston North and Dr John Tudno Williams
Session 1:
'The Anointing at Bethany in John's Gospel: Who and Why ?'
This paper argues: 1) That John's order of events, i.e. with triumphal entry preceding anointing, is correct; 2) That the anointing was intended to denote Jesus as royal Messiah; 3) That there is modern mis-reading of the irony of the account, and this mis-reading tends to obscure Jesus' point in response to objections to the anointing, which is that having thus been anointed he would, as a declared Messiah, inevitably be killed; 4) That those responsible for the anointing had elite connections (visible elsewhere in John) which heightened the danger inherent in Jesus' acceptance of his ritual acclamation through anointing and triumphal entry; 5) That the anointing occurred within the context of a semi-organised following of the Poor, which tended also to heighten the danger of the event for Jesus; 6) that the combination of elite and poor within the move to anoint Jesus as Messiah is sociologically typical of faction structure in agrarian society; 7) that a virtuoso religion understanding of the context at Bethany is significant for understanding the origins of the Johannine tradition; and 8) That John's account is a valuable historical source for the original event.
Session 2:
'The Raising of Lazarus: The Use of the Combat Myth in John’s Gospel'
In ANE myths a battle between gods characteristically leads to the coronation of the victorious god followed by a celebratory meal. A similar structure may be discerned in Old Testament texts (Isa 24-27; Zech 9-14) and in apocalyptic writings (1 Enoch 62:12-14; 2 Baruch 29:5-8). This paper explores the use of the combat myth in John’s account of the raising of Lazarus. Jesus is depicted as a powerful figure who battles against evil, and releases Lazarus from the grip of death. Lazarus’ return to life is then celebrated by a meal at which Mary anoints Jesus. The raising of Lazarus and the anointing of Jesus, however, foreshadow Jesus’ own death and resurrection. Opposition to Jesus increases, and his enemies plot to put him to death. The use of the combat myth illustrates that Jesus’ victory over evil takes place at his crucifixion, and his glorification paradoxically comes about through his death.
Session 3:
'Good for Nothing ?: The Ineffectual Resurrection of Jesus in John'
Past interpreters have suggested that John’s unique christology does not require Jesus’ resurrection as the Synoptics or Paul do (as a vindication for his death, etc.). Yet, with ch. 20, John does incorporate a resurrection narrative,and exegetes must identify and describe its function. However, neither the problem nor a solution has ever been satisfactorily described. The common solution, in various forms, involves shifting the focus of ch. 20 from Jesus to the disciples. The sense is that if the resurrection has no import for the characterization of Jesus, then it must have significance for the characterization of the disciples, the other character group present in ch.20—the chapter becomes concerned with the disciples’ “resurrection/Easter faith,” and this level/degree of faith is thought to complete their faith and ultimately epitomize true faith in this gospel. But these readings fail to recognize that John has entirely stripped the traditional resurrection message away from his Jesus story. Further, since resurrection is not a fundamental christological aspect for the characterization of Jesus, why would it be important for followers to achieve “resurrection faith”? In actuality, the artificial scholarly construct “resurrection faith” is of no concern to the author of John.