|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 25, 2012 5:29:59 GMT
I have just bought this book and just begun to read it, so I thought I'd see if anyone else has read it and has comments. 1. I bought it because it seemed to be the best latest book by a well credentialled historian who is not a believer. I as a christian believe more than Casey does, but this does give me (when combined with reading people like Michael Grant, EP Sanders and Bart Ehrman) a reasonable "lowest common denominator" of historical conclusions about Jesus. Also, Casey is an expert in Aramaic, which I think is very useful. 2. I have only read a few bits as a sample, but find his views on sources interesting: - He believes Mark shows clear signs of having been translated from Aramaic original sources, and so dates it about 40 CE, way earlier than most scholars. He says this makes it very accurate reporting of Jesus' life, though he doesn't believe Mark knew Jesus.
- Q is several sources, mostly also in Aramaic, including the Matthew material below (he says it was written by the disciple Matthew), and some used by Luke.
- He believes there is evidence of some parts of Matthew being translated from the Aramaic writings of Matthew, just like Papias said, and dates Matthew's Gospel about 50-60 CE.
- Luke he places at the conventional date of about 80 CE, and is very elegantly written, while he dismisses John for any historical material about Jesus.
3. He is fairly critical of many of his fellow scholars, but gives credit to (though not 100% agreement with) Vermes, Sanders, Wright, Allison, Hengel, Dunn and Chilton - an interesting list. I look forward to getting into it. |
|
|
|
Post by chrishughes on Nov 9, 2012 17:58:02 GMT
I have registered (having lurked for years on the site) to support unkleE, whose posts I greatly admire, in reading Maurice Casey's magisterial work. I have been surprised that there were no posts from anyone else who has read it.
I think the book should be recommended wholeheartedly to anyone who genuinely wants to know what the historian's craft at its finest can reveal about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. It will not I think change you from a believer to an atheist nor the opposite. As a believer though who was trained as a historian, many years ago, I found it a most moving experience.
Unfortunately I do not have a copy to hand as I write this in order to give examples, but time and again significant elements of the story of Jesus as Christians have always believed are set rock solid in the historical record by Casey. It is most interesting that - while of course he dismisses John as of no primary historical value - he sets a very early date for Mark. One example I do remember is Simon of Cyrene - no doubt whatsoever an eye witness of the Crucifixion whose family are then known to the community addressed by Mark.
Casey as an atheist does not of course believe in the Resurrection (and he does not believe Jesus was buried in an individual tomb at all). But he does not seek to portray the followers of Jesus as anything other than honest people, a small number of whom he believes had "bereavement experiences" which led them to see their Master as still with them. He doesn't quote Private Eye but "in a very real sense" is about how he puts this.
He holds that Jesus had very much prepared his followers to expect his death hence their readiness to have such experiences. I don't think that he has adequately demonstrated though that they would have expected him to be crucified as distinct from beheaded like John or stoned like Stephen or just knifed as would have been so easy for his enemies. And given the utter shame and degradation of crucifixion it remains a matter of momentous note that these followers should have raised their heads with such a story so soon after the event - and Casey I believe has actually strengthened this element of classical apologetics with his early date for Mark.
I don't know how Casey would react to being told this, but given the sheer honesty and utter competence of his historical work, I as a believer found his book to have the same impact in making Jesus feel close to me as many a famous work of spiritual guidance.
I hope unkleE has found it worth reading and I most certainly think many of this forum's users would find it most interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 9, 2012 20:08:11 GMT
Thanks for your contribution Chris. I don't have Casey's book, but it is on my wish list for next semester. One thing that surprises me is his ready acceptance of the 'Aramaic primacy' hypothesis. I was under the impression that this had been debunked quite comprehensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 9, 2012 22:15:42 GMT
Thanks for your contribution Chris. I don't have Casey's book, but it is on my wish list for next semester. One thing that surprises me is his ready acceptance of the 'Aramaic primacy' hypothesis. I was under the impression that this had been debunked quite comprehensively. Casey makes the case extremely well and has been doing so for years. Where did you get the idea this had been "debunked"? From Casey's arguments it seems very clear to me that the author of gMark used at least one Aramaic written source and that one element of the Q material was also a text in Aramaic. His arguments for the early date for gMark don't convince me at all though. I'd still say the most likely date of composition was very soon after 70 AD. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 10, 2012 1:33:44 GMT
Casey makes the case extremely well and has been doing so for years. Where did you get the idea this had been "debunked"? It's been rejected wholesale by the academic consensus. That's usually a clue. I'm willing to entertain that possibility. However, the Aramaic primacy hypothesis states that the entire NT was first written in Aramaic and only later translated into Greek. Admittedly it's been a while since I read anything about Casey's position, but I was under the impression that he subscribed to the Aramaic primacy hypothesis wholesale, and not just the idea that a couple of texts drew on an Aramaic source. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 10, 2012 6:06:25 GMT
I'm willing to entertain that possibility. However, the Aramaic primacy hypothesis states that the entire NT was first written in Aramaic and only later translated into Greek. Then I've misunderstood the term. And no, Casey definitely does not believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 10, 2012 16:48:05 GMT
Then I've misunderstood the term. . "The hypothesis of an Aramaic original for the New Testament holds that the original text of the New Testament was not written in Greek, as held by the majority of scholars, but in the Aramaic language, which was the primary language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles." Note also this; emphasis mine. "Some advocates of the "Penutsta original" view, or the view that the Christian New Testament and/or its sources were originally written in the Aramaic language, also use the term "Aramaic primacy" though this is not used in academic sources, and appears to be a recent neologism." |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 11, 2012 3:46:30 GMT
I hope unkleE has found it worth reading and I most certainly think many of this forum's users would find it most interesting. Thanks Chris, and welcome - it's nice for a long term lurker to come out of the shadows!  I am away on holidays at the moment (without this book), but I have so far read all the introductory chapters (historical method, sources, etc). I too have so far found the book more encouraging of faith than discouraging, and certainly a goldmine of new (for me) information. A few interesting things so far: - I think he makes a good case for a study of Aramaic to form a strong part of the historical method for Gospel study.
- Casey's explanations of some small inconsistencies in the gospel texts as a result of translation from Aramaic to Greek are very interesting. For example, he discusses the place where Mark records that Jesus was angry before he heals someone (sorry, don't have the reference because I'm on another continent). This case is discussed by Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus, as an example of how the text has been changed (not a very big deal I thought, somewhat overstated by Ehrman), but Casey makes a good case for the original Aramaic being a word that means both anger and compassion, and Mark translating it inaccurately.
- The early date for Mark is based mainly on Jesus prophecy about the "awful horror" in the temple. Many scholars say Mark must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE because a prophecy must (on naturalistic assumptions) have followed the event. But Casey argues that Jesus' recorded prophecy was too vague and not literally fulfilled, so could easily have been written pre 70, and relates it instead to an event in (I think) 39.
I feel all this is a bit wrong. It is hard for a naturalist to make any other assumption, but I as a christian don't have to, so I don't need to agree with the post 70 date, or with Casey's reasoning. But I also think most scholars misunderstand that prophecy anyway (says he full of hubris!) - they all say Jesus' prediction of the coming of the kingdom of God in power wasn't fulfilled whereas I think it was fulfilled at Pentecost.
So I think Casey's views on Mark (largely Aramaic eyewitness sources with a fairly rudimentary translation) seem generally correct, but I am ambivalent about the date.
- I likewise am ambivalent about his views on John, which are fairly conventional. I think it is clear that much of John is "secondary", or reflection on historical events rather than simple recording of facts, but (1) his knowledge of locations is confirmed by archaeology, so there is eyewitness information in there, and (2) as a christian, I see no reason not to find helpful reflections on Jesus by an early christian close the events. So I disagree with casey, but that doesn't effect what he says, it only means he doesn't use some material in quite the way he might.
But all his observations are helpful, interesting, innovative in places and I would so far recommend the book to anyone except a fundamentalist, whether christian or non-believer. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 11, 2012 12:10:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 12, 2012 3:23:20 GMT
but some go back to AD 40 e.g. James Crossley That isn't surprising because Crossley is a protege of Casey, and Casey uses his work in this book. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Nov 12, 2012 3:55:08 GMT
AD 40 seems a bit ambitious. I'm happy with 50-55 myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 15, 2012 23:24:26 GMT
I'm back into reading this book in earnest now, and two points seem to me to be worthy of discussion. 1. At several points he mentions Mark 9:1: And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”He says that many commentators say this refers to "the parousia", the second coming of Jesus at the end of the age, and argues that this was a concern of the early church but not of Jesus, and is not a correct understanding. And of course it didn't happen. Rather, Casey says, Jesus is predicting the coming of the kingdom, which he interprets in a literal and physical sense. And of course this didn't happen either. I can understand all that, but I have always (and I mean, for maybe 35+ years) understood that the kingdom of God is within us, as Jesus said, and refers to our recognition of God as king. And the kingdom "came with power" on the day of Pentecost, and so Jesus' prediction was correct. I can understand how Casey, a non-believer, who considers Jesus to be an unsuccessful Messianic prophet (I think that is a fair summary, but I am not far into the book yet) would interpret Jesus the way he has, but I don't see why I need to. This interpretation is reinforced by such diverse facts as: - OT prophecies were generally cryptic, and could be applied to several events; the NT writers felt free to explain and apply them in non-literal ways - Peter applying Joel on the day of Pentecost is an example;
- most of the warnings and predictions in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 are best interpreted as applying to the next few decades, especially if the above creative approach is applied to them.
What do others here think about this? 2. Casey's early dating for Mark, which would be very acceptable to me if I could believe it is true, seems to rest on two very doubtful assumptions to me, though I can see how they work for him: - the above assumptions about Jesus' predictions of the coming of the kingdom being not fulfilled, and
- his understanding that the "awful horror" did not occur in the 70CE rebellion, but was threatened by Caligula in 39CE.
These factors are enough for him to say, convincingly to me, that Mark wasn't written after 70CE, but that still leaves a date anywhere from 40-70CE. The early date is based almost solely on the awful horror, and that seems a bit tenuous to me. Edit: I should have mentioned a third argument, that Mark describes accurately, or even more tellingly, assumes understanding of, Jewish customs that would have made more sense in an early Jewish Christian setting. This seems to me to support his views on an early Aramaic source for Mark, but not necessarily an early full Gospel of Mark. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 16, 2012 5:59:19 GMT
I'm glad you've bounced this back up, because Casey's book is on my 'must read' list and I'm interested to know how you're finding it.
I'll consider what you've written here and post my thoughts a bit later.
|
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 16, 2012 16:30:31 GMT
1. At several points he mentions Mark 9:1: And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”He says that many commentators say this refers to "the parousia", the second coming of Jesus at the end of the age, and argues that this was a concern of the early church but not of Jesus, and is not a correct understanding. Many other commentators say it refers to the Transfiguration. I concur with their interpretation. |
|
syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on Dec 17, 2012 13:15:13 GMT
Uncle E says: I have always (and I mean, for maybe 35+ years) understood that the kingdom of God is within us, as Jesus said, and refers to our recognition of God as king. And the kingdom "came with power" on the day of Pentecost, and so Jesus' prediction was correct.
You can interpret the words, e.g., "within you," this way, but it sounds too spiritual for a first century Jew and unlikely to be what (or all of what) Jesus and the author of Luke-Acts meant.
Sankari writes: Many other commentators say it [the Kingdom of God's coming with power] refers to the Transfiguration. I concur with their interpretation.
Other commentators doubt the historicity of the Transfiguration. Rather than a historical event, they conclude it is early Christian theology written as history--a common, accepted, and well-understood practice in that ancient world. (For this last point I reference the book I'm currently reading, Edward Schillebeeckx's "Jesus: An Experiment in Christology."
|
|
