Death of Krister Stendahl

I was very sorry to hear of the death of Krister Stendahl, one of the giants of New Testament scholarship, tonight (Jim West's blog).

Travel Diary: Synoptic Problem Conference IV

Thursday, Heathrow Airport, 15.34: Checked out of Lincoln College this morning, after a nice breakfast which featured two slices of British back bacon. Last time I will get any of that until August. I was disappointed to have to miss the last couple of sessions, the first of which featured Christoph Heil on Reconstructing Q, Stephen Patterson on Thomas and Eric Eve on the Synoptic Problem without Q. Heil's paper was not online before the conference, so it was a particular shame to miss his. Eve's was so full of good sense that I doubt I would have had any comments of my own to throw in. Patterson's was one of the papers I would have particularly liked to have discussed -- the subject is one of great interest to me in my current research. There was also a plenary scheduled for people to reflect on future directions. But I was already on the coach to Heathrow, listening to the Russell Brand podcast and reading the latest Doctor Who Magazine. I met up with the family, who had come down from Peterborough, and we are about to fly. There is no wireless here, so I will upload this post when I get back to Raleigh. It will be pretty late because we are flying into DC and driving down from there.

This conference has been excellent. It was very well organized and ran very smoothly; congratulations to Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster, John Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden for a job very well done. The catering at Lincoln College was excellent, and the location ideal -- bang in the centre of Oxford (and right next to my old college). In spite of the number of papers, the programme did not feel crammed, and I appreciated the free time on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, and the free time again after 9pm or so. The number present, forty or so, was about right to ensure good discussion after each paper and set of papers. Any more, and it would have become unwieldy. By the end of the conference, one had the feeling of having got to know almost everyone.

Each session worked very well, with a general theme and three or so presentations followed by discussion. The only one that did not quite work, in my opinion, was the session that paired David Peabody with Kathleen Corley -- these were such very different papers that the discussion was less focused than it was for the other sessions where things were more naturally related.

The academic quality of the papers and the discussion was very high. I have to admit that I was initially a bit sceptical about the decision not to invite "position papers", or to have individuals arguing in favour of given theories, but it turned out that this was a brilliant decision. The encouragement to all presenters to be as balanced and fair as possible, and the invitations to read papers on specific themes, led to pretty helpful discussions with a marked lack of polemic; there was more light than heat, to use the cliché.

All in all, an excellent conference and a very enjoyable few days away. Congratulations to all involved!

[Actual time of upload, Friday, 15.25, back in Raleigh, North Carolina.]

Travel Diary: Synoptic Problem Conference III

Oxford, Thursday, 00:47; last full day of the Synoptic Problem conference. First session, 9a.m.: Andrew Gregory chaired what was perhaps the meatiest section yet, four papers on issues relating to compositional issues and the Synoptic Problem. Three of the presenters were present and Gregory summarised the fourth paper, Kirk's, on "Memory, scribal media and the synoptic problem". Alex Damm spoke first on "Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem"; then Robert Derrenbacker talked about "Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem"; then Gerald Downing on "Writers' use or abuse of written sources". Discussion was wide ranging and enthusiastic. There was perhaps most discussion on Gerald Downing's paper, and some comment on his claim that the minor agreements are in fact problematic for all synoptic theories. Several of us have picked up the feeling that this session provided a good indication of where the debate is likely to develop in the coming years -- compositional issues are clearly going to be key in future discussion of the Synoptic Problem.

After morning coffee, the next section was chaired by John Kloppenborg and featured two main papers, Eugene Boring on "The 'Minor Agreements' and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem" and Peter Head on "Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem". John Kloppenborg also read out a summary of Robert Stein's paper, "Duplicate Expressions in Mark". The discussion focused mainly on Gene Boring and Peter Head's papers. I attempted to make my point, with respect to Eugene Boring's paper, that the postulation of a "Revised Mark" may not actually aid the Two Source Theory with respect to the Minor Agreements since a Revised Mark might, in fact, have been less like our Matthew and Luke than our Mark is. On such a scenario, there might in fact have been more minor agreements in the earliest texts, and not less. I had only limited success articulating this point, however, and it may be that I need to think carefully about how to articulate it more clearly on future occasions -- or to drop it.

Before lunch, there was a group photograph. Just as we were gathering, I had a phone call from Q; we had planned to get together today, as we usually do when I am in the UK. Someone suggested that Q take the group photograph, which he was delighted to do. I hope that some kind person will email me one of the photographs taken so that I can upload it to the blog. After the photograph, Q and I wandered to the covered market, as we used to do when we were students together, and enjoyed a splendid lunch in Mortons.

The next event on the schedule, after tea, was my paper, the third of the main papers, on "The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem". I enjoyed speaking on the topic, and was honoured to have it chaired by my Doctorvater John Muddiman. I began my talk by sending Michael Goulder's greetings to the conference. (I had spent Sunday afternoon with him). The discussion after my paper was perhaps a little more subdued than some of the other discussions, and I hope that that was not a reflection on its quality or interest. Nevertheless, there were lots of useful and interesting questions, including from the chair.

Drinks were at 6.30; dinner was at 7. The main course was duck and it was excellent. Once again, the relatively early end to proceedings allowed a little time for additional socializing for those so inclined.

Alas, I have to miss the last morning of the conference. I need to get the coach to Heathrow to meet the family and get the plane back to DC, and I don't think I will be able to make it to any of the morning activities. Nevertheless, I hope to add concluding comments tomorrow. Needless to say, an excellent conference, intellectually stimulating and conducted in a generous, positive spirit. Congratulations and thanks to the convenors, John Kloppenborg, Andrew Gregory, Paul Foster and Joseph Verheyden, who have done a superb job.

Travel Diary: Synoptic Problem Conference II

Oxford, 01:02: second day of the Oxford conference on the Synoptic Problem at Lincoln College. One of the participants here teased me about whether or not I might blog what I had for breakfast today. So in his honour: breakfast today was sausage, egg and tinned tomatoes; it was perfectly fine but to have been perfect it would have needed (at least) good British back bacon and black pudding. But of course the catering people here don't know how much the British ex-pats present hanker for such things, and the breakfast was very nice.

Today was the first full day of the conference. The sessions all take place in the same room, a very Oxford kind of conference room, in which we all sit around the table rather than in rows. There were two separate sessions this morning, separated by coffee, and each with a series of three papers summarized. In session 1, Paul Foster chaired. William Loader talked about Synoptic Perspectives on Jesus and the Law, and his summary was in fact an interesting supplement to the paper he had uploaded, with reflections on how the evidence appeared from the perspectives of the Two-Source Theory, the Griesbach Theory and the Farrer Theory. This has become something of a pattern here -- these are the three theories mainly on the table and which receive the attention from most presenters. Duncan Reid then talked about the miracles from the perspective of differing Synoptic theories. Duncan is one of John Kloppenborg's students in Toronto. Charles Hedrick was not able to be present, so Paul Foster read a 15 minute summary of his paper. There was a broad discussion afterwards.

The second session was chaired by Joseph Verheyden. Kathleen Corley spoke about White Male dominance of Synoptic research, and David Peabody talked about Reading the Synoptic Gospels from the perspective of different source hypotheses, though he focused, inevitably, on the Two-Gospel Theory. I found Kathleen Corley's paper a bit disappointing, not least because it did not engage with the Synoptic Problem at all, so we did not get any closer to an answer to the question posed. I also doubt her thesis, that men are inclined towards Synoptic research because they identify with the historical Jesus. The third paper in the session was from Udo Schnelle, who was not present, and a summary was read, in German, by the chair.

After lunch, it was free time, and then tea. The second main paper was John Kloppenborg on Synopses and the Synoptic Problem. This was perhaps the paper that I found the most engaging in the conference so far, and it generated lengthy and helpful discussion afterwards. Dinner is finished in good time each evening, allowing plenty of time for a bit of socializing afterwards.

The way in which the discussion is being conducted at this conference is excellent. There are a few agenda-heavy questions, with repetitions of the protagonist's particular theories or perspectives, but on the whole, the discussions are tending to air issues of interest to all present, and across a range of areas.

Travel Diary: Synoptic Problem Conference I

Oxford, England, 00:22: caught the train down from Birmingham to Oxford this morning, a journey that I did many times as a student; tried to finish reading one of the conference papers that I hadn't yet read and fell into a deep sleep. Walked up to Lincoln College, the location for a conference on the Synoptic Problem to celebrate the centenary (forthcoming) of the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem of 1911. The idea is that the essays written for this conference will be revised for the volume to be published in time for that centenary.

I am enjoying being back in Oxford. I spent ten years here, nine of them as a student. I met my wife here and we had our first daughter here. The conference location, Lincoln College, is next door to my old college, Exeter, and I have already enjoyed walking around favourite old locations. Oxford does not change much, and the only major difference about the kind of student accommodation we are in is the addition of en-suite facilities to make the place more conducive to conferences like this. Back in my day, I had to walk down four flights of stairs to the basement to the shared, stone showers. Students today have it easy.

The conference began with lunch in the hall and then the first session of summarized papers. There are forty-three people in attendance, and most of these are presenting papers, most in summarized format. The essential idea is that the papers are written in advance and uploaded to the web (Papers), allowing plenty of time for discussion in each of the sessions, though not all have actually written their papers in advance, so some of the summaries are first-time presentations.

Eugene Boring chaired the first session and there were three papers, all from conference conveners, Andrew Gregory on Literary Dependence and the Synoptic Problem, Paul Foster on the History and Demise of M and Joseph Verheyden on Proto-Luke. Each one spoke for 15-20 minutes and the discussion was then another 45 minutes or so. Perhaps the majority of questions went to Paul Foster on his M paper, including my own on the question of "legendary" elements in M narrative material and John Kloppenborg's on the modelling of the theory. There were also comments from F. Gerald Downing, William Loader, Stephen Patterson and David Peabody.

One of the nice things about a British conference is that one breaks for tea at the proper time; I have been in America long enough to have forgotten what a pleasure it is to have a tea break at a conference. There were large, metal pots of tea of the old-fashioned catering variety.

We went from tea to the first main paper, Christopher Tuckett on "The Current State of the Synoptic Problem". The paper was ideal for the context. It was generally regarded as fair, rigorous, thorough and balanced, even if some would disagree with particular arguments, or particular selections of material covered. I was honoured that Prof. Tuckett referred to my work several times when discussing the Farrer Theory, and afterwards David Catchpole, who was chairing the session, offered "the oppressed minorities" a right to reply, me first on Farrer and then David Dungan on Griesbach. The discussion ranged to a variety of other topics, with comments and questions from, among others, Bob Derrenbacker, F. Gerald Downing, Dennis Macdonald, Maurice Casey (about the absence of Aramaic Q the survey), Paul Foster (why is Luke's use of Matthew more popular than Matthew's use of Luke?), Joseph Verheyden (are the 2ST crowd more introspective and prone to questioning their hypothesis than advocates of other theories?), William Loader (concerning the regular usage of the Synoptics in sabbath-by-sabbath worship, asking whether this distinguished them from other Graeco-Roman texts with which they are regularly compared) and others.

One general question that has already begun to raise its head is the one relating to oral tradition, literary dependency and modes of contact between documents and traditions. My guess, at this stage, is that that the issues here will recur over the coming days.

After Prof. Tuckett's paper, there were drinks. At this drinks reception, David Catchpole announced that the purpose of the volume for which we are writing is the celebration of the work of Christopher Tuckett. Prof. Catchpole spoke and Prof. Tuckett responded, thanking those assembled, but offering special thanks to David Catchpole, Bob Morgan and Christopher Rowland, all of whom were present.

From the drinks reception, we went to the hall for dinner. It was an excellent dinner -- fish course with a nice white wine; chicken for the main course with an acceptable red, and some kind of cakey pudding that I forget because of the arrival of the port.

Travel Diary: Oxford Synoptic Problem Pre-Conference II

Birmingham, 00.19. After an excellent weekend with my folks in South Derbyshire, we have spent the day in Birmingham, seeing old friends. Early start tomorrow to travel down to Oxford for the conference.

Travel Diary: Oxford Synoptic Problem Conference Pre-Conference Post

The new series (the fourth) of the new Doctor Who starts on BBC1 tonight (6.20pm) and we have flown over to England specially to see it. While here, I am planning to attend the Synoptic Problem Conference in Oxford (my paper). It gets underway on Monday at Lincoln College, Oxford and I must admit that I am looking forward to it very much. I have read most of the papers that are already online (see link above) and there is clearly going to be a lot of interest to talk about. I have brought the blogging machine with me and I am hoping to blog the conference as we go through, but it will depend a bit on whether there is wireless at Lincoln College. If there isn't, I will still write notes as I go through, but won't be able to upload until the end of the week. For now, I am enjoying some time at my parents' place in Derbyshire.

Synoptic Problem Conference Paper

There is a conference in Oxford next week to celebrate the forthcoming centenary of Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. The conference has a website and many of the papers have been uploaded already:

Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem

Although not yet on the site, my paper is available, and I have uploaded it here:

The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem (MS Word)

The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem (PDF)

Farrer on the Matthean context of double tradition

The story of the Centurion is commonly supposed to have been derived by St Matthew from Q. But surely the moral to be drawn from the extraordinary neatness with which the story nestles into its Matthaean context is that it was cast into written form for the first time by the man who placed it in that context, that is, by St Matthew himself. St Luke re-shapes the story somewhat, but even so it has no such vital or manifold connexions with the context in which he places it. The same is true of several other pieces of the so-called Q tradition: they appear to be made for their Matthaean place, and adjusted to their Lucan place. The fact is admitted by the friends of the Q hypothesis and actually twisted into an argument in support of it. St Luke, they say, could never have found his material in St Matthew, or he would not have dreamt tearing it from the perfect setting it there has, to place it less happily in his own Gospel. It is wiser to say: St Luke, wishing to write his own book in his own way, re-arranged his material he found in his authors. He did it skilfully, but no amount of skill could make an adapted context fit as tight as the context for which the material was composed.

Austin Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark (The Edward Cadbury Lectures, 1953-4; Westminster: Dacre Press, 1954), 46-7, n.2

Dale Allison Clark Lecture Recordings

Thanks to Andy Rowell for pointing out that Dale Allison's Clark Lectures, recently given at Duke University, are now available online at Duke's iTunes U site:

2008 Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Online

Unfortunately, the link on that page takes one to some kind of iTunes thing. For those of us who don't use iTunes, I will inquire about an alternative link.

Update (16 June 2009): Now I do use iTunes and have my own podcast on iTunes U and I notice that the old link above on the Divinity School site had disappeared, so I have refreshed this post, and added a new Duke iTunes U tag.

BBC Passion website new content: Crucifixion and Questions Answered

More material has been added to the BBC's The Passion website. New today is an article on the crucifixion, discussing the topic by using the Telegraph and Daily Mail articles as a springboard:

BBC Portrayal of the Crucifixion

The piece is pretty well done, I think. Also new on the articles page is a section in which Nigel Stafford-Clark (producer) and Frank Deasy (writer) answer viewers' questions. There are lots of interesting comments here, and I strongly recommend it:

Your questions answered

The questions answered include one about the lack of miracles in the story, one about the use of regional accents, one about the use of animals, one about the casting of Jesus, one about the shooting of the drama, one about the research for the drama, and lots more.

The new content seems to have knocked off my article, The Passion and Its Historical Context, I hope by accident!

The Passion, episode 3

The third episode of The Passion was broadcast tonight on BBC1. I was on the road so was unable to watch it, but will catch up on Sunday (I've seen it lots of times before, but I like to get the full televisual experience of watching it at the same time as everyone else). I am not doing my own reviews of The Passion, at least not for a year or two, because of my involvement in the production. In fact, I don't know that it's ever appropriate for people who played a role (however small) in a production to review it, though they might offer reflections at some point. That is something I have done a little of already, but I would like to do at much greater length in the future. There are all sorts of interesting little pieces of background information that would be interesting to share, but all at the right time. For now, I am fascinated to be listening to others' reactions. And generally speaking, reactions so far have been very encouraging.

For those who missed the episode but who are in the UK, it's available in the iPlayer for another week; you can access it directly from The Passion website. There are several sets of reviews and reflections already available. Doug Chaplin on Metacatholic is still finding more to like than not to like (The Passion continues, and rather well). It's all worth reading, but I found this observation particularly interesting:

One feature that any Jesus film brings home is the difficulty of narrating the terse stories of the gospels over anything like a sufficiently dramatic time span when portrayed on the screen. This was part of the effectiveness of the imprisoning of Jesus in a kind of well in Caiaphas’ courtyard. It gave a sense of time passing to the events, without seriously elongating the trial scenes with invented dialogue.

Gemma Simmonds, SJ, has a positive review over onThinking Faith

. . . . The richness of this production is in those momentary looks of realisation. Pilate looks at Jesus and knows there is more to this than he can see. Claudia’s frenzy is quelled by Pilate’s pragmatism and her own realisation of the risk Jesus represents to what makes her life bearable. Caiaphas’s whole face quivers with intensity and horror as he hears Jesus utter words that would destroy all that he has tried so desperately to save. . . .

And Matt Page, on Bible Films Blog, continues his very helpful Scene Guides series (Part One Scene Guide; Part Two Scene Guide) with his Part Three Scene Guide and connected reflections, including some thoughts on how it would have come across if had been broadcast in the originally planned six half-hour episodes. He wonders how HBO will treat it. My guess would be (and I have heard nothing on this, so it is only a guess) that they will broadcast it in thee x one hour episodes, which will actually end up producing another interesting but different viewing experience.

Passion Interview with me in Christian Today

Christian Today have been running a big feature on The Passion and they have added a couple of interviews done on the evening of the première, the first with Frank Deasy and the second with me:

Interview: Dr Mark Goodacre, The Passion's Historical Consultant

Interview: Frank Deasy, writer of The Passion

There are lots of other materials on their BBC Passion page, with more being added regularly.

Independent praises "surprisingly gripping" Passion -- and other links

I omitted to refer to The Independent's very positive review of The Passion. As usual, I'll quote a section, but it's all worth reading:

The Weekend's TV: The Passion, BBC1
Gavin & Stacey, BBC3
Don't pass over this Easter treat
By Thomas Sutcliffe
Monday, 17 March 2008

. . . . The Moroccan location and the dusty hugger-mugger of some of the street scenes mean that it is fleetingly haunted by the spirit of The Life of Brian, but only the most zealously dogmatic Christian could complain that it was irreverent.

Naturally, at least one dogmatic Christian has already volunteered his services. Stephen Green, the self-appointed pharisee who speaks for Christian Voice, has expressed disquiet at the fact that Deasy's account of Christ's last days should have been at pains to round out the motivations and character of two other notable players in the drama – Caiaphas, the High Priest, and Pilate, the Roman Governor. Mr Green wouldn't be satisfied, I suspect, unless both men appeared on screen accompanied by sulphurous gusts of smoke and a blast of the Carmina Burana. But for the rest of us, religiously minded or not, the prospect of a series diplomatically poised between revealed truth and historical speculation must be something of a relief. If you believe that Christ is your redeemer I can't so far see anything in The Passion that would have affronted that faith. And if you don't, its account of the politics of a week that was critical in world history proved surprisingly gripping.

If you missed the first two episodes and live in the UK, the Passion website has placed each one online so that you don't even have to go to the iPlayer:

The Passion: Episode Guide

Also on the BBC site, there are lots of comments from viewers, some of which make interesting reading to get a sketch of a range of reactions.

Digital Spy has viewing figures for the first episode, a slightly disappointing 4.1 million, a 15% share of the audience, apparently losing out to Dancing on Ice, almost 12 million (44% of the audience). As for the second episode, Doug Chaplin (Metacatholic) and Michael Bird (Euangelion) are bang up to date, with their episode 2 reviews going online within hours of last night's broadcast.

Also yesterday, Simon Mayo's TV Panel reviewed The Passion; you can listen again; fast forward to about 3.35pm for discussion of The Passion.

More comments and links later.

Guardian Review of "Fabulous" Passion

Saving the best until last, it's nice to wake up this morning to a great review in Media Guardian. It is not possible for me to conceal my delight at this review, all the more so as it occurs in The Guardian:

The weekend's TV
Sam Wollaston

A bunch of blokes with long hair and beards head towards a city. ELO on tour? Nope, too many of them, and the lead guy's on an ass. There's a lot of palm fronds about the place ... ah, I think I know what this is: Palm Sunday. And it's going out on Palm Sunday! So The Passion (BBC1, Sunday), a drama that unfolds in four episodes spread over Easter Week, is TV in real time, a bit like 24, but more retro, and the guy saving the world has more hair. You wouldn't catch Jack Bauer on an ass either . . . .

. . . . . I don't think anyone's going to be getting too upset about it. JC isn't a woman, gay, or a Muslim (though it was all filmed in Morocco - I wonder what the locals made of that). It's actually pretty straight. Gospel, you might say. It is also fabulous, with some great performances: Ben Daniels is excellent as a complex Caiaphas, James Nesbitt plays Pontius Pilate with obvious enjoyment, Joseph Mawle is a believable Jesus (which is, I suppose, what you want from someone who says he's the son of God; it can't be an easy role). The ass is splendid too (it's pathetic, I know, but I just enjoy typing that word). But there's also a vitality and realness about the whole thing that you rarely find with this story. A passion, you could even say, in another sense of the word.

We're getting down and dirty in the narrow streets of Jerusalem, overflowing with life and the blood of sacrificed lambs. It's loud, looks alive, you can almost smell it all. This feels like a place and a time that actually happened. It's not at all preachy, though. There's no "he's good and he's bad" stuff. The characters, too, are treated as real people, not merely as vehicles for messages. In fact you could watch The Passion and totally forget that this story was central to a major world religion. And that's a good thing, I think

The Passion: Reviews and Comments begin to come in

It is Monday morning and the papers are full of reviews and comments on The Passion. I hope to blog some more about this at the week goes on. In the mean time, here are some comments on this morning's selection, beginning with a somewhat annoying contribution in the Daily Mail. Further to my previous post on the Telegraph article on the crucifixion, now updated with a comment from Paula Gooder (which, unlike the Telegraph, I did not edit), the Daily Mail now attempts to weigh in on the same topic:

Row over BBC drama which shows Jesus crucified in a foetal position
By PAUL REVOIR

The article appears simply to be a rehash of the Telegraph piece. The idea that there is a "row" is, I think, difficult to sustain. Indeed, the article only quotes one person apparently hostile to the BBC on this topic, and his comments appear to have been drawn from the Telegraph article. I am quoted, but I have not talked to them -- the quotation also comes from the Sunday Telegraph. The article continues the pattern of joint Telegraph / Daily Mail reporting of The Passion (BBC exonerates Judas, etc.). Both papers have been looking for controversy for the last three weeks, and they are still struggling to find it.

I should not be too harsh on them, though. The Telegraph's own TV reviewer clearly loved it, and was unable to find grounds for complaint:

Last night on television: The Passion (BBC1), Gavin and Stacey (BBC3)
By James Walton

. . . In particular, The Passion strikes an impressive balance between being faithful to the gospel stories and being unafraid to flesh them out, when required, with recognisable human motives. It also supplies (helpfully, if not always subtly) the theological, historical and political background to what we’re seeing.

One objection from those Christian groups is apparently that Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a good guy. Well, again – and leaving aside the question of whether this would necessarily be an outrage anyway – I can’t see it myself. As played by James Nesbitt, Pilate isn’t a complete psychopath. Nonetheless, in his career politician’s determination to show the Jews who’s boss, he often might as well be . . . .

. . . . The Passion does perhaps suggest that, in its absence of doubt, Jesus’s is essentially a young man’s gospel (which, I suppose, is mildly controversial, but also interesting). Yet, for the same reason, the programme proves deeply stirring too – as his message of love for God and neighbour slices straight through all the realpolitik around him . . .

The Times also reviews The Passion (again, along with Gavin and Stacey):

The Passion; Gavin and Stacey
Weekend TV
Andrew Billen

It's a mixed review, but I liked this line:

The virtue of Nigel Stafford-Clark's Passion is that it looks historically real but not historic: no one knows, aside presumably from Jesus, that this will be the week that changes the West for ever.

The Herald quite liked it; Michael Barnes, SJ in Thinking Faith (British Jesuits journal) is pretty thrilled with it:

This is brilliant story-telling, carefully plotted and visually superb. One shot, in which Jesus is showered with blood-red poppy petals scattered from windows above, makes for a perfect counterpoint to the traditional waving of palms. Jerusalem, with its narrow alleyways and cramped corners, and the Temple stained by blood sacrifices and burnt offerings, looks just like the provincial backwater which the Romans profess to hate. Apart from the clichéd mood music as Jesus walks through a desolate landscape marked by ominous crosses and smoking fires, the production scarcely puts a foot wrong.

And The Scotsman too lines up to find a lot that it liked in the opening episode:

A very British Passion for Judea
By Andrea Mullaney

. . . . But as a drama, this certainly worked, with an unusual amount of tension for such a familiar story.

Over on reJesus, Matt Page's review is up, and it's encouraging reading for the programme makers. Matt, who runs the Bible Films Blog, knows more than anyone about Bible films and his opinion is worth hearing.

Other bloggers, so far, are a bit luke warm in their comments. Michael Bird offers reflections in Euangelion and, like Doug Chaplin on Metacatholic, he objects to "The endless references to the "kingdom of God is within you"", which, he says, "over emphasizes a minor Lucan theme". Well, I rather like Luke, but I would add that the line in fact comes only once in the episode, when Jesus is talking to Mina as she clings to his feet. I am not sure if I would agree with Michael about the "Borgesque" theology, though I think he rightly perceives that sacrifice is a major theme in Deasy's scripts, and it is a theme that will continue to be worked out in the forthcoming episodes. Doug is not keen on the "rewriting of Jesus' teaching", something I regard as one of the strengths of the writing -- it is fresh and interesting and, I find, pretty powerful. I particularly like Jesus' line to Mary Magdalene, "Before the end of the week, Mary Magdalene, I promise you that you will know God like never before". It may take a little getting used to, though, and I have had a couple of years to get used to a lot of this, and I do realize that my own appreciation of the drama proceeds from my familiarity with it, so I am interested to hear these first impressions. Nevertheless, I am pleased that people are finding so many positives in The Passion, not least because the best is definitely still to come. Episode 2 is on BBC1 tonight at 8.30pm.

How Jesus was crucified: Sunday Telegraph's negative spin on The Passion

On Thursday afternoon, I had a fifteen minute chat with a reporter from the Sunday Telegraph about the way that Jesus' crucifixion is portrayed in The Passion. You can see the way that it is done in a shot in the trailer. It is somewhat different from traditional depictions, but I explained that there is no actual description of the way that Jesus is crucified in the Gospels, and the traditional depiction, with arms outstretched, is not derived from the Gospels. I drew the reporter's attention to a passage in Josephus, War 5.11, which describes victims being crucified in a variety of poses. When he asked me about John 20.24-29, which mentions wounds in Jesus' "hands", I pointed out that the Greek word χείρ, used here, can refer to the arm or the forearm. I also talked a bit about Jehohanan, the one crucified victim we have archaeological evidence of. Little of this conversation actually appears in the article in this morning's Sunday Telegraph, which attempts to put a particular negative spin on the way that Jesus' crucifixion is depicted:

Why the BBC thinks Jesus did not die this way
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

There are several problems with the article and I would like to draw attention to some of them here. Wynne-Jones writes:

But now the producers of a BBC drama about Christ's final days have challenged the traditional representation, saying they believe Jesus probably did not die that way.

Instead of portraying Christ with his arms out wide and his legs straight down, The Passion will show him nailed to the cross in a foetal position, with his arms above his head and nails through his arms - the way, the producers claim, he may well have been crucified by the Romans.

Leading theologians accused the BBC of "misleading" the public and said it was ignoring the Biblical account of the crucifixion. But the makers of The Passion insist their ideas are based on new historical evidence.

This is not carefully worded. The makers of The Passion are not saying that they "believe Jesus probably did not die" in the way traditionally depicted; they are presenting a drama in which an alternative possibility is presented. After the quotations from me, Wynne-Jones adds:

He added that he thought the Bible did not actually explain in any detail the form of crucifixion employed.

I don't think that; I know that. Anyone who looks at the Gospel accounts will see it to be the case. The article goes on to quote my friend Paula Gooder, though putting a somewhat negative slant on her remarks too:

"They have clearly decided to go for this option because it's unusual and will jolt viewers and challenge them about their assumptions," she said.

"Their portrayal causes a problem as it seems to ignore what the Bible says."

In the Book of John, Jesus says to Thomas: "Put your finger here; see my hands."

I think that it is easy to over-interpret the reference in John 20 and I don't see it as contradicting the way that Jesus is crucified in The Passion (see above). The article goes on:

The Reverend George Curry, who is the chairman of the Church Society, said: "They are misleading people by distorting the facts.

"That's a serious and dangerous thing to do, but sadly utterly predictable and regrettable. Jesus's nails went through his hands, not his forearms. We should be true to history and the events that occurred."

This too is somewhat overstated. It is incorrect to speak of "distorting the facts", not is there anything "utterly predictable" about this. On the contrary, the BBC have gone to great lengths to think seriously about the history in The Passion and it is a shame that this article does attempt to take that seriously.

Update (16:05): Doug Chaplin has some very helpful comments on Metacatholic. I have also been chatting to Paula Gooder this afternoon and, as I suspected, this is a case of selective and misleading quotation. Paula writes:

It is the best portrayal of the crucifixion and resurrection that I have seen for a long time. The drama as a whole including the crucifixion scene draws on some of the best scholarship available. I simply said to the Telegraph that I supposed that some people who didn't like new ideas might find it challenging, they shouldn't but they might!

Update (24 August 2014): URL for the Telegraph article updated.

The Passion on Newsnight Review

Thanks to James Crossley for pointing out to me that The Passion was reviewed last night on Newsnight Review. I was delighted to hear Anthony Horowitz, who said that he was still traumatized by the Mel Gibson version, beginning the review by saying that it was "wonderful" and "as close to perfect television as you can get". That is praise! If you are in the UK, you can watch it on the BBC iPlayer. If you are elsewhere, there is a low-quality version available. The review features a couple of clips, including the exchange between Caiaphas and Pilate I wrote about in "The Passion" and Its Historical Context.

The Passion trailer

I'm bumping this up to the top to remind those in the UK that The Passion mini-series begins this weekend. My posts on it, which include some discussion of my involvement, are here. More later.

Review of Biblical Literature megapost

Here is the latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature, incorporating the last three or four updates:

Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins, eds.
Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen
Reviewed by Daniel R. Driver

Richard J. Cassidy
Four Times Peter: Portrayals of Peter in the Four Gospels and at Philippi
Reviewed by Patrick J. Hartin

Ira Brent Driggers
Following God through Mark: Theological Tension in the Second Gospel
Reviewed by Elliott Maloney

Robert J. Karris, ed. and trans.
Works of St. Bonaventure: Commentary on the Gospel of John
Reviewed by Mark Elliott

Dale C. Allison Jr.
Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present
Reviewed by Bogdan G. Bucur

John J. Collins and Craig A. Evans, eds.
Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Reviewed by Matthew Goff

Jeffrey A. Gibbs
Matthew 1:1--11:1
Reviewed by Charles L. Quarles

John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay
Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook
Reviewed by David Allen

William Loader
The New Testament with Imagination: A Fresh Approach to Its Writings and Themes
Reviewed by Séan P. Kealy

Jerry L. Sumney
Philippians: A Greek Student's Intermediate Reader
Reviewed by Robert Keay

Cilliers Breytenbach, Johan C. Thom, and Jeremy Punt, eds.
The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernhard C. Lategan
Reviewed by Douglas Estes

David Buttrick
Speaking Conflict: Stories of a Controversial Jesus
Reviewed by John J. Pilch

J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds.
Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies
Reviewed by Erroll F. Rhodes

Rachel Hallote
Bible, Map, and Spade: The American Palestine Exploration Society, Frederick Jones Bliss, and the Forgotten Story of Early American Biblical Archaeology
Reviewed by Eric M. Meyers

Aquila H. I. Lee
From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus's Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms
Reviewed by Sam Janse

Richard W. Swanson
Provoking the Gospel of Matthew: A Storyteller's Commentary, Year A
Reviewed by Deborah Thompson Prince

David E. Aune, ed.
Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification
Reviewed by James D. G. Dunn
Reviewed by Philip F. Esler

Giorgio Jossa
Jews or Christians? The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their Own Identity
Reviewed by Michael F. Bird

John S. Kloppenborg
The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine
Reviewed by Richard L. Rohrbaugh

---------------------------------------------------------------------
And a bonus also:

The Bible and Critical Theory
Volume 4, Number 1 (February 2008)
Edited by Dr. Julie Kelso with
Associate Editor Dr Roland Boer

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Melody D. Knowles, Esther Menn, John Pawlikowski, and Timothy J. Sandoval, eds., Contesting Texts: Jews and Christians in Conversation about the Bible
Reviewed by Michael Carden

R. S. Sugirtharajah, ed., Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World
Reviewed by Bridget Culpepper

Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism
Reviewed by Judith E. McKinlay

Wesley J. Bergen and Armin Siedlecki, eds., Voyages in Uncharted Waters: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Biblical Interpretation in Honour of David Jobling
Reviewed by Peter D. Miscall

Marcel Danesi, The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice
Reviewed by Mark Sneed

Andrew P. Wilson, Transfigured: A Derridean Rereading of the Markan Transfiguration
Reviewed by Mark Sneed

Elaine M. Wainwright, Women Healing/Healing Women: The Genderization of Healing in Early Christianity
Reviewed by Kristi Upson-Saia

James G. Crossley, Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26-50 CE)
Reviewed by Richard Walsh