1

Transcripts of Bill Loader’s Power Point Lectures 2013 Wembley Downs

The World of Jesus and Us: Poles Apart but Connected at the Core

Session One: The Role of the Bible for Christians and Churches http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/RoleBible.pdf

Session Two: Jesus and the Gospel: Reassessing the Content and Context of Jesus’

Message in the light of Recent Research

The Powers of History After the Exile (For these sections see Daniel 8:3-12, 20-25)

After Cyrus conquered Babylonia 538, the returnees from exile reestablished a small,

impoverished temple state, Judea, rebuilt temple 516, far from the dream of 2 Isaiah;

High priest as dominant leader

Alexander the Great: conquests as far as India, died in prime, brought back oriental

traditions/postures, spread Greek culture/education/cities - Hellenism

Ptolemies and Seleucids

Alexander’s generals break up the empir. Ptolemy took Egypt (and Palestine) till ca 200

BCE, Seleucus took Syria and took over Palestine after 200 BCE

Under pressure from emerging Romans

Jews living in a Hellenistic world: “Hellenism” esp. among urban wealthy elite:

“Judaism” as way of life

The Hasmoneans

Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ desecration of the temple and the Maccabean Revolt 167-164

Antiochus intervened for money and control, desecrated the temple with altar to Zeus

Jewish leadership in conflict over Hellenisation Judas Maccabeus (family of Hasmon) successful revolt;

Brothers succeed him: Jonathan, Simon

A new political elite, also high priests - controversial

Seleucids weakened - Hasmoneans expansions esp. under John Hyrcanus (late 2nd

cent) and

Alexander Janneus (early 1st cent) including Galilee

Divisions under Salome Alexandra – Pharisee x Sadducee

Rivalry of sons precipitates Rome’s intervention through Pompey

Under the Romans

Pompey invited by rivals enters Jerusalem and temple 63 BCE

Fighting off Parthians in 50s

Rome installs son of Antipater, an Idumean, Herod the Great, as puppet king 37 – 4 BCE

over greater Israel (incl. Galilee); ruthless, but used wealth for building programs

Revolts at his death, including in Sepphoris (near Nazareth)

His realm split among sons: Judea/Samaria: Archelaus deposed and then ruled by Roman

prefects based in Caesarea; Galilee/Perea: Antipas; Golan Heights etc: Philip

So what?

Disappointment, Discouragement, and Poverty

Hope for Change on basis of Exodus and Exile and God’s goodness if Jews are faithful

Hope through Maccabeans but soured by results

Hope through macro-change: apocalyptic visions

Jews at the vulnerable eastern flank

Roman/Herodian economic exploitation

Divided and diverse responses to Israel’s plight

Faith and politics inseparable

Faith at the interface of cultures: what really matters?

After Jesus

Growing Unrest, messianic figures in 50’s 60’s CE

2

Revolt against Rome 66-70 CE. Titus takes Jerusalem, destroys the temple

132-135 CE Bar Kochba (“Son of a Star” Nu 24:17); Messiah Figure; Jerusalem destroyed

On the Ground in Galilee

Models of Reconstruction:

Horsley: Jesus is part of an emerging spiral of resistance against Herodians/Rome

oppression/exploitation – alienation from Judea and temple, survivors of the northern

kingdom; it becomes violent and leads to great revolt of 66-70 CE when temple was

destroyed

Problems: survivors of northern kingdom/alienated? How poor?

Crossan: Extreme poverty; Jesus values/blesses poor and mobilises them for resistance

and support (meals, healing); like Cynic teachers; not strongly Jewish; abandons

future divine intervention (v. John the Baptist and the church)

Problems: too unconnected with Jewish faith and hope and “poor”

Archaeology:

Abundant stone jars (for purity concerns), no pig bones(forbidden food), immersion

pools (purification), burial customs, links with Judea and the temple (Reed/Freyne) -

Suggests conservative Jewish population/Judean influence

Jesus’ family: traditional Jewish (Jacob. Joseph, Joshua, Miriam, Simon)

apparently conservative beginnings (response to Canaanite, leper, woman)

So Jesus’ message must be read in the context of strongly Jewish background, including

Jewish faith and hopes.

Discontinuity from John the Baptist and the disciples (who employ future hope to speak

of Jesus’ resurrection)? unlikely

Jesus as a peasant Jewish cynic sage untouched by Jewish hopes? unlikely

Galileans, Poor?

Yes, but not desperately so; Otherwise itinerancy strategy and trust sayings (lilies, birds,

etc) would not work; Employment through building programs: Sepphoris; Possibly

help Jesus’ family survive

Soil fertility around Galilee – bread basket of Palestine; Parables reflect diversity of

poor and rich in Galilee

“The Poor” must be read in light of Isa 61:1 as Israel in its need, including poor, hungry,

but also all others – not preference for poor v rich, but hope which includes the poor,

understanding poor in a broad sense of people in need

Jesus and hope for change: Future Hope

Blessed are the poor/hungry/weeping

Isa 61:1 Israel’s hope “Spirit of the Lord is upon me … to proclaim good news to the

poor”; similarly Isa 52:7 on God’s future reign

Jesus announced future change as divine promise (coming kingdom of God)

Leaving it open but apparently assuming it to be soon (hence that continued expectation in

the church)

This fits both much of Judaism of the time and specifically John the Baptist and the first

responses of the disciples who use future expectation of resurrection to interpret Jesus’

death

Images of the Future: based on prophets(selectively)non violent (not killing off enemies);

the great meal of peace for all; living in the land in abundance, health, and oneness with

God, a kingdom of justice and peace (Gentiles not threatening)

Jesus and hope for change: Present Engagement and Embodiment of Hope

addressed the drivers of poverty: healing and exorcisms (prophetic hopes), engaged in

inclusive grace now – esp. meals, towards both “nobodies” and crooks on the make,

built communities of radical hope and action locally, symbolised protest against tyranny

of land, patronage, familyby forming itinerant group (landless, homeless)

Jesus and hope for change: Clashes

3

Over holiness and Law: Sorting out priorities (cross cultural perspectives), relativising

ethnic/cultic/ritual/ceremonial, prioritising love of neighbour

Holiness by engaging love not by separation - Ultimately theological: what is your God

like?

Possibly over means of achieving change (violence)

Over corruption and greed (Good Samaritan parable) of rich/powerful/temple authorities

Danger and confrontation: Took the message to the seat of spiritual power and was

executed for the sake of stability

Connections and Disconnections: Disconnections/ “Poles Apart”

Macro change by divine intervention and power change (apocalyptic thought, defying

helpless vulnerability to powers outside our control) did not materialise; micro change

did

His world’s diagnosis of the human condition: demons, exorcism, the great round up; a flat

earth

Promise to “the Poor” (not just economic) was based on national aspirations of life in the

land of Israel

Connections and Disconnections: Connections/ “but Connected at the Core”

We can value the apocalyptic insight that micro change is not enough; we need macro

change (also have a sense of helpless vulnerability to powers outside our control) , but

today that means addressing the powers that control poverty globally through UN etc

(debt relief, development, climate change).

“The Poor” but for us not just Israel in its land, but all

Addressing the drivers of poverty at all levels; engaged spirituality of love now

Celebrating the vision of hope, not least the meal of hope

What does it mean for us, too, to be good news for the poor, in our very different world?

When are we not so?

Session Three: Faith and the Bible: Companions in Conflict Resurrection and the Hope of Change

The disciples understood Jesus’ vindication within the framework of traditional Jewish

future expectation: resurrection

Jesus is vindicated: hope of change remains. Carry on as before, but with increased

confidence, belief that it will happen soon, where it traditionally should (Jerusalem) and

that Jesus will play a key role: Marana tha! He will be the Messiah

The Community (Church) of Hope

In the place of hope: Jerusalem (and the temple), Continuing shared meals; Shared

property – itinerants becoming residents in the place of hope; Baptising those who

join the faithful as John (and possibly Jesus) but now explicitly “in the name of

Jesus” – into his community/authority

Did they continue to do the same things as Jesus? The Message of Jesus, now supplemented with the message about Jesus, but remaining

connected to Jesus’ vision of God’s future promise (replacing hope for the poor with

adulation of Jesus as a god?x just another god/hero cult?x)

Unforeseen Issues

Conflict with authorities was inevitable, but not warranting slaughter

Conflict in Greek speaking community in Jerusalem; Heightened sensitivity of some

diaspora Jews who took a defensive stance towards their world and any critique of

temple and Torah

Other options might stress common values and ethics and find Jesus’ priorities attractive

Paul espouses both views successively

Expanding the gospel beyond Jerusalem to diaspora centres was inevitable and may have

resulted from escape from attacks in Jerusalem

4

What happens if not only Jews in other cities but interested Gentiles linked with them as

“godfearers” also embrace the message of Jesus?

How applicable is the message of Jesus beyond national hopes and aspirations at a

macro and micro level?

Do his followers now declare good news to all the poor of the empire and beyond?

They did not do that, but remained Israel-focussed.

Then the issue was: can Gentiles share in Israel’s hopes/joint the people of God? And if

so, how?

Some prophetic tradition said: yes, Gentiles will be guests/visitors..

They regularly feature in Jewish expectations (in very different ways)

But now it was happening, how should it be handled?

Legal tradition (including Genesis 17): circumcision them

That should have been straightforward (scripture is clear),

but was problematic. Some were probably welcomed without it.A potential mess!

The Bible and Conflict

Options for Dealing with Circumcision:

Obey the scriptural command! Coherent and clear

Drop the requirement! On what basis can you set biblical commandments aside?

Some were outraged (“the circumcision party”) Acts 15:1; Gal 2

Most dared to believe it could be dropped, almost certainly on grounds of compassion

Gentiles hesitant before, now flocked in!

Accusations of cheap compromise. Gal 1:6-10 Bitter disputes followed

Options for Dealing with Scripture

Exempt Gentiles only from circumcision, but let them keep all other Laws pertaining to

Gentiles

What about Jews in relation to Gentiles? Mixing, eating their food, etc. Acts 11:2 What

further “discrimination” might occur?

Some compromised further. Disputes between Paul and Peter Gal 2:11-14

Do you set priorities but keep all commandments or do your priorities become the

basis for overriding or even ignoring other biblical law? If circumcision of the

heart matters more than circumcision of the penis, can one go a step further and

abandon circumcision altogether (even for Jews!)?

Is the coming of Christ a new beginning which replaces the Law? Has OT scripture

(their scripture) any role at all anymore?

Faith caught into such disputes often loses perspective by making the point of difference

into a central tenet of true faith. It makes it sound like circumcision is the very centre

of Israel’s faith – a distortion.

Paul and Scripture

Paul’s vulnerability: Has he abandoned scripture in an effort to win Gentiles?

If only faith in Christ matters, doesn’t that imply abandoning scripture? having no basis for

behaviour, so leading people into a free for all, anything goes (“like what happened at

Corinth”)? Rom 3:8; 6:1 betraying not only scripture but also Israel and so calling God’s

integrity into question as creating Israel then casting it off?

Paul’s Response(s)

Paul insists he does not abandon scripture but he goes as far as saying we are not under the

law, Rom 7:1-6, needing to observe circumcision, days, foods, etc. Gal 4:11, except

where it is useful to do so for strategic and sensitivity reasons 1 Cor 9:19-23; Rom 14

When he claims that he still upholds Torah, Rom 3:31, he apparently means those

commands which he sees as priorities (esp. love related), but he sees these priorities as

achieved through one’s relationship of love with Christ and through the Spirit, achieving

more effectively what the Torah set out to do and does not readily achieve Rom 8:1-4

He sees evidence in scripture of a focus on these faith-related priorities and mounts

arguments that scripture foresees what is now fulfilled in Christ

5

Still, while noting such developments, including in relation to Israel, he asserts that God

would never abandon Israel, anymore than a parent would abandon a child – he cannot

explain how (it is a “mystery”) Rom 11:25-35

While Paul’s starting point is what he understands as the impact of Jesus (which he

expounds as radical love offered to all) ultimately his argument is based on his

understanding of God as being a God of love and compassion. That determines the way

he interprets scripture – and everything else! It can be argued that in using his

understanding of God as his starting point, he is in line with what was Jesus’ own radical

approach.

Mark’s Response

Mark depicts Jesus in conflict with Pharisees over ritual washing of hands before meals (a

widespread “extra”). (7:1-6). Mark has Jesus not only dismiss the need for such

practices and disparage preoccupation with externals which he alleges often led to

hypocrisy (7:7-13) but also has Jesus declare that nothing from outside can make a

person unclean, including foods: “what stinks is not what goes in but comes out” ! 7:15.

What goes in simply enters the stomach and goes out into the toilet, so cannot possibly

render a person unclean! 7:17-19. Mark summarises the argument by inserting the

words: “declaring all foods clean” (7:19)

Mark’s reading of the story has Jesus set aside not only Jewish traditions, but also biblical

food laws and do so on rationalistic grounds that such laws never made any sense

anyway. Mark sees this as important in removing a block which would prevent

fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, represented in the surrounding chapters by the

feeding of the 5000 and the feeding of the 4000, a radical negation, similar to Ephesians:

“he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the

hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and

ordinances” Eph 2:14-15

Matthew’s Response

Matthew takes over most of Mark and in this instance, revises the story, to remove any

suggestion that Jesus was setting anything more than Jewish traditions aside 15:1-20.

After all his Jesus had declared every jot and stroke of Torah inviolable (5:17-18) (may

be even including circumcision)

Luke’s Response

Luke seems similarly uncomfortable, so does not include this story in his gospel at all! He,

too, sees Jesus declaring Torah inviolable (16:17) except for where divine intervention

suspended a commandment, such as with circumcision.

He knows of a vision of Peter which apparently sets food laws aside, but seems to treat it

symbolically as a statement not about animals but about people Acts 10:9-16

So both Matthew and Luke tend to operate with an attitude towards scripture which

prioritises love, but never at the expense of setting any part of scripture aside

John’s Response

1:17; 5:39; 6:32

John displays respect for Torah and its provisions, never disparaging them, but

nevertheless declaring that with Christ’s coming they cease to be in effect, but instead

served and serve as pointers to Christ.

Where once as a Jew he might have hailed Torah as light, life, truth, bread, now he sees

only Christ in this way. He is the only true bread, etc.

This is a radical solution which like Hebrews employs notions of the old prefiguring and

symbolising the new at a lower level of reality and no longer to be perpetuated, but used

only as argument for the validity of the new

Faith and the Bible: Companions in Conflict

6

Conflict over how to treat biblical tradition featured already in the ministry of Jesus who

argued theologically about God as compassionate, but nothing suggests he set any part

of Torah aside, as opposed to having one priority override another

It featured strongly in the early church, where in response to new situations some believed

that theology (and rationality) warranted setting some commandments aside, while

others sought to uphold all within the framework of priorities

Consistently the stance which claims all as equally authoritative, as in some forms of

fundamentalism, is rejected and seen as contrary to the core of faith

Unquestioned cultural assumptions (e.g. about women, marriage, etc) also continued to

inform interpretation beside these core priorities

How can we help people to connect to Jesus and Paul’s approach to scripture rather to that

of their opponents?

Session Four: Church and Community: Love and Legacy

How could “good news for the poor” survive? What happened to “good news for the poor”? What were the Options? • To change the content of the “good news” so that it loses reference to the poor and

proclaims something else?

• To continue to proclaim the “good news” Jesus preached to Israel including its poor,

but invite others to join the people of God?

• To change the content of the “good news” so that it loses reference to the poor and

proclaims something else?

Paul and “the poor”

“the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:26) - Gal 2:10-11

These “poor” were probably survivors of the itinerants who settled in Jerusalem and sold

up property and so had no resources

So it is the poor in Israel/people of God who believe in Jesus Not the empire’s poor in

general

… but when Cephas came to Antioch … The agreement probably collapsed after the Antioch conflict, but was later reinstated voluntarily by Paul

He makes a collection and then takes it to Jerusalem: “ministry to the saints” (diakonia);

communion/community” (koinonia); “grace” (charis) – talking about monetary aid 1

Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8 – 9; Rom 15:25-32

At least within the Christian community Paul sees care for the poor as central, but also

as referring to the people of God “the saints” (reflecting the focus of Jesus) Paul does not narrow good news to forgiveness and the afterlife

Paul and Corinth

Paul and Communion: - 1 Cor 11:20-22

The pattern was a common meal followed by the eucharist. The poor had little or no

food and probably came late, while the rich gorged themselves. 1 Cor 11:28

Communion without community and concern for the poor lacks integrity and is out of

step with the eucharistic vision and the meal vision of Jesus. Paul has not chosen the

narrowed option

Other related problems at Corinth

1 Cor 12:1-3 Some get carried away and virtually curse Jesus by their behaviour

Think “body”, belonging, caring.; Think “body”, diversity and coordination

Paul rejects individualistic spiritualities of self-indulgence

“The fruit of the Spirit is love …”

As Jesus both held out for a vision of good news for the poor AND engaged in bringing

change in the present, so Paul uses the language of the Spirit, associated with future

hope to describe engagement in the present, as a foretaste of what is to come

7

The Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the realm of the Spirit and the risen Christ’s power, are

ways of talking about what Jesus described as the kingdom/reign of God in the present.

People are baptised into this realm/sphere (into Christ, Christ’s body). This sphere defines

true spirituality as participation in God’s love, receiving, giving, reaching out – not a

distraction from human need 1 Cor 13:1-3

Jesus in Mark

Mark 10:17-21 - Eternal life = sharing God’s life now and in future

Means sharing God’s priorities: understanding the focus of the commandments, including

care for the poor (selling up or staying put), and so following Jesus, the one who

expounds them

Not: following Jesus and in addition keeping the commandments and caring for the poor as

if Jesus wants followers for his own sake (the cult figure option)

Jesus in Matthew

Matthew (or Matthew’s tradition) changes“Blessed are you poor” to “Blessed are the poor

in spirit” and “Blessed are the hungry” to “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for

goodness/justice” (5:3, 6)

Does this now spiritualise Jesus’ words and mean: blessed are those who try to be humble

and try to be good?

“Poor in spirit” is used at Qumran to mean dispirited, broken, and probably means that

here.

Similarly hungering and thirsting for justice probably also focuses on the needy. Both may

also express solidarity with the poor

Judgement day (sheep and goats) depends on response to the poor/needy (probably church

focussed)

Jesus in Luke

Luke rewrites two of Mark’s stories, the rich man and Jesus, 10:17-21, and the lawyer

asking about the greatest commandment 12:28-34. He keeps the first 18:18-22, but then

reuses the question about eternal life to replace the lawyer’s question about the greatest

commandment. Now the lawyer asks about eternal life and Jesus answers: Loving God

and neighbourand illustrates it with the Good Samaritan 10:25-37. To have eternal life,

to share God’s life, is to share God’s priorities, to engage in God’s compassion for all

human beings

Luke strongly emphasises care for the poor in the present, e.g. the rich man and Lazarus

16:19-31, Zacchaeus 19:1-10

Luke introduces Jesus by reworking Mark 6:1-6, Jesus’ appearance before his home town

synagogue, taking it up to be the opening scene of Jesus’ ministry in which he declares

his role in terms of Isa 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed

me to proclaim good news to the poor …” 4:16-20

This focus is reinforced by links with the beatitudes; Blessed are you poor/hungry. 6:20-21

and Jesus’ response to John the Baptist 7:22

Luke also places future hope in the context of Israel’s aspiration for major change,

especially in the infancy narratives, which, in turn, shape his image of Jesus and his

message.

Jesus in John

John is most in danger of being understood as changing the message into the option of

Jesus recruiting for himself, replacing Torah as the true light life bread truth word

wisdom.

Nowhere do we find a message of good news for the poor

Some clearly read it as promoting a spirituality interested only in the heavenly, and treating

this world of humanity as something from which to escape, including denial of Jesus’

real humanity

8

Against this the author of 1 John protests that Jesus was real flesh and blood 4:1-2 and that

faith must engage in real love for fellow believers in need 3:17

These dangers were already foreseen in the latest edition of the gospel which emphasises a

spirituality of love, vertically and horizontally (13:34-35; 15 – 17)

Poles Apart …

Unlike the first Christians we do not live with the conviction that God will soon intervene to impose a macrosolution, far exceeding the interim microsolutions of

efforts in this world. We cannot in that sense proclaim that “good news for the poor”

We, too, recognise microsolutions are too little and macrosolutions are needed of global proportions – ethical/political rather than religious, but still at the heart of

faith and hope

Our intervening “gods” have to be the UN agencies and NGOs and governments

– promoting economic growth and equal opportunity to lift people above extreme

poverty into the wealth generating middle class and controlling exploitation of

people and manipulation of wealth by the rich. (China, India, Brazil, Bangaldesh,

etc)

… but connected at the core

Hoping and living good news for the poor in lower Galilee in a world believed to be

on the brink of divine intervention mutates into a spirituality of living and sharing

that dream in oneness with the same Spirit today

Radical itinerancy and ad hoc table fellowship and mutual support mutates into being communities prepared to buck the structures of greed and control to be action and a

voice for change today Praying “Your kingdom come” mutates in part into pressuring governments to let the

poor rise, giving them the means to do so and removing the structures, corrupt and ‘respectable’ which hinder it

Believing the life and love of God comes – often in unexpected ways Many aspects of “good news for the poor” are now government policy through its

agencies or at least mostly funded by it – like health care, aged care, disabilities provisions, etc

Some big ticket items like economic

poverty are largely out of our league, though we have our part to play in local

initiatives and advocacy at a national/international level

Praying “Your kingdom come” is also about the aspiration to enable people to find

deep connection with the God of Jesus at the depth of their being and letting that

connection heal, inspire and motivate, without which people remain in that sense

still deeply impoverished

Church must not be reduced to just another social advocacy group

“Good news for the poor” remains the Christian/church agenda, understanding “the

poor” universally of human need, including of God

To a large degree it is a shared agenda with the wider national/international community though with powerful counterinterests and questions of quality

There is an aspect of that agenda, distinctive to the church: facilitating people’s connection with God through engagement with the Jesus tradition

But always as part of the wider agenda, not to retreat into being a Jesus adulation society

Sustaining Connection

Then:

By writing down the tradition into gospels, the beginnings of canon

9

By securing leadership that has apostolic connections and appropriate structures

Now:

by ensuring there are bearers of the tradition, engaging in responsible ministry, conserving,

critiquing, responding, sustaining the core of the good news in thought and practice

by enabling all to embrace the life of the God who loves and cares, not the god whose will

for adulation inspires religious distraction

How do we as bearers and interpreters of the tradition maintain connection with Jesus’ kind

of good news and express it in ways that it is good news for people today including the poor?

Some Recent Books on the Jesus of History

Allison, Dale. Reconstructing Jesus (Grad Rapids: Bake, 2010)

Casey, Maurice, Jesus of Nazareth (London: T&T Clark, 2010)

Charlesworth James H. ed. Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) Crossan, J. Dominic and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stories, Behind the

Texts (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002)

Crossan, J. Dominic The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San

Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991)

Crossan, J. Dominic, God and Empire: Jesus against Rome, Then and Now (San Francisco:

HarperCollins, 2007) Crossan, J. Dominic, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years

immediately after the execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998)

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2003)

Dunn, James D G Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008)

Freyne, Sean Jesus, A Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-Story (London: T&T

Clark, 2004)

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman

Palestine (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987)

Horsley, Richard A., Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of

Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1996)

Levine, Amy-Jill, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan ed., The Historical Jesus in

Context (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006)

Loader, William The New Testament with Imagination: A fresh Approach to its Writings and

Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007)

Loader, William “What Happened to ‘Good News for the Poor’? On the Trail of Hope

Beyond Jesus,” in Reflections on Early Christian History and Religion (AJEC 81;

ed. Cilliers Breytenbach and Jörg Frey; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 233-66

Loader, William “Poverty and Riches in the New Testament” in Prayer and Spirituality

in the Early Church: Vol. V: Poverty and Riches (ed. Geoffrey D. Dunn, David

Luckensmeyer, and Lawrence Cross; Strathfield: St Paul’s, 2009) 3-35

Loader, William “Good News for the Poor and its Survival,” in Jesus as Eschatological

Challenge: Engaging the Work of John Dominic Crossan (ed. Robert L. Webb and Robert

J. Miller; London: T&T Clark, forthcoming)

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; Volume Two: Mentor,

Message, and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1991)

Miller Robert J. ed. The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2001)

Reed, Jonathan L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence

(Harrisburg: Trinity, 2002)

Snodgrass, Klyne R. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008)

More resources on Bill Loader’s website: wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader