Maurice Casey
Introduction '''Philip Maurice Casey''' (18 October 1942 – 10 May 2014) was a British scholar  of New Testament and early Christianity. He was an emeritus professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology.
Biography Casey was born in Sunderland. His father was the Anglican vicar of Wheatley Hill, but after his death his mother moved to Chevington and Casey to boarding school at Woodbridge School, Suffolk. He entered St Chad's College, Durham University having intended to become an Anglican priest, but changed his views in 1962 while completing his undergraduate degree in theology. Casey stated that he had not held any religious beliefs since. Following his degree in theology, he took a further degree in classical and general literature. He then taught classics at Spalding High School, an all-girls grammar school, from 1967 to 1971.He returned to Durham University to study for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in divinity, at first intending to study the historical figure of Jesus. His PhD was awarded in 1977 for a doctoral thesis titled "The interpretation of Daniel VII in Jewish and patristic literature and in the New Testament: an approach to the Son of Man problem". His doctoral supervisor was C. K. Barrett.Following his PhD, Casey was a research fellow under Matthew Black at the University of St Andrews. In 1979, he joined the University of Nottingham as a lecturer. He delivered the Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham in 1985.By 1996, he was Reader in Early Jewish and Christian Studies, and later promoted to Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature. He retired in 2006, and was made professor emeritus.
Fields of study ===Aramaic sources behind the New Testament===Casey's work argued strongly for Aramaic sources behind the New Testament documents, specifically for Q and the Gospel of Mark.Casey's Aramaic ideas were challenged by Stanley E. Porter in ''Excursus: A response to Maurice Casey on the Languages of Jesus''"The linguistic environment of Roman Palestine during the first century was much more complex, and allows for the possibility that Jesus himself may well have spoken Greek on occasion." (p.164) citing modern scholarship, that the linguistic environment of Roman Palestine was probably multilingual.===Son of Man===He also contributed works on early Christology and the use of the term Son of Man within the New Testament Gospels in reference to Jesus.
Positions about Jesus Casey described himself as an independent scholar, who did not serve the interests of any religious faith or anti-religious group. He believed that Jesus really existed, but did not believe in his divinity. He criticized Christian fundamentalists who accept incredible miracles (such as Jesus walking on water), Christian churches that refuse to grasp the Jewishness of Jesus, mythicists who reject everything about Jesus, and even some liberal scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar, who viewed Jesus as a kind of cynical philosopher, and gave credence to some apocryphal writings that have little historical value, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. Casey believed that the documents on Jesus of greatest historical value are the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline epistles. According to Casey, Jesus would preach, heal people with psychosomatic disorders, and be crucified and buried, but would not be physically resurrected; the story of the empty tomb is, according to his views, a legend. After Jesus' death, his disciples and his brother James would have some visions of him. Casey has criticized Pope Benedict XVI for his books about Jesus (''Jesus of Nazareth'', ''Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives'' and ''Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week''), accusing the pontiff of using sources that are, in his views, unreliable, like the Gospel of John.Casey also held some unconventional views about the New Testament: for example, he believed that the Gospel of Mark was written in c. 40 AD (while most scholars believe that it was written in c. 70 AD) and that the Gospel of John is completely deprived of historicity (whereas most scholars believe that at least some historical kernels can be found in that text as well).
Works ===Thesis===* ===Books===* * * * * * * * ===Chapters===*
Festschrift *
References