British New Testament Society

In this paper an attempt is made to discuss two prominent, but supposedly separate, modes of discourse within Biblical scholarship — ‘Historical Criticism’ and ‘Reception History’ – and to examine the exact nature of their inter-relatedness. The former finds the meaning of these texts in a virtual encounter with an imaginary audience constructed by the scholar/theorist (i.e. the ‘what they meant’ to the kind of audiences envisaged by much of current historical criticism) whereas the latter sees the meaning of these texts in a visible encounter with a real audience (i.e. the “what they have meant” to the specific individuals and groups whose recorded responses form the core subject of much of the history of exegesis). Historical critical approaches will be illustrated here by the account of the person and actions of Joseph of Arimathea in Mark’s Gospel and its meaning for the otherwise unknown audience constructed by historical critical scholars. Reception History will be illustrated by the actual response to the Markan account of Joseph preserved in the Gospel of Matthew. The paper will go on to argue, however, that the role of the scholar/theorist in the construction of the imaginary audiences of the historical critics inevitably means that such methods can only be understood as a specific sub-set of ‘Reception History’, one in which the real response of the contemporary critic is enfolded within and re-categorised as the imagined response of the original audience(s). The paper concludes by discussing how an acceptance of this re-description of our discipline might affect the kinds of academic activities associated with Biblical Studies, here primarily the teaching of that subject to undergraduates.

Irenaeus likened the Gnostic use of Scripture to a jewel-encrusted mosaic whose gems were taken out and so rearranged that they resembled a dog rather than the original image of a king. For centuries, artists and scholars alike in their various media have extracted and reassembled bits and pieces from the canonical Gospels to produce varied portraits of Jesus.

In this paper, I will use Nino Ricci’s Testament as a case study for the way in which some modern novelists use the canonical Gospels as source material for their own tales that in turn function as supplanting narratives of those very sources. Through this novel, I will examine their potential for subversion and will explore the manner in which the fictional medium is intentionally used by some authors in an attempt to expose the perceived fictionality within the gospels themselves. Because Testament’s structure mimics the four testaments themselves by providing four alternate witnesses, it is an excellent example of the way in which novels can parody the canonical gospels and implicitly call into question their reliability.

In Mark’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene is described as one of a group of women who followed and served Jesus in Galilee before accompanying him to Jerusalem. Luke also mentions the presence of women during Jesus’ mission but adds that these women have been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, and he notes that Mary was once possessed by seven demons. For some scholars Mary Magdalene is a foundational figure supporting the leadership roles of women in the church, and Luke’s portrayal is an attempt to downplay her significance as a disciple. Luke’s account, moreover, has influenced the reference to the exorcism of Mary Magdalene in the secondary ending to Mark, and western church tradition has identified Mary with the sinful woman who anoints Jesus because of the account of Mary’s demon-possession. Mary thus becomes an example of a sinful woman or a prostitute. John’s Gospel, however, develops the portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a witness to the resurrection. In the Gospel of Peter, Mary is described as a disciple, and in the Gospel of Mary she reveals the hidden teachings of Jesus to the male disciples. This paper assesses the historicity of Luke’s account of the exorcism of Mary Magdalene, and aims to trace lines of development in the portrayal of Mary Magdalene in the canonical and apocryphal gospels. To what extent is it possible to reconcile the contrasting portraits of Mary Magdalene, and in what ways do these traditions respond to one another?

The ending of Mark's Gospel at 16.8 is generally considered to be one of the Gospel's most distinctive features, with the women fleeing from the tomb and saying nothing to anyone because of their fear. The reception history of Mark’s Gospel reveals notable ambiguity amongsts commentators concerning the role of the women. And contrary to the modern tendency to ignore Mark 16.9-20, these verses sometimes had a significant impact in discussions about how to interpret Mark's account of the empty tomb.

This paper will provide a sample of the differing interpretations of Mark 16.1-20, including some representations in art, music and literature, with a particular focus on the 'afterlives' of the women who are mentioned. After illustrating a range of patristic interpretations – from the positive response of Pseudo-Jerome (the earliest commentator on Mark) to criticism of the women's lack of faith (Peter Chrysologus) - I will then compare these with some artistic interpretations of the women, thereby raising issues about the role of artists as biblical interpreters. The examples discussed highlight the significant use, influence and impact of Mark 16.1-20 in a wide variety of contexts.

‘Sensory’ surveys of biblical texts, especially when disability is so often used metaphorically for social commentary and ideological critique, do not really focus on the real ‘lived experience of disability’ (Schipper 2007:103). It is this lacuna that I will seek to address here by engaging with contemporary Deaf readers in a contextual bible study on Luke’s version of the parable of the lost son and the stilling of the storm. Telling stories in British Sign Language (BSL), is to engage with a performative and collective culture that envisages the group not primarily as ‘readers’ but ‘retellers’ (Lees 2007:166). All participants in their diverse retellings highlighted for me the redundancies and gaps within the English translations of the biblical stories, which BSL, as a primarily visual, spatial and performative language ‘filled in’. Each retelling, even if broadly based on the English text, involved some additional details that fleshed out the story ‘visually’ in the mind’s eye. Such readings are in essence midrashic and challenge the hegemony of ‘written’ texts.