NT Gateway Weblog

Also courtesy of Bible and Interpretation, a link to the Christian Science Monitor -- more on Karen King's new book:

Who was Mary Magdalene? The buzz goes mainstream

---

There's an interview with Marcus Borg on Beliefnet concerning a new book he has out called The Heart of Christianity:

Why be Christian?
Revisionist Jesus scholar Marcus Borg explains why "Christianity makes persuasive and compelling sense."

Link courtesy of Bible and Interpretation.

---

Further to the previous blog entry, the prize for the most funky program unit page has to go to this one:

Psychology and Biblical Studies

It is called "Psybibs" for short and has a guide to the sessions, draft papers, resources, bibliography, an email list. The site itself is anonymous.

---

One element that is easy to miss on the SBL Site is the following link:

Program Unit Pages

This is still very much an evolving part of the site and only a small number of program units have their own web sites. Those that do vary enormously from those that simply sketch out the programme for a given year to those that have full abstracts and even full papers available. But if you are travelling to the SBL this coming week, it is well worth having a look at these pages in case there is material here for sessions you are planning to attend. Print a few off to read on the plane journey over, especially if you're travelling from abroad.

---

Stephen Carlson has an excellent discussion of Goulder's recent article in NovT in his Hypotyposeis blog. I have a couple of minor comments on Stephen's. He says that Goulder has launched primarily two angles of attack on the Q hypothesis, one argument relating to the Minor Agreements and the other to the alleged Matthaean language of Q. I would broadly agree with that -- these are the two areas I focused on in the first section of my Goulder and the Gospels which dealt with the Synoptic Problem. But I think one should probably add a third angle of attack, what one might call the redaction-critical argument. This is Goulder's attempt to show that Q is unnecessary given that one can make good sense of Matthew (Midrash and Lection in Matthew [London: SPCK, 1974]) and Luke (Luke: A New Paradigm [JSNTSup, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989]) without employing Q.

Two further things. First, I think Streeter argued on the Minor Agreement at Mark 14.65 -- and I've not checked this -- slightly differently from Neirynck and Tuckett. I think his case was that the words τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε; were original to Mark and that that is where Matthew and Luke got them from. Second, one of the strengths of Goulder's current article is that it explains why Matthew omits the blindfold -- it is because he has those mocking Jesus spitting into his face and if he were wearing a blindfold, they would be spitting into the cloth.

---

One other thing new to the Passion FAQ is that Peter Gabriel has done the music for The Passion of the Christ. There are some samples available. There is a major link here with The Last Temptation of Christ which also had a soundtrack by Peter Gabriel.

And that's quite enough about this film for now.

---

After my musings on the lightning story (see previous blog entry), I've taken a look to see if any sources are named. This story names Steve McEveety (producer) as the source:

Controversial Film Struck by Lightning (Nov. 2)

So does this one, but with a fuller story, claiming that it hit Caviezel and Jan Michelini (Assistant director) and that it was the second time Michelini had been hit:

Jesus Actor Struck by Lightning (Oct. 23)

So that would make sense of the Gibson quotation about "another guy", if Michelini was the guy in question, and originally he alone was hit. This next source confirms that version and adds a little more detail:

Lightning Strikes Actor Playing Jesus

and it includes this account of the first strike:

Michelini was previously struck when a lightning fork zapped his umbrella during filming on top of a hill near Matera in Italy. He only suffered minor injuries consisting of mild burns to the tips of his fingers.

But now this next version is a conglomeration of all the above versions:

Jesus actor hit by lightning

Both Caviezel and his assistant director Michelini were struck. The main bolt hit Caviezel and one of its forks hit Michelini's umbrella.

Neither of the men sustained injuries in the incident.

Michelini has been nicknamed Lightning Boy after being struck twice by lightning during the filming in Italy. He had already suffered light burns on the tips of his fingers in an earlier incident during filming on a hilltop in the town of Matera.

The story is developed further still in this version, which has Michelini holding his umbrella on both occasions:

Lightning Strikes Set of Gibson's 'Passion'

The crew on the film nicknamed the unfortunate fellow "Lightning Boy" after he was struck twice by lightning.

The first time, lightning struck Michelini's umbrella during filming in Matera Italy, according to the AP. Although his fingertips were slightly burned, he once more entered the fray.

A few months later, the poor dupe held the umbrella over himself and actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus Christ in the film. Sure enough, this time both shared human lightning rod honors, although they weren't seriously hurt.

I think I retract my earlier comments that this is a case where a story with an anonymous figure has subsequently acquired a name, but what it does show is just how little care the journalists in these stories are taking to try to represent their sources accurately; the personnel and the details vary quite substantially and yet as far as I can tell it all emerges from just one original associated press story quoting Steve McEveety.

---

A circular email has just gone round from The Passion fan website and there are some new FAQs there. It seems that the film has changed its name again -- it is now The Passion of the Christ. I'd say a slightly preferable title, if anything, given that it encourages people to ask what "the Christ" means in a way that "Christ" on its own does not (cf. Jesus Christ Superstar, Herod's song, "Someone Christ, King of the Jews"!).

One FAQ of interest is "Was Jim Caviezel really struck by lightning?". This story emerged recently in the media -- there were several news reports stating that Jim Caviezel had been struck by lightning during the filming. Some reported the event as if it had happened recently rather than during the filming, which was finished some time ago. Now this is an odd business, because I reckon that Jim Caviezel's name has only got attached to this story recently. Earlier on there was a story circulating about a person (anon.) getting struck by lightning -- but s/he was not named as Caviezel. Indeed the FAQ in question, which answers the above question with a "Yes!", also features the earlier version of the story, in an interview excerpt from Mel Gibson:

"There have been a lot of unusual things happening, good things like people being healed of diseases, a couple of people have had sight and hearing restored, another guy was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene and he just got up and walked away."

Clearly the character is not Caviezel -- Gibson would not have described him as "another guy" and during the filming of the crucifixion, Caviezel would presumably have been on the cross and not able to get up and walk away. I wonder here whether we have something that often occurs in oral tradition, and is as prevalent in internet lore, the subsequent naming of an originally anonymous character? I can think of at least two ways that my theory could be refuted: (1) someone ask Jim Caviezel if he was struck by lightning when the filming took place; (2) someone find an early version of the story that names Caviezel rather than an anonymous "guy".

---

I received an update from the Gospel of John film marketing people today featuring this comment, "Biblical scholars and theologians agree, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN is a factual portrayal of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus." Wow -- there's a claim for you! Anyway, if you're in the U.S. you can now order the DVD or video from the Gospel of John web site. The site also now has a clip of Peter Richardson talking about the film, with a little clip of Jesus with Martha from John 11:

Peter Richardson clip

---

David Mackinder points out, in relation to my blog entry on OUP Reading Room, that OUP's American site also has lots of sample chapters available. Unfornately it is not so straightforward to access them because they have abandoned the reading room approach. Here's a list of their sample chapters, but from their entire range of books:

OUP USA Sample Chapters

And here is a link to their Religion and Theology pages:

OUP USA: Religion and Theology

---

I've just uploaded the third of the papers for this year's SBL Synoptics Section (first one) on Saturday p.m.:

Mark Matson, "Interactive Rhetoric in Matthew: An Exploration of Audience Knowledge Competency"

Or access it via the NTGateway: Gospels and Acts pages.

There have been too changes to the programme for that session too. Sadly, both Richard Bauckham and Dwight Peterson have had to withdraw because of ill health and their places are taken by Richard Burridge and Loveday Alexander respectively.

---

There's an article on Henry Ian Cusick, who plays Jesus in the Gospel of John in today's Telegraph. It's a cracking read:

At last, a Jesus for all faiths

A couple of excerpts:

Not since Alec McCowen's live recitation of Mark's gospel has a performer had to acquire such word-perfect mastery of scripture. "It kept me in my trailer while the disciples were out having fun," he says. "When I emerged, they would go, 'Hey, JC, how are you doing today?' I would have loved to hang out with them more, but there just wasn't time."

. . .

The extras were Spanish gypsies. "They would bow slightly when I walked past, as if I really was Christ," recalls Cusick. "And on the day of the crucifixion, when I came out of the trailer wearing a crown of thorns, the whole set went quiet. It was eerie. The gypsies were saying, `Ay mi Jesús', beating their breasts, and then they broke into song."

. . .

For Christian audiences, the most unsettling aspect of the film is likely to prove the character of Jesus. Catholics and Protestants alike are accustomed to an identikit Christ whose features have been pasted together from the accounts of all four evangelists. By excluding all the synoptic material, The Gospel of John highlights the fact that the Jesus of the fourth gospel is a different person from the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Cusick brilliantly conveys the strange charisma of the Johannine Christ. This smiling rabble-rouser is self-confident and talkative; he knows he is "the way, the truth and the light". But these claims raise a thorny question. If Jesus said those things, how come the authors of the synoptic gospels failed to report them? The scholarly consensus is that the passionate soliloquies of John were put into Christ's mouth by the early Church. It doesn't make them any less powerful.

Wow -- a newspaper article that uses the word "synoptic". How refreshing!

---

After having mentioned both Hendrickson's and Oxford's sample chapters on-line, today it's the turn of Cambridge University Press. A good number of their books now appear with a a sample chapter on-line. Have a look at:

Cambridge University Press: Biblical Studies

One or two examples:

Delbert Burkett, An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity

Francis Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender: Towards a Pauline Sexual Ethic

Maurice Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q

Richard Beaton, Isaiah's Christ in Matthew's Gospel

Steve Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus Speech and 1 Thessalonians

Some of these also have the entire text available via the "ebrary" resource. I once made that a Featured Link, but it seems that it is no longer possible to view these whole texts for free, so the value of this resource is significantly diminished.

---

Thanks to Torrey Seland for this updated URL:

Philo of Alexandria: The Studia Philonica Annual Studies in Hellenistic Judaism

I've also added this to my Journals page.

---

I accidentally pasted in the wrong URL for this yesterday. Thanks to David Mackinder for pointing it out. I've adjusted it in that entry and here it is too:

OUP Reading Room: Biblical Studies

---

In an article just published in Novum Testamentum, Paul Foster discusses the existence of Q with special reference to my work. (Paul Foster, "Is it possible to dispense with Q?", NovT 45 (2003), pp. 313-37). One element in his critique contains the serious charge that I have been "rather disingenous" and I would like to sketch an answer here. The context is "The Genre of Q" (pp. 332-4). Foster draws attention to a common argument that cites the Gospel of Thomas as evidence that Q-like documents existed, so strengthening the case for the Q hypothesis. He points out that Q sceptics like me remain unpersuaded:

The discovery of Thomas has not convinced Q sceptics either of
the possibility of the existence of Q or of the appropriateness of the comparison. Rather the criterion has been somewhat changed to try and remove Thomas from the debate. (p. 323).

Foster adds that I dismiss the positive evidence that Thomas provides in a "cursory manner", citing The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (The Biblical Seminar, 80; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), p. 152, in which I had drawn attention to the narrative sequence that makes up the first third of Q, and which has no parallel in Thomas. Foster goes on to position Q on a continuum which has the Synoptic Gospels at one end and Thomas at the other; its genre "sits comfortably between these two extremes". Foster then adds that:

The manoeuvre that is made in order to rule Thomas out of consideration is therefore not only inappropriate, but seems to be rather disingenuous on the part of Goodacre. (pp. 323-4).

I have written two books on the Synoptic Problem, the first a textbook aimed at undergraduate students, with no Greek and only a handful of footnotes and called The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (cited above, hereafter Maze), and the second a specialist treatment for scholars using Greek, with extensive engagement with the scholarship on the issues, called The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) (hereafter Case). Foster has read both books, but in his discussion of my views on Thomas, he deals only with the former, the undergraduate textbook, and does not mention the latter. Case, Chapter 9 ("Narrative Sequence in a Sayings Gospel? Reflections on a Contrast between Thomas and Q") is a full exposition of the argument that appears only briefly in Maze. I am of course pleased that Foster is willing to take Maze seriously, but an undergraduate textbook, with only a paragraph or so on the given topic, can scarcely be the basis for a critique of a view spelled out at length in the scholarly treatment. Given this context, I must admit to being surprised to see the criticism that I had dealt with the Thomas and Q in a "cursory manner". Similarly, Foster (p. 324) draws attention to the discussion in Kloppenborg's Formation of Q with which -- as it happens -- I engaged in that context in Case. It is the full, specialist argument that requires treatment in a full, specialist critique.

Paul was kind enough to send me a draft copy of his article before it had been accepted for publication. I pointed out at the time that, in the light of his lack of engagement with Case here, I thought it a little unfair to charge me with being disingenuous. As I read it, this is a pretty serious thing to say about another scholar, and I would have thought that it is important to be clear about one's grounds for doing it.

Absent of that context it is not so straightforward to see what Foster finds so inappropriate about my claims about Thomas. It seems in part to be an alignment of my own views with those of previous Q sceptics, arguing that at first we said that there was nothing like Q therefore it is unlikely that it existed (Farrer certainly argued this way) and that now, in the light of Thomas's discovery, we have changed tack and argue that Thomas is not sufficiently similar to Q. But this is not my argument. In Case (as also, but much more tersely in Maze), the comparison has a clear context and a specific function. I contrast Q with Thomas and acknowledge and agree with Kloppenborg, Koester and Robinson that genre is not a "static grid", asking whether the narrative sequence that seems so fundamental to the first third (or so) of Q is better explained on the grounds that Q belongs to the Sayings Gospel genre (their view) or on the grounds that it is essentially that non-Marcan material that Luke takes over from Matthew (my view). In the light of several source-critical observations including that the narrative sequence stops at roughly the point where Matthew begins following Mark in sequence, I find it more plausible that this odd feature of Q is explained source-critically, on the assumption that Luke is using Matthew as well as Mark.

---

The other day I referred to Hendrickson's sample chapters available on-line. Thanks to Holger Szesnat for pointing out something similar at Oxford University Press, though at present much less extensive than the Hendrickson's one:

OUP Reading Room: Biblical Studies

There are several things of interest here, including several selections (in one PDF file) from the Oxford Bible Commentary ed. by John Barton and John Muddiman and the opening chapter of E. P. Sanders's Paul: A Very Short Introduction.

---

I mentioned the latest JTS yesterday but could not work out why I couldn't access any of the files. Having read Jim Davila's blog on it, I realise that it was nothing I was doing wrong; it is that they haven't posted the files yet. A bit odd to send out email alerts without actually uploading the content of the journal, but I suppose electronic publishing is still in its infancy -- let's put it down to teething problems. I hope it does become available soon, though, because it apparently features a four page review of my Case Against Q and I want to read it!

---

There are some interesting articles on the Beliefnet pages about Mary Magdalene:

Who was Mary Magdalene?

These pages were set up to correspond to an American television programme about the sensationalist Da Vinci Code book, but the site has a number of interesting articles from real experts including Karen King and John Dominic Crossan. Crossan's article, Why Jesus Didn't Marry has this fine opening:

There is an ancient and venerable principle of biblical exegesis which states that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a camel in disguise. So let's apply that to whether or not Jesus was married. There is no evidence that Jesus was married (looks like a duck), multiple indications that he was not (walks like a duck), and no early texts suggesting wife or children (quacks like a duck)...so he must be an incognito bridegroom (camel in disguise).

---

BeliefNet have an excerpt from a book by Paul Perry called Jesus in Egypt: Discovering the Secrets of Christ’s Childhood Years, the excerpt in question focusing on the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:

Toddler Jesus Topples Egyptian Idols

From the excerpt one gets the impression that the author is rather credulous; looking over on Amazon, Booklist has the following:

At first, as he reconstructs and then follows the trail, drinking water from healing wells and casting an eye on the bones of saints, it seems as if he simply believes the journey to have been a real event, but eventually he begins to wonder whether he is following "a complete fiction." Finally, though, he sees himself as a believer who "let his heart be his guide," concluding that it may not matter if the events are factual.

That helps one to get a feeling for the tone of it. Have a look at the clickable map -- great fun, e.g. have a look at Jesus' footprint discovered in Sakha in 1984

Map: Jesus in Egypt

---

Thanks to David Mackinder for this -- some notes on The Passion from Amitai Etzioni's blog:

More Press for the Passion of Christ.

---

The October issue of the Journal of Theological Studies is now available. I won't repeat the list of contents here because there are -- as usual -- loads and loads of relevant book reviews. Table of contents available here:

Journal of Theological Studies 54/2 (October 2003)

---

Call for papers for the International SBL has gone out today:

2004 International Meeting, Groningen, The Netherlands

---

Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature:

Bock, Darrell L.
Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels
Reviewed by Steven L. Cox

Foskett, Mary K.
A Virgin Conceived: Mary and Classical Representations of Virginity
Reviewed by Anna Janzen

Longenecker, Richard N.
Into God's Presence: Prayer in the New Testament
Reviewed by Jaime Clark-Soles

Neville, David J.
Mark's Gospel Prior or Posterior: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order
Reviewed by Suzanne Watts Henderson

Wilk, Florian
Jesus und die Völker in der Sicht der Synoptiker
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas

---

I will not conceal my delight that Peter Kirby has reconsidered his web site title "Did Jesus Exist?" (at didjesustexist.com), the home of a reproduction of Vernon Robbins's article on the "we" passages in Acts and much more, and has replaced it with Christian Origins.com. I had had a whinge about the title, so I think that this is a sound move. Don't forget to look out his new Early Jewish Writings site too.

---

Stephen Carlson adds some useful comments following on from my entry about E. W. Lummis. Looks like I can find a way of justifying still calling it the Farrer Theory. (And I shall continue to bash away at calling it also "Marcan Priority without Q" since it seems clear that in spite of repeated attempts to stress the Marcan Priority bit of the theory, some still don't quite grasp it).

---

Having looked at amazon, I see that Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (London and New York: Continuum, 2002) has been out for over a year. Perhaps one to pick up at SBL. There's a real industry of Mary Magdalene books out now. I recently received Esther de Boer, Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997).

---

Useful article on Mary Magdalene here in the Washington Times:

The Real Mary Magdalene?, Jen Waters

Includes some comments from Liz Curtis Higgs who has a new book on Mary Magdalene (not heard of her before) and Jane Schaberg, author of the fascinating Illegitimacy of Jesus, who now has a new book out entitled The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha and the Christian Testament. [Note: she's also also speaking at the SBL in Atlanta next week in a Historical Jesus session with Crossan and Corley -- should be interesting].

The article also has some comment on the role of Maggie in the rock opera !Hero, about which I've blogged a few times. This article has some comments from Rebecca St James who plays Maggie. I'd previously said that I didn't think Maggie was obviously Mary Magdalene. But Rebecca St James clearly thinks that's who she's playing, so it shows how much I know! Of course the name "Maggie" is derived from "Magdalene" too, just as in !Hero Kai is Caiaphas and Petrov is Peter. What I still think is interesting, though, is that here Mary Magdalene is aligned with the Samaritan woman from John 4. Has that connection been made in fiction before? Often she is the woman taken in adultery (John 8) or the Sinner of Luke 7.36-50 or both but this is the first time I've seen her as the Samaritan woman.

---

Here's one I had missed until now. It's the PBS site for a television programme of the same name, presumably broadcast in the USA this year:

Peter and Paul and the Christian Revolution

The site is typical of PBS -- professionally designed, colourful, lots of thought. It uses Crossan, Horsley, Wright and others. It features some video clips too. A very good resource to get students interested. I've often used the PBS From Jesus to Christ site as a good way of getting students started.

---

Jeff Peterson comments on my Naming Synoptic Theories, "I wonder if it's not a bit unjust to Edwin Lummis to say that Farrer was "the first to work the theory out with rigour," as L. did write a (short) book working the theory out in considerable detail, admittedly in telegraphic prose and on the documentary assumptions of the Oxford Studies rather than the better account Farrer's article offered on literary assumptions. It's understandable that he's been neglected as he had no apparent influence (I still think it's unlikely that Farrer read him), but it's nonetheless time he was given his due." Jeff is referring to E. W. Lummis, How Luke Was Written (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915) and he is of course quite right to give him his due. So "the Lummis Theory" it is then.

---

David Meadows has posted the latest issue of Explorer:

Explorer 6.28

---

Novum Testamentum 45 / 4 (October 2003) is out; these are the contents. Links are to the Ingenta Select pages which will give you access if you or your institution is subscribed:

Articles
Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?
Paul Foster

Ornatus: An Application of Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem
Alex Damm

Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)
Michael Goulder

Son of Man, Stone of Blood (John 1:51)
J.C. O'Neill

A Figurative and Narrative Language Grammar of Revelation
G. Biguzzi

Book Reviews

There is one article here of particular interest to me, Paul Foster's, since it focuses on my two recent books, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze and The Case Against Q. Some comments on this article later.

---