New
Testament Interp.: Keck
What is the New Testament
Testament,
referes to a legal doc. (will); testamentum
Covenant is
a God given relationship with bilateral responsibilities
Jer. was looking forward to a new
covenant, where fulfillment lies in the human heart
Early C.s relied on the belief that this
was realized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
New
covenant/ collection cannot be estb. w./o an “Old Testament”; simply called as
“scripture”
see
Canon
Literary -
NT is an anthology
2
characteristics of anthologies
Usuaually afterthoughts
Non-collected works (collected works are
“complete;” collections imply “incompleteness”)
3 kinds of writing
History-like narrratives
Letters
Apocolypse
Hebrews / 1 Peters ??
*complex and sophisticated
Text was historically oral-history
“Bookof Revelation”
NT does not contain an anthology of Jesus’
teachings; but a collection
NT is not a collection of the oldest texts
Not assembled chronologically (would begin
wth 1 Thes. end with 2 Peters)
NT is not the only books that the e.c.
(early church) had
Gospels are first because of their
importance (most impnt.)
Historical
phenomenon
Church’s
book
Orig. church
came first then the writings
No texts for about 20 years (growth was
rapid and widespread)
These
churches were the matrix of the writings at every point
Literature
were written by Christians for Christians (Cs)
The writings
would have disappeared if it not been for Cs.
CHristianity (Cy) translated the texts
Texts were
written for the daily life of the church
- their own native habitat
Scripture was written for the church
Anchored to
the life of the churches
Relation of
the texts to the church was dialectical
Reflected the faith and lifestyle of the
writer
Does more than simply expresses the faith
of the community at that point in time
Speaks for the church; speaks of
the church; and to the church
Esp. true of the epistles
Cannot equate the NT to e.Cs
Religious
and Theological phenomenon
Canon of Cy
Only unifying thing of Cy
Sig. is what
the NT says about rel. and theo. issues
Not
necessary to agree w./ everyhting to understand what the NT says
Calling it
the inspired word of God does not better explain its understanding
Why couldn’t God have used better Greek
Calling the
NT the “word of God” is to confess that idea
We must
ask questions about the text
By the time
the Gospels were written Cy was already estb.
Jews had lost their first revolt and the
Jews were now enslaved
History is
not reported in the gospels; but in Acts
The gospels
almost tells us more about Cs, than Jesus himself
One of the
goals of the church is develop an appreciation of what has been achieved in the
last 20 years in terms of NT scholarship
*Were not the first to wrestle with these
questions
9/6/95:
Lecture
What
is the New Testament?
'Testament'
normally means a will, but the New Testament is not a modified will. 'berith' (diatheke) is a hebrew term for
Isreal and Yahweh being loyal to each other, as set by Yahweh. So, a God-given compact with bilateral
responsibilities. Christians believed
that Jesus' life and death wrote this in the human heart. A collection of writings was called 'the writings
of the New Covenent'. They first called
the O.T. 'scripture'. By the third
century, the books of the New Testament were considered scripture by
Christians.
The
New Testament is an anthology. As such,
it was an after-thought. So, the writers
did not know that their writings would become scripture. Also as an anthology, it is not meant to be a
collected works of. Nor was it supposed
to be representative of the early church.
It has history-like writings, letters, and an apocolypse. This seems to
be a simple structure, but is complex.
Possible oral predicessors. Also,
no hymnal but it contains hymns. Also,
one apocalypse but apocolyptic material in various parts of the writing. No church origin. Not necessarily the oldest of the church
writings, nor were the writings put in order of the dates of their
authorship. Colossians and 2 Peter were
the earliest. Moreover, the present
collection (and order therein) was not the only one that the church had. The Gospels came first because they were seen
as the most important.
The
New Testament as a historical phenomenon.
It was and is the church's work. Church is older than the New
Testament. First the church, then the
writings. For about twenty years, the
church spread rapidly before any Christian writings. The writings drew on Christian beliefs and
assumed a lot about Christian practices.
The New Testament was written by Christians for Christians, rather than
for the general public. The writings
were preserved and translated by Christians.
The writings were used in their native habitat: in church. So, they belong in church. So, they are not written for the purpose of
study at a university (e.g. exegesis). A
dialectical relationship between the text and the church. The text expressed the witness of what was
believed by those in a community at a particular time. So, it speaks of the church. And it speaks to the church. This presupposes some problems in the church
(otherwise, why a need for it?). This is
especially true of the Epistles. So,
don't urge people to be like the early Christians. There were problems and disunity then
too. The New Testament was a response to
these.
The
New Testament theologically: it is the only thing that all Christians
acknowledge. Religious and theological
issues in the churches prompted the writing of it. So, don't get caught up in the
social/political/economic conditions of the time that can be known from
it. Important to hear what it says and
come to terms with it. It contains
confessional language to state one's response and comitment. A way of grounding
the reading of the text, but this does not explain why the text exists in the
first place and it says nothing about what questions to ask from the text.
By
the time the Gospels were written, the church was established and the Temple had been
sacked. Thirty-five to forty years of
church life after Jesus before the Gospels began to be written. So, need to
consider the history of the churches during this time as recorded in Acts when
read the Gospels. What the Gospels
reveal about Jesus and the early Christians is controversial. Some say they say
more of the latter than of Jesus. Also, the history of scholarship on the
Gospels has had problems. Take the text
seriously, rather than ourselves.
9/8/95
Canon
From : “Early Christian
Literature” to Canon
We have
these texts as only part of the canon and not part of e.C. literature
The
phenomenon of e.c. lit:
Koester has proposed that we
should not be teaching NT and instead teach e.c. lit.
*Keck,
obviously, feels that despite the historical limitation, it is illuminting
The NT is simply part of the
corpus of C. lit.; unfortunately time does not allow for a more thorough
investigation of e.C. lit.
C. is somethimes known as a book
religion; but it has a large oral historical component
The E.C. depended on the
scripture of the Synagogue; but gentiles who believed, had to acquire their
knowledge of scripture when they became Christians
It must not be assumed that all
C. communities had the same tyoe of traditons (or even cycles of stories); but
EC.s did a lot of traveling, and thus, exchanged different oral accounts.
The trad. of oral history
function along side the written accounts of his life in the gospels.
Oral Trad. lived on within the
early church
Oral trad. lived to become a
problem --> Papias is quoted as
saying he prefers a “living voice” as aopposedto a text.
Some
consequences of writting the accounts down:
Even text is read out loud, and
thus the inflections would influence
meaning and reading is not the same as hearing
Text controls the writer that
values spontanaiety; writing also controls what is written because it controls
an event into an object that can be looked at and examined.
It also controls the reader
Once a trad.is writtten, the
writer looses contols of what is written because one can chop it up, examine
aonly a portion, etc.
When the the oral portion of the
tradition comes to an end, then everyone depends upon the written, to an
extreme degree
It is doubtful that for any
writer of the NT, it is doubtful that they had the same notion of Jesus based
on the limited gospels we all have now (or more likely, less)
Aspects of
EC. lit.
Anom. texts - implies that the
id. of the author is not important because the the contet implies the author’s
inclination of the community (i.e. John)
Writers, claiming to be from an
apostle are found to be both within the NT and outside
“Who wrote this book?” is a
historical question and not a faith one
? of authorship has to ajudicated
from objective sources and outside the context
If
it can be proven that they were written by someone else, they are called
“pseudegraphic”
*
not untrue, but attributed to the wrong person
Pseudepicaraphy is not simply
pious fraud; clearly the aledged author must be an “authority”
The
real author wants to stand in their shadow, but have the other perosn to claim
respons.
Dating this
material
The text gives us very few fixed
dates to go by, if any
For Paul we have one firm date,
that is his appearance before the Govenor of Corinth
In case of the Gospels, we do not
have any dates (no explicit date)
Because of “this silence”, some argue that the entire NT was
written before the revolt; but no credible scholar believes that
Who was the first personto use
this material (for some degree of writting)
Ignatius?
Polycarp?
The last known date to have been
pinned down was... “Ad Quo”
Canon
Read
Johnson
We have popularized the idea of
“canon”
*
That body of material, art, lit., music, etc. that is “important enough that
everyone should have some knowledge of it”
Canon in C.y refers to “norm” and
so is associated with some idea of authority
Canon “may provide a
lowest-common-denominator” among different groups
Peculiarity of the C. canon
should not be taken for granted
The rel. of the C. canon to the
church is much different than any other rel. doc. and their trad.s
* Do not take the canon for granted
The canonoizing process took a
long time!!
The
oldest (complete) list comes from Athanasius in 357 (but also incl. more books)
In the West --> the council of
Carthage in
397; i the East it would take longer
*
The church was responsible for what was in and what was out
** There has never been any lost
books of the Bible; there are some books that did not make it
Some Factors
in Canonizing
Custom --> custom in reading
the various texts
Canoniization was about
rtadifying already authoritative texts; but recognized the authority that was
pre-existing
2nd century fraud and
“split-offs” which created the urgency for canonization (i.e. because of
Marcion); the church decided what was ok and what was out
No one ever said that all truth
is in the NT; but said that this is the corpus to which we hold persons
responsible
From the Syllabus
1. Early Christian Literature
A. The 27 booklets that constitute the NT are but a small fraction of
what Christians produced by 200 C.E.
Some writings are known only as quotations; some have been rewritten and
expanded; many have disappeared though their titles are known.
B. The following roster gives but a sample of what had been written by
200 C.E. in addition to the books in the NT:
Books
about Jesus (“Gospels”)
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazarenes (only
fragments)
Marcion’s Gospel (an abbreviated
Lk)
Tatian’s Diatesseron
(lost)
Gospels claiming apostolic origin
Peter (found 1886; Passion only)
Thomas (Jesus’ boyhood)
* Thomas (found 1945; 114 sayings
*NOTE:
The “Gospel of Thomas” referred to in this course is this syaings source
Philip (found 1945; teachings)
Protoevangelium of James (from
birth of Mary to birth of Jesus)
Books
about Apostles
Acts of James
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Peter
Acts of Thomas
Memoirs of Hegesippus (quotations
only)
Letters
Epistle of the Apostles
Barnabas
1 Clement
Ignatius (7 letters to churches
in Asia Minor and Rome )
Paul to the Laodiceans
Polycarp to the Philippians
Ptolemy to Flora
Apocalypses
Apocalypse of Peter
Shepherd of Hermas
Other E.C. books other than the books in
the NT (Contd.)
Handbooks
on Church Life
Teaching of the 12 Apostles (or,
“the Didache;” found 1883)
Hymnals
Odes to Solomon
Treatises
“Antitheses” of Marcion
Several “Apologies” (“Defenses”
of Christianity), including two by Justin
Tatian
Gospel of Truth (found 1945)
Treatise on the Resurrection
Commentaries
on Gospels
by Basilides (lost)
by Papias (lost)
by Heracleon on John (quotations
only)
C. Why is it inaccurate to speak of the “NT apocrapha”?
D. Christians in the NT era produced no satires, dramas or anything
like the Jewish Misnah. Yet they did
produce analogies to the “Septuagint” (LXX), a prominent Greek translation of
what Christians came to call the Old Testament; they also adapted other Jewish
texts. What re some of these analogous
forms of E.C. literature? What do these
activities, and non-activities, suggest about the Christian movement?
E. Some E.C. literature is anaonymous, witht the titles having been
added later (e.g., canonical Gospels and Acts, Hebrews, Barnabas,
Didache); some is pseudonymous; some
writers added to already existing texts.
None of these practices were pecuilar to Christians. What does this suggest about the sense of
“authorship”?
F. Note
the variey of writings that bear the title, “Gospel.” What is a “Gospel” and how is it related to
“the Gospel”?
2. Canon
A. The complex process by which the NT canon was formed is traceable
only in part. What is the difference
between “canon” as used in educational circles and the “canon” of scripture?
B. What are some of the factors that play(ed) into the determination
of a Scriptual canon? What importance
does each of the following play: apostolicity, inspiration, common / exclusive
use, geographical variations, canonical listings, ecclesistical censorship or
endorsement?
C. Identify the significance of each of the followingin the
development of the NT canon: Athanasius, Eusebius, Marcion, Muratorian
Fragment.
3. Readings :
** Gospel of Thomas (Packet)
124–138
in Robinson, J., The Nag Hammadi Library
in English.
** Johnson,
Writings, 530–551
** Gamble,
“Canon, New Testament” (Packet)
9/8/95
Canonization
followed the writing of the books of the New Testament. So, it is not a planned
anthology.
Early
Christian Lit.: Koester (at Harvard)
states that early Christian literature, rather than the N.T., should be
taught. Keck: No. Had there not been a canon, the writings of
that period would not matter. Also, to understand the N.T. historically, some
literature from the period should be known anyway.
The
oral and the written: Christianity is not a book religion, but has emphasized
the spoken word as well. In the early
church, oral rather than written Christian scripture. Some took with them the O.T. in the
synagogue. At Qumran ,
there have been found florilegia, a group of texts. But no Christian florilegia have survived,
but it would have been the earliest use of text by the church. In the early church, oral stories were
emphasized and shaped and were shaped by the local community traditions. Once
the Jesus traditions came into writing, the oral tradition continued along side
the text. Jn. noted that Jesus did many things not mentioned in his text. The Gospels had add-ons, which came from the
continuing oral tradition. For instance,
Jesus forgiving the prostitute in Jn. was added.
Papias
said he preferred a living voice to the text.
There were also Gnostic groups which claimed that they had a secret oral
teaching which was superior to the texts.
Consequences
of writing stuff down. Because reading
was aloud, less differential back then between the written and the oral. Reading
is not the same as hearing. Writing
transforms the content from an event heard and experienced into an object that
can be rearranged. Copied texts can control the tradition even from a
distance. So, the emerging written
tradition encouraged convergence among the local churches. In written text, the author loses control of
it. When the oral tradition comes to an
end, then the written is depended upon in a way that was not so before. Lost oral stories not written down. Gained a common stock of knowledge based on
the text.
Authorship
and authorial identity of the New Testament:
Most of the books are identified with an apostle or a follower of
one. Eight books are actually anonomous:
the four Gospels, letters of John, and Revelation. Gospel titles were added later. What does an anonomous text imply? That the content rather than the author is
what is important. Not claiming own ideas.
Writings claiming to be from an apostle are both in and out of the
canon. The question of validity of
authorship is a historical rather than a faith question. Needed: public evidence. Result: some books are pseudepigraphic (falsely
attributed to a figure as author).
Pseudepigraphy was common back then.
Part of the deliberate style of apocolypse writing. In Christian
literature, why would it be done? To
gain the credibility of the alleged author who has standing in the community. The writer could be a follower of the author
who had had standing. Since the Gospels
do not claim authors (titles were added later), we must assume that they were
not written by apostles.
Dating
of the material: Books in the canon
don't stand in the order written.
Problem: the texts give few fixed dates which could tell us when the
text was written. The Gospels don't mention the first revolt against Rome in 70. Keck: this does not necessarily mean that
they were written before 70. Look
instead at who was the first person to use them. Ignatius in 110 referred to
Mt. So, Mt. was written no later than the 90's.
The earliest possible time--look at events mentioned in it. The data is elusive.
Canon:
It has become a major issue in scriptural scholarship in the last twenty
years. Childs and Kasemann have prompted
this. Canon in Christianity means 'norm'
or 'yardstick' and is associated with authority outside of the autonomous self.
Hostility to canon because no one wants to be accountable to anything outside
himself. The Christian canon (the Bible) includes the canon of another religion
(Judiasm). That text is the same, but it
is a different book to Christians. The
canonizing process took a long time. The oldest list of the 22 books of the
canon was from Athanatious in 367. But,
his list had other books as well.
Eusebius noted that there were disputes over which books to put in the
canon. It was not until 397 that the 22
books as we have them were set as the canon.
The purpose of the canon was to exclude books so to say that 'that's not
what the community's faith is and referrs to').
There have not been any lost books of the Bible; there were things that
didn't make it, and had been missing for a while.
Custom
was a factor in the process of canonizing.
Canonizing did not impose an external authority on the church; rather,
canonizing recognized the authority that the texts already had in the customs
of the churches and recognize the lack thereof of texts not accepted in the
local church customs. Church leaders
fought with bishops over the content.
Marcian had books which he wanted included but the bishop didn't want.
No
one said that all truth was in the canon.
Rather, pressure to square the text with the witness of the
apostles. Copiests were careful, but
redacted to bring bring 'errors' into line vis a vis theology.
9/11/95
Methods
Features of
the major methods used today for the type of research done today
Methods of
Study:
Reflect the aims of study (just as form follows function); how one learns
proceeds what one wants to know / how one does
The significance of methods should not be over-looked
Four
years ago, would have only meant “historical-critical” method
-->
Had to be defended by fundamentalists for over 100 years; now, it must be
defended by both the right and the left.
*
It is no longer “the only show in town”
Methods
here, does not just reflect plans for procedures
Method,
in this sense, reflects rationale, what counts and why, the logic of the
procedure (but not necessarily the procedure itself.
Historical-critical
Method:
Late 18th century, some figures
distinguished in principle the event fro the story that reports it; “what
really happened” as opposed to what the story said about it
Strive to liberate truth from
tradition from the preceived past
Recovering the true accounts and
truths that were present at the beginning, removing the traditions, prejudices,
redactions that have developed over time.
-->
Unbiased reason, the facts are the “truth,” the goal was to find out “what
really happened”
This
agenda was reinforced by other factors, such as science (which made it
difficult to believe Gen. as history)
The study of Near Eastern
archeology --> discovering, among other things, ancient texts, etc.
We do not look at ancient history
through the Bible; but now look at the Bible through ancient history
History and exegesis came apart
(what does the text say); history is the reconstruction of the past, based
purly on evidence and facts
Post-consciousness picked-up such
notions as Darwinism, evolution, industraliization, progress, and enlightenment
The real historic, the real
facts, will lay a new foundation ( a “better one”), because it was based on
facts
**The Historical-Critical Method
was a great vision
To understand the text, one must
read it in its original setting, reconstruct the original historical setting
(i.e. written by Paul, where, when, for what reasons, what has been said about
it, its influence, etc ---> external
evidence)
Other data is infers from the
text itself, what the author says or doesn’t say --> internal evidence
The Bible can and must be
read like any other book, and must be subjected to truth tests just like any
other source
In a scientifically-based account
of the past, one must rely on reasonable / this worldly rationing and not
personal biased interpretation
“What is the relationship between
history and faith?”
Historical investigation assumes
that reality has not changed
>
What is impossible today, was impossible yesterday
Nature is constant, but reports
are the truly miraculous are imbelishments of what has yet to be explained / or
simply untrue
Evidence does not lie (unless it
is reported incorrectly)
Unintended information is just as
important as intended information
It is based on explainable
changes over time, historical accounts look for genetic expalanations,
anticedent --> diachronic (before
and after)
-->
Genaeology of ideas
Parallels must be supported by
external information (and even influence)
Burden of proof is on the
evidence
Error is possible, but so is
reasonable objectivity; it never occurred to the 18th cen. historian that in
their quest for objectivity that what they viewed as their greatest strength in
their method was in fact their greatest weakness.
The results were everything from
what is plausable, what is possible, and what is probable
Esp. important was the assumption
and assertion that the Christian rel. would be the strongest yet, because the
rel. would be based on facts
-->
Each in their own way were searching undeniable facts (historians rel.
scholars)
More than
simply a method of research
Attempting to explain the past
fully and simply and find out “what influenced what”
Sociological
and Anthropological Method
Still being shaped.
First practitioners were trained
in the hist.-crit. methods
Relies on the implications of
implicit evidence / the unintended information (clues) given
Like the H-C, assumes that there
are certain historical constants
Soc. had its eye on patterns of
behavior in groups over time
Looks at the phenomenon of change
over time
The historian is frustrated over
parallels one cannot connect in time; soc.
are not interested or concerned, because soc.
looks at the behavior patterns connected with these (indirect), asking such ?.s
as, “How do these letters operate?”
Synchronic rather than diachronic
Expansion of the soc.
reconstruction allows you to explain such things as: what it was like to be in
a phil. school; what was travel like; what was travel like
Concerned with theoretical
patterns / thinking behind behavior “What it was like to be ...?”
some rely on particular models of
society when reading the texts:
Functionalists
(societies are basically stable because everyone knows their place)
Conflict
(assume there is always a power struggle going on)
Symbolic
(interested in the roles and groups, the meaning of the symbols and how the
thinking interacts)
Sociological
vs H-C
Reads the text to find out about
what is inferred, much of the current criticism, reputiates referential reading
all-together --> Not what is talked about, but rather how it talks about it
(the text itself / style of writing)
The text is regarded as a work of
literature / art
-->
If looking at a painting, look at the painting not the world around the
painting or even the artist more than the work itself
Not if the world is true; but
rather “if the world is meaningful”
Some
distances
Soc. is not as interested in the real
author; but the implied author
The implied reader and how they
respind to the implied writer (?: what happens to you in the context?)
Implied reader does not need a
commentary
All Methods
have their limits and their place
No critical method is designed to
make you a better person or a better Christian; rather a better understanding
From
the Syllabus:
9/11/95 The Quest for Method
1. Methods
(or procedures) of inquiry are developed in order to attain a praticular goal,
to yield a range of information & mode of understanding not accessible
otherwise. Recent biblical study has paid far more attention to questions of
method than was anticipated 25 years ago.
2. The
Historical-critical Method
A. The hegemony of the historical-critical method has been both
challenged and supplemented by other methods, though relatively few scholars
have abandoned it completely. The aim
here is not to adjudicate claims but to facilitate an understanding of the
various methods currently being employed.
B. What is the aim of the historical-critical method?
What
are its presuppositions / biases?
Why
has it been deemed essential to understanding the Bible? (i.e., what is
essential to know what the following attempt to do:
• Source Criticism
• Form Criticism
• Redaction Criticism
• “History of Religions school”
3. Current “Literary Criticism” tends to
disregard historical questions in order to examine the writings as texts.
A. What is “Narrative Criticism” and what does it aim to do? What are its presuppositions (limitations /
biases)? Why is narrative criticism
thought important to the study of the NT?
B. What is “Reader Response Criticism”? What are its aims? What are its presuppositions (limitations /
biases)? What does “reader-response” offer
to the study of the NT?
4. Sociological / anthropologcal criticism is
another approach that has received a good deal of attention in the past two
decades.
A. How do its concerns differ from those of the newer literary
criticism? What are its presuppositions
/ biases?
B. In what ways is it closer to historical criticism?
C. What is the difference between diachronic
and synchronic investigation?
5. Readings (all in packet)
A. Kecck, L., “Will the
Historical-Critical Method Survive?” in R.Spencer, ed., Orientation by Disorientation, 1125-28 (packet)
B. Garrett, S., “Sociology
of Early Christianity,” Anchor Bible Dict., vol. 6, 89-99
C. Schneiders, S., “Feminist Ideology Criticism and Biblical
Hermeneutics,” BibTheolBull 19 (1989) 3-10
-end-
9/11/95
Methods:
They
reflect the aims of study; what one wants to learn determines the questions,
what one looks for, and what counts for evidence. Forty years ago, there was only Historical
Criticism. Only Fundamentalists
questioned it. Now, it must defend itself against the left as well as the
right. We can see its character and
limitations better now that there are alternatives. Method includes rationale as well as
procedure. The logic (and assumptions) of the procedure.
The
historical critical method has been around for a long time. In the
Enlightenment, some figures began to distinguish the event from the story that
reports it and to rely on reason to get at the difference. What was really new was the liberation of
truth from tradition. Recovering the
original religious truth: keep it simple, sweeping away the distorting effect
of tradition by unbiased reason. The
truth, or facts, would be discovered: to find out what really happened--that
was seen as the fact. The discovery of
evidence (e.g. age of the earth, contradicting Genesis) which made it necessary
to re-write the history of the biblical world.
Looked at the bible through ancient history rather than vice versa. History and exegesis came apart. The latter is interpretation of text whereas
the former is reconstruction of the past.
A new awareness of modernity as the high point .
Evolution and a sense of progress gave the impression that history was
moving forward (gradually improving).
The primatives of the bible belonged to the childhood of the human race;
the new religion of the human race would be based on historical facts found by
reason.
On
historical criticism: to understand the text, reconstruct the original
historical setting by using data including what was said about the text. This is called external evidence: what
someone else says about it. Other data
is inferred from the text itself--what the author assumes. This is called internal evidence. Liberal critics trust the internal evidence
(their own reading rather than that of an old bishop). Risk of circular logic.
Traditionalists trust external evidence.
The text becomes a source of information, subject to the criticism. The idea of canon effecting the method was
gone. No special 'sacred cows' beyond
empiricism. Raised the question of the
relation between history and faith. If
historical method is sufficient to reconstruct the past and interpret a text,
what need is there for faith in the heur. method.
In
the historical method, it is assumed that there is a network of factors interacting;
everything has a cause. Nature is constant, so no miracles. Evidence doesn't lie, even if we don't know
what it is telling us. Unintended
information is valued. For instance,
Acts is primary evidence for how the author saw the Jeruselum church. Secondary evidence for the church
itself. Historical explanation is
diachronic: across time--a series of causes and effects. So, look for parallels
in the surrounding world. Who was
quoting who, or are both dependent upon a tradition. Tracing a geneology of ideas by looking for
anticedents. To do so, the parallel has
to be older and connected. Must show not
only that the same thing was said or done, but must show how connected.
On
the burden of evidence: the historian assigns a historical worth to a source.
Error is possible, but so is reasonable objectivity. The strength of the method: that is was
objective, is now seen as it greatest weakness: that their 'hidden agendas'
were not made explicit.
Few
things can be absolutely certified, and this was noted in the method.
The
historical reality would be determined by the role of facts as
determinant. Faith would be based on the
found facts. What separated the
modernests from the fundamentalists was what those facts were.
This
method promised an accurate explanation of the past, by facts and reason. In the New Testament, there have developed
forms of this method.
The
Sociological/Anthropological method is still being developed. It came out of
the historical critical method, yet it asks different questions. Good history leads to a story of what
happened based on explicit evidence.
Sociology relies on implicit evidence, such as the socio-economic status
of the authors and the communities.
Certain constants in history, as with the hist. method, but in
Sociology, looking for patterns rather than connections between particular
events. Sociology looks for parallels
that can't be connected in time (causal).
It looks for types, rather than particular event anticentants. For instance, what type of leader was Paul?
It is synchronic more than diachronic, and thus compliments historical
criticism. It expands historical
reconstruction. For instance, the
behavior of groups. What was the
experience like at that time. See:
Meeks, First Urban Christians.
Particular
models of society used: 1. functionalist: that societal patterns are stable and
have been worked out. So, change means
adapting. 2. conflict: that there is
always a struggle, such as between the haves and have-nots. Others use more symbolic models: ways of
thinking in a community.
Sociological
crit., like historical crit., is concerned with reading the text to find out
what really happened and what things were like.
Both are historically-oriented. Literary crit. repudiates such
referential reading--don't read a text to learn of something outside of
it. It is the text, rather than its
context, which is important. The intent
of the author and the circumstances don't matter. The key to understanding the text is in the
text, rather than outside of it. The
text is a work of art. Look at it. Look
at its own dynamics--how it does what it does.
Look at the world created by the text itself. The question is not whether that world is
historically true, but whether it is meaningful.
Hist.
crit. wants to identify the real author. Lit. crit. is interested in the
implied author: the voice of the narrator who knows everything. The meaning is a transaction between the
reader and the text. Hist. crit. wants
information so to tell the story as accurately as possible. Lit. crit. is interested in the plot of
events rather than in what really happened.
The
methods have their weaknesses. Keck: no
critical method is designed to make one a better person, but is designed to
give a better understanding of a text.
Such understanding can make one a better person.
9/13/95
Greco-Roman World
Terminology:
Hellenistic - after
Alexander (Silver Age; carried into the Roman Empire )
Hellenic - Before
Alexander (Golden Age of Greek Culture)
Greek
influence is what Juvenal (Satirist) detested
Alexander
and the Hellinizing of the West
Knowledge explosion
Conquered all the way to India
Science and geography flourished
From Hellenistic science - did
not experiment or invent tools for experimentation; but were great colletors
and disseminators of collectors
First great library (7,000
scrolls)
A sort of “Can-do” society, ruler
of the Hellenistic world (a cultural mission)
Founding of 16 different cities
called Alexandria
First
city planning
Natives
adopted Greek traditions
Alexander’s succession that
founded Antioch
in about 300 BC
Cosmopolitan
city,well planned, even contained a sewage system
Agustus came and made it the
capital of the eastern empire
Alexander’s
conquest - the merchants followed the army - common currency - trading zone
Spices, oil, wine, slaves
After Alexander, the world would
be called oikoumene (all people were
citizens of the “cosmos” - world --> cosmospoloiae
)
Augustus
His era was marked by peace and
prosperity
Restoration was attempted, but
failed
Self-controlled autocrat; but
apparently a nymphomaniac
Insisted that all wool clothes
that he wore was to be home-spun
Old
fashion in many ways
Nothing that would threaten Roman
authority would be tolerated
* Pax
humana, semi-fulfilled but the cost was great
Virgil (at this time) wrote the 4th Eclogue and the Aneid -- Virgil foresaw what would happen
A
sort of messianic prophet “Come quickly son of the gods”
The
Religious Scene
Pluralism - skepticism - etc.
Greek -- the gods of Mt. Olympus
were “late commers” (so-called Earth gods or chthonic gods which existed side
by side the Olympians, although Homer only wrote about the gods)
* The
Olympian trad. emphasised piety --> do whjat pleases the gods so that they
will please you, emphasizing respect for the gods and modesty “don’t push your
luck”
* The
older strains of the earth gods - had to do with purity and power --> exp.
divine power
* The
more eastern moved westward --> Society became more and more pluralistic
* Christianity
was very different. For starters, it was
exclusive
* Skepticism
was also formed in the Graeco-Roman world
Allegorizing
myths became a fashion
Juvenal had
nothing good to say about anyone in Rome
The most popular prayer offered
in any temple was for wealth
“The wrath of God made be great,
but so is the time lag”
Roman religion had its own
character
Omens
i.e.
Ovid
Ethics and moral ?.s were for
philosophers, not temple priests
Many temples were restored and
was extremely pluralistic
Did
not care as much of what you believed, but was more interested in what one did
Only clubs / societies that Rome really tolerated
were burial societies
Similar
to this century’s accounts w./ mormons
Features:
Status and hierarchy were taken
for granted
Reputation of one’s family /
honor were very important
Society were a complex
relationship between patron and confidant (worker/ artist)
Work was for slaves and lower
classes --> not for citizens
Romans more than Greeks believed
that society was going down-hill, except for Romans
Myth
of the restoration of the Golden Age
Change
was suspect
-end of lecture-
9/13/95 The
(Graeco-Roman) World of Early Christianity
From the Syllabus
1. It is important to have at least a general sense
of the history and character of the Graeco-Roman world. This assignment provides the opportunity to
get an over-view -- to identify major landmarks -- so that details can be
filled in as needed, especially next semester.
2. Readings
A. Johnson,
Writings, ch. 1
B. Newsome,
Greeks, Romans, Jews, 1-12 and Chapter 8
-end-
9/13/95
The
Graeco-Roman World:
'Hellenistic':
Greek culture after 323 BCE (Alex. the Great died); before then, the
Hellanic. The Hellenistic culture
survived in the Roman empire . Greek influence had come into the West for
some time. Juvenal was a satirist of the
Romans who had abandoned the old virtues of Rome and taken on Greek values.
There
was a knowledge explosion in Greece . In the fourth century BCE, Alex. conquered
the Persians. Education prospered. Exploration.
They didn't experiment much.
Aristotle was Alexander's tutor.
Learning flourished, but lots of 'how to' books too.
Alexander
had a vision of a hellonized world. New cities founded. Real city planning. The natives married
Greeks and adopted Greek ways. Greek rationality and planning. A cosmopolitan place. Augustus made Greece the capital of the eastern
part of the empire. Augustus visited Greece . Jesus'
people were given the label Christians there. The Christian Church took well
there. Slaves were a major export. After Alexander, the world was called
oikoumene: citizens understood themselves as citizens not just of their
locality, but of the world too.
Augustus
tried to be a restorationist ruler. Too
much had changed in Rome
for it to really be restored. For
instance, the Senate was restored, but the emperor still had the power. He ruled for 44 years with a mission to
provide order in the world so Greaco-Roman could spread. So, Pax Romana. Important to obey Roman Law. Rome
was the world's policeman rather than teacher.
Virgil
wrote the Fourth Eclogue and the Eliad (traced Rome 's development back to the Trojans).
Roman values: peace, conquer aggressors, law and order.
After
Augustus died, the Senate made him a god.
The
old establishment in Isreal was hostile to innovation in religion. Chthonic deities existed side by side in Greece with the official religion of Zeus, so Greece was more
open to pluralism. The olypiam religion
emphased peity: do good things to please the gods so they do good things to
you. Modesty in regard to the divine
realm. Not much interest in any personal
religious experience. Chthonic religion
was concerned with purity and power--to tap into divine power. Also, eastern religions moved westward. The Romans correlated their gods to those of
the Greek Olypian panthian. Christianity
was called a secretative religion which, like Judiasm, was exclusive. Skepticism toward religion was found in the
Greaco-Roman world. Old myths were allegorized.
Religions related by such means.
Juvenal:
temples were used for wealth. Satires
the pluralistic practices of Greaco-Roman folks.
The
Roman religion had its own character. Essentially civic religion. Proper sacrifices and rituals were valued,
rather than ethics or metaphysics.
Romans were also big on omens. Roman priests were typically civic
leaders. Augustus restored eighty temples
in Rome --he was
aware of the civic dimention. It was a
public religion. So, religions such as Christianity and Judaism which were
exclusive and secretative posed a political problem for Rome .
The Jew negotiated special terms.
The Christians did not.
Roman
Values and assumptions: status and hierarchies were taken for granted as
structuring reality. Honour was
valued. Patron-client relations. Work, especially with the hands, was not
valued. This got Paul into trouble.
Romans saw history going down hill, albeit with temporary shining moments. Myths of the restored golden age haunted the
empire. Change was suspect to the Greeks
as well as Romans.
9/15/95 Hellenization
in Palestine
and
The State of Judaism
in the Time of Christianity
Judaism was
part of the overall pluralism at work
The
Hellenization of Judaism / Palestine
What the
Jews sought was a balance between assimilization and exclusivity
1 and 2
Macabes --> Jason agressively sought to hellenize the Jews
2 Mac 13–14
Only the
Macabean revolt saved the Israelite children
Once having
revolted, the Jews as a people were never again tempted to give uo their
traditions and values
Narrowly
escaping total assimilization
The way the
Jews practiced a selective assimilization
Dispatch the ? of assimilization
in Palestine
Most scholars have rejected this
view
1st cent, diaspera Jews
out-numbered Israeli Jews by about 2 to 1
Those living in the diaspera
seemed to have retained their identity “just fine”
How is it that Jes lived for
centuries withot a Temple and the daily sacrifices and even keep their religion
flourshing (Synagogue has something to do with it; perhaps travel did as
well, i.e. St. Paul)
Variety of expression of Judaism
in Palestine
It is a mistake to think that the
Jews were a insulate group
Hellenization
• Trade was conducted in Greek,
in fact Greek was the dominating language; Latin did not surplant Greek even in
Rome until 2 CE
• Even in the Deaspera, Greek was
the mother-tongue
• The term, Hellenizein, refers to speak Greek corectly
• In Plaestine, Aramaic was the
mother-tongue
• Even in Jewish Palestine, we
have to assume that J.s grew-up
bilingual: Aramaic and Greek
• Greek was also the
upper-language
• Official language
(inscriptions) were in Greek
• W./o Greek, the leaders and
mercahants could not communicate and function with the rest of the Empire
--> Again, Greek was the operative language
• There was a Greek
letter-writing technique, i.e. letter to Aristobolus
Greek
rhetorical form letter; but the gol is to persuade the Jes to start celebrating
the Haunakah (had to master Greek to combat hellenization)
Septuagent
Greatest product of this time was
the “LXX” the Septuagent (Greek translation of the Od Testament)
for the Septuagent as for the NT,
we have no autograph --> no orig. piece of writing, signed by the author
Key pints
about the Septuagent:
Pentateuch was translated by
Jewish translators
Orig. in Egypt
Vocab. of diff. books indicate
that there were different translators at work
Commissioned for use in the
synagogues (worshipping comm. in pre-existance, calls forth the text “the
chicken”)
Three types of Septuagent
The septuagent was the biblical text; no sense of loss
(w./ no Hebrew)
Second kind of influence:
Hebrew
expressions had Greek equivalents
Thirdly, the Septuagent is a
theological translation and not literal (word for word)
Examples of
Hellinistic Judaism
1. Important, not just for actual quotes, but especially for
allusions writers have certain expressions just “in their heads”
2. We’re generally emphasizing the Hellenization; instead Jews could
intellectual and culturally savy, while maintaining their identity
3. When Luke opens in a perfect Greek format, was he referring to
something or just writing correctly for the time
4. Greek dining traditions
5. Letter-writing skills as shown in Paul’s letters
6. Acts 6:1, when writing about the conflict about the Helleins and
the Jews, what is he really talking
about
-end
of lecture-
9/15/95 Hellenization
in Palestine
1. Lecture Outline to be handed out in class
2. Readings
A. Johnson,
Writings, chs. 2 and 3.
B. Newsome,
36-65
C. Ferguson , Bckgrounds
of Early Christianity, 407–412, 450-460. -end-
9/18/95
The Jewish Contexts of Early
Christianity
Terms
difficult to Define:
Judaism Ancient Judaism was as complex as modern Judaism and even Ch.y;
so it is more appropriate to talk about Judaisms.
•
Many scholars describe “late Judaism,” which is ~5th century BC (is the trad.
custom)
•
Now, the Post-exilic Judaiam is called “Early Judaism” (Judaism did not “leave”
after C)
**
Also necessary to distinguish the different temples
- Second Temple
Era - Post-exilic Judaism up until the
down-fall of the temple by Rome
***
When discussing the Judaism of the rabi’s is limited to one scope of Judiasm;
but is hardly able to be called “normative Judaism”
- Neusner --> we should discuss “normative
Judaism;” rather than “normative Judaism”
What is the
task of understanding Judaism?:
Using vast resources to get a
glimpse of a complex mosaic picture
* It is not just a matter of
“background” or “backdrop” for Christianity; but rather attempting to focus on
the trad. leading to the development of Christianity
* Essential for an understanding
of the first and second century
Judaism: A look at Bibles:
Tanak (Ta Na K --> Torah •
Nebim • Kethubim) main Bible in distb. --> Rabi’s gathered in the coast
(Council of Damnea) and “closed the canons”
Septuagent was the most pop.
around Hellenization of Judaism and Greeks in general
** In a few places, there were
discrepancies in translations
Next two bibles were also Greek
translations
Symmachus
*** Part of the oral traditions
was that there was an “instant translation” in the synagogues --> as the Hebrew was read, it would
translated (paraphrased) into Greek as it was read
Psuedopigrapha -->
(open-ended), never part of “anyone’s canon” as far as we can tell
This material has been recently
edited and publish by Charlesworth (2 vol. work) 200BC-200AD
The
material is interpreting the author’s own time
Apocolyptic Literature:
“It’s
all part of the plan”
Dead Sea Scrolls (or “scraps”)
--> Found around 1947 in Kumron
Parts
of every book except Esther has been found and “Manual of Discipline”
Material
gives us “hard info.” about “Sectarianism” Radical and apocolyptic --> the
Esseen
Represent
themselves as the “true Representatives of God”
Organized
hierarchically
Rigorous
and pius community
Source:
Vermes --> The Dead Sea Scrolls in modern English
Literature of Rabbinism
Mishna
--> Completed around 220AD, and is the teaching of the Tannaim, the
successors of the Phrarasies 2 Torahs:
1
Torah: the written --> The Pentateuch
2
Torah: the oral --> more complete
**Obedience
and when it’s OK to not obey
**Defines
to determine whether or not the Law has been obeyed
After Mishna, there was still
some discussion and no resolution. Out
of this came the:
Tesphtha
+
Mishnah
+
Gemara
=
Talmud
Halakah (halak ah) --> The
legal material
Haggadah (Haggad ah) -->
Piety, theological reflections, stories, teachings, etc.
Archaeological
Material is also very important
Show us the style, the chronlogy,
development, provides a glimpse of the culture, and even worship practices
*
It would seem that there was a compilation of Heelenized Judaic scenes, i.e.
David the psalmist as Orpheus; another example is a zodiac found on the floor
of an early synagogue
E.R. Goodenough (Yale Prof.)
-end of lecture-
9/18/95 From
the Syllabus:
1. A rudimentary knowledge of early Judaism is
essential if one is to understand the emergence of Christianity and its
lierature. Given the increase in the
number of sources of information, as well as the growing sophistication in
their uses, acquiring this knowledge is not easy. Nor is it expected that newcomers to the
field will gain it instantly. What is
expected is that each student will the “foundation” on which a basic
understanding can be built.
2. That “foundation” includes a solid
understanding of the following:
• The
First Revolt (learn the dates!!) as
a cornerstone
• The
various groups in Palestine
before the First Revolt
• The
extent and character of Hellenistic influence in Palestine
• The
nature and role of the Temple ,
and of the Synagogues
• The
relation of Pharisees to Rabbinic Judaism
3. A working knowledge of early Judaism (and the
capacity to read secondary literature perceptively) requires the ability to use the following
terms and names accurately:
Major
Historical events (dates are IMPORTANT)
Second Temple Era
First Revolt
Jamnia (Yavneh)
Second Revolt
Completion of the Mishnah
Bodies
of Literature
Identified vis-a-vis the Bible
“Apocrypha”
Pseudegrapha
Septuagint (LXX)
Targum
Tanak
Rabbinic
Mishnah
Germara
Talmud
Tosephta
Other
Apocalypses
Types
of Biblical Interpretation
Haggadah
Halakah
Midrash
Groups
am-ha-aretz
Essenes
Hasidim
Hasmoneans
Maccabees
Pharisees
Rabbinate
Sadducees
Samaritans
Tannaim
Zealots
Important
Individuals
Gamaliel I and II
Hillel and Shammai
Josephus
Judah “the Prince”
Johanan ben Zakkai
The Teacher of Righteousness
4. Readings
A. Newsome, Greeks, Romans, Jews 66–133, 316–329
B. Cohen, S., From Macabees to the Mishnah
C. Segal, A., Rebecca’s Children, ch. 1, “Israel between
Empires.”
D. Consult a Bible Dictionary
for the terms listed above, to cement your own understanding of each!! -end-
9/18/95
The
History of Judiasm:
Many
streams of Judaism. Judaism continued to
developed in the post-exilic period: the period of early Judaism. To sub-periods
therein. Soloman-exile: the first temple period. Issiah - 70 CE: the second
temple period. George Foot Moore at
Harvard: he emphasized the Judaism of the Rabbi's--of the Talmud. He called it normative Judaism. Keck: this is fine for the fifth or sixth
century, C.E., but not in the formative period of Christianity. Jacob Neusner: formative, rather than
normative, Judaism during the period of the formation of Christianity.
To
understand Judaism during that period: use a variety of sources. Focus on an aspect particularly important for
the understanding of Christianity. That
was when the Hebrew Bible took shape as Tanak: the pentitude, the prophets, and
the sayings: The Torah, the Nebim, and the Kethubim. After 70 CE, not clear that that bible had
been closed up. Most Christians used the
Greek translation of the Tanak: the Septuigent.
Differences between it and the Hebrew.
Issiah, for instance: Gk used 'virgin' as giving rise to the king. Not 'virgin' in the hebrew. Later Greek translations: Aquilla, then
Symmachus. In Palestine itself, the ordinary lang. was
Aramaic, so Aramaic translations too: the Tarbon. All this rabbic material was oral, written
much later.
The
Apocrapha: not in the Protestant Bible.
No clear boundaries. Charlesworth
has a two volume text on the texts of 200 BC to 200 CE. The Apocolypic writings were in this time:
it interpreted the author's own time by citing what was believed to be revealed
to ancient figures. Meaning: the present
is no surprise to God. This reassures
the faithful in rough times. Expectation
that things would get worse until God intervenes to vindicate the righteous
(not necessarily by a Messiah) and restore things to how they should be.
The
Dead Sea Scrolls: found at Qumran in
1947. Parts of every book in the Hebrew
bible except Ester are in them. A manual
of disipline. Included mannor of
conduct. Also, pentances for specific
wrongs. The material gives us information on sectarian Judaism:
'covenanters'. Ascetic, apocolyptic,
hierartic, had a priesthood. They
thought the priests of Jerusalem
were on the wrong track, with the wrong calander. They regarded themselves are the true remant
of God who went into the wilderness. The Essenes began by some righteous
teacher. To become a member, one would
undertake a period of probation. Groups
of ten studied the law in shifts around the clock. A rigorous group that
doesn't appear in the Talmud. See: Vermes's English translation of the Scrolls.
The
literature of Rabbinics. The Misna was completed around 250 CE by the Tannaim,
the successors of the Sadducees. It
contains a body of legal rulings of what is permitted and not permitted. For instance, what is 'work' that can't be
done on the Sabbath. It defines and
orders whether the law has been obeyed or not. The Tesephtha, Mishnah, and the
Gemara are contained in the Talmud.
There are two Talmuds: a big one in Babylon
and another in Palestine . A living tradition of the interpretation of
the Pentitude. Midrash is a running
commentary, not by topic as in the Talmud.
The Midrash is of two kinds: Halakah (the legal material--how to walk)
and the Haggadah (stories to teach piety).
Archeological
materials show Hellonistism and synchatism.
Synagogues of the second century, CE.
For instance, a zodiac in such a synagogue.
Efforts
to reconstruct early Judaism have been undergone recently.
Christianity
was born out of a living, thriving religious tradition.
9/20/95
Judaism (contd.) and
more...
Difficulties
in using this material:
Dating (due to oral history)
Effect on Jewish culture from the
two revolts agaisnt the Romans
First
revolt --> destruction of the Temple
Second
--> Total banishment of all Jews from Jerusalem
-
Romans built a pagan temple on the site of the former Temple
With the destruction of the Temple meant the end of
sacrifices, priesthood, and trad.culture
--> The estb. of the
Synagogues which were lay-lead and all independant
* After
the second revolt, there was some atempt to get some degree of control over the
Synagogue system
Rabinical lit. filters out
apocolyptic (seemed to be a major factor in leading the second revolt)
-
Bar Choziba called the Messiah (after the revolution --> passed over this
material)
Judaism in
370, the last part of Second Temple Judaism
Acc. to Jophesus, the revolt was
caused by a few “hot heads”
-
Some people said that Jophesus was covering-up that there was much more
support; but how does this relates to these “Jesus people”
-
Who were the Pharasies in this time?
Elite lay-mens group and not very influential, more interested in
studying the law and interpreting it for the Jewish people
-
Rifkin argues, in cont., that the Pharasies were much more politically active
and hat the Biblical references are much more accurate than the Talmud
-
Pharasies are very impt. to Paul, who used to be a Diaspara Jew and a pharasey
-
More interested in living in acc. to Torah (“Orthoproxy”)
-
Whereas the civic rel. of Rome
were interested in rites done correctly, the Jews were also concerned with the
ethical concerns (absent from civic rel.)
-
Jews believed that God created the world, so we owe ourselves to God, world =
temporal
-
There was a deep piety; gratitude for Sabbath; the promise of Salvation
------------
Significance
is two-fold:
I.
FC Baur marked the beg. of the
real study of the NT, because he argued that all scriptures need to be examined
historically (within its proper place in the history of the Church)
More sig. is what can be
overlooked --> no one ever expected there to be a “history of the church”
(Jesus would return momentarily)
The fact that Church had a
history is the unfilling of a hope
--> the orig.
Church was an
Eschatological faith
The Church became a historical
phenomenon, that is to be studied in it of itself
* The past legitimates their
committments
Two arguments:
The
past is norm. for the future
The
C. must change because the past is not the normative
II.
Apostolic
Age vs. Sub-Apostolic Age
1st
Age ending w./ martyrdrom of Peter and Paul
Sub-Apostolic
really refers to Post-Apostolic
*
Primitive Christianity (first decades)
UrChristentum
(Ur christentum --> “ur ” = primitive)
III.
We
are entirely depended upon Christian record and writings
Seutonius
--> Agustus expells Jews because they were “riled-up” by Chrestues (Chrrist
?)
Nero
blamed the fire on Christians --> large persecution
IV. What do we know about EC
development?
Explosive
Expansion
In Palestine , dev. was so massive, that it was
characterized by being called an “explosion”
These “Jesus People” were soon to
be non-Jewish
One
reason why C.y survived after the first revolt
Judaism
because the changed
Christians
because they were “everywhere” and were a Church
Jesus focused his work to the
“Chosen People”
Only
the “Risen Jesus” people gave the great commission
Acts
- converting Gentiles created a problem for even Peter himself
Why did C.y
spread so rapidly?
There are only a lot of guesses
Best
we have are inferences
Probable that C.y came to Rome by Jews who came to Rome as Jews, who in-turn told their
neighbors and associates
Paul is said t have been
commissioned by the Church
of Antioch to be a
messenger of God
--
Only msg. of this kind in the Bible
Growth was not planned or
strategized, but done out of adhearence to the Word
II. factor the state of the
Empire
Piracy
Traveling
/ migrations
III. The Diaspara Synagogue
-
Paul usually started here (plausable)
Also
plausable that the first converts were Gentiles that were traveling &
following
Consequences
of rapid Growth:
Manifested in the NT and EC
writings
C.y did not enter a rel. vacuum
--> Rome had
a plethora of temples / shrines, sects / rel.s, etc.
The Gospel was a disturber of
rel. trad. already in place
As
well as, the fulfiller of certain hunger and aspirations
Trans. of texts into Greek
In Paul’s day, the point was
already being made: Christ was the Messiah (wo already came)
Jesus trad.s themselves were
translated into Greek --> trans. should not be taken for granted
Some will say that the converts
never abandoned their trad., but brought them with them as new ideas, creating
a evolving developing Church
E. Gentile Churches had to deal
w./ ?s jesus never dealt with, i.e. one spouse is converted, one is pagan
What should be the C. attitude
toward the body?
?s, such as, who is supposed to
rule in God’s name (in Rome ,
now)
Most difficult ?s were over the
fact that Jews and Christians worshipped together
-end
of lecture-
9/20/95 From
the Syllabus
1. The Gospels were written during the tumultous
First Cenntury in which Second Temple Judaism was replaced by the emerging
rabbinate, and the Christian churches increasingly became separated from the
synagogue. Thus, Judaism cannot be
viewed as “background” of early Christianity because it was a major, continuing
factor in the emergence of the church Catholic.
A rapid reading of Acts 1-12 indicates the ways in which earliest
Chhristianity was a part of Judaism.
As you read,
note the following:
Acts
1:12 sabbath observance
1:19 languages used in Palestine
(also 21:40)
2:1 Pentecost and other major festivals
2:5 diaspora
2:46 nature and significance of the Temple
3:13 Pilate -- his office and its role in Roman governance
4:1 Sadducees
4:5 the office of the High Priest and its role
4:27 the Herod family
5:21 the nature and function of the Sanhedrin
5:34 Pharisees: their agenda and significance
5:36-7 “messinic” figures / movements (also 21:38)
6:1 “Hellenists” and Hellenized Jews
6:5 Conversion to Judaism
6:9 the Synagogue: its nature and role
8:1 Samaria
and Samaritans
10:1 “God fearers”
10:14 dietary laws
2. What was “Jewish Christianity” (Hint: see
also syllabus for 17 Sept., HE III.27)?
What are some of the different groups to
which this label might refer?
Why is this common phrase ambiguous? (Hint: for one suggestion, see the Frend
reading.)
3. Readings :
A. Frend, W.H.C., Rise of Christianity, “The Christian
Synagogue,” 120-126 (packet)
B. Meeks, W., Moral World of the First Christians, ch. 4
(packets)
-end-
9/20/95
Difficulties
in using the Judaic literature as sources:
Much
of it was oral. The revolts of 66-70
(destruction of the Temple and profound changes
in Jewish worship and life) and of the second century (banishment of Jews from Jerusalem ). The loss of the Temple meant that a national institution was
gone. The sacraficial cult as well as
its priesthood was lost with it. The
synogogue remained; it was a lay-run organization for teaching. They were independent units until after the
second revolt when rabbinism was raising that it changed from lay control and
independence. The rabbinical filtered
out apocolyptic because the latter was a factor in stirring up the second revolt. The leader of the second revolt had been
called Bar Choziba (the Messiah). So,
the apocolyptic writings from diasporate Judaism and from Qumran
is informative of it for us.
Josephis
said that the radical fananicals started the first revolt. What is the relation of this revolt to the
Jesus people?
Who
were the Pharasees? They were concerned
with the laws of purity. They weren't
influential at the time of Jesus. They
were interested in studying the law.
Alice Rivkin argues that they were politically active so the kingdom
would be a kingdom of priests. The
Gospel's account of them is closer to this.
Paul had been a pharasee.
Judaism
must be understood as a living, vital religion that was concerned not with
beliefs so much but with living under the purity laws. What matters is what you do on Sabbath; not
what you believe about it. But, belief
in monotheism, the election of Israel ,
the Torah as a gift and privilege, and that God created the world (which is not
eternal) were important. Due to the Temple , Judaism had its
ritual interest. Yet, they also had an
ethical aspect (unlike the Graeco-Roman religion). There was a gratitude for the promise of
salvation. A concern for detail and
obedience.
F.
C. Baur marked the beginning of the historical study of the N.T. For such study, it is necessary to understand
the history of the early church. Keck:
yes. That the church had a history at
all is the result of an expectation that was not fulfilled. There was the conviction that the end was
near. This shaped early Christian
attitudes and behavior. But then the
religion became a historical religion, subject to reflection. From an eschatological faith to a historical
religion. Thus, control over the past (e.g
whether it is normative for the future-so there should be no change from it)
became important.
Apostolic
age: the first generation, usually understood as ending with the deaths of
Peter and Paul in the sixties. Subapostolic means the next century: lower in
time, but not inferior.
Primitive
Christianity: this term implies a
crudeness. it represents a phrase
'urchristentum': primal, or original.
Sources
of information on early Christianity. We
are dependent almost entirely on early sources.
Not much in the Talmud. In Rome , Seutonius noted an
uproar among the Jews due to Christus, or 'Christ people'. It was reported that Nero tortured the
Christians in 64. The populus called the
group 'Christians'. Nero is said to have
said that the Christians were superstitious (but he did not say that they
started the fire).
Early
Christianity: explosive expansion in the apostolic generation. Believers were found throughout different
regions as far as Spain . It became clear that they would not be
Jewish. So far had it spread that it
survived 70 when the Temple
was destroyed. The Christian community
was destroyed in Jerusalem
then, but it survived (and formed a church).
This was not forseen by Jesus; he focused his work on his fellow Jews in
Galalee; in fact, he forbid his disciples from going off to the gentile areas;
it was the risen Jesus that had commanded them to go out to the world. Peter and Paul argued over this. Paul was instrumental in its spread among
gentile areas. We know little why
Christianity spread so fast. Keck: it is
probable that Christianity came to Rome
by Jews. Key: spead by the
adherents. What made Paul's mission
different is that he was commissioned by the Church in Antioch to be a missionary. Otherwise, the spread was not planned. It had been word of mouth by believers. Also, that the empire had roads and sea
travel facilitated the spread of Christianity.
Third, the diaspora synagogue.
Acts: Paul regularly started there but was forced to leave. Gentiles who had been attending syngogue,
attracted to its monotheism and its morals, may have been the first
converts. Paul's letters assume that he
doesn't have to cite scripture in writing to such 'God fearers', so such people
were familiar with the Jewish scripture.
Consequences
of the rapid spread: we know more of the
results than the 'how' and 'why'.
Christianity entered a world full of diverse religions. According 1 Thess 1: 9-11, gentile pagans
choose Christianity. The meaning of
Jesus was set to make sense in the new environment without giving up the
meaning in Christianity. For instance,
from 'Messiah' to 'Christ'. But by now,
the two terms have different meanings.
Also, the stories of Jesus were translated into Greek. Islam hasn't translated. Converts brought
their religious backgrounds with them.
Different customs had to be dealt with.
Gentile Churches had to deal with questions which Jesus didn't have to
deal with. For instance, Paul had to
deal with Christian wives married to pagan husbands. The Greek culture had an ascetic streak:
denial of the body. This was foreign to
the Jews. Gen.: the body is good,
created by God. Another problem: Jesus
was in an occupied land, but early Christians in Rome had to be loyal to the empire. Another problem: would the Jewish Christian have to give up
dietary laws to eat with the Gentiles?
Would the gentiles have to eat at sundown? Another problem: the cities were crowded;
others knew of Christians. They were
seen as strange.
9/22/95
Histories of Early
Christianity (E.C.y)
Three
preliminary remarks:
Understanding
the history of any community req. grasping the continuity and change over time
and circumstance
* Were the changes so great that
there was no longer any continuity (in the midst of change)
And
if so, what is that endures, the essentials or accidentals (what is the
identity)
Our period
we are studying is rel. short (a century and a half)
Our information about this period
is very limited and we have to rely on inference (never to be confused with evidence);
we must also be alert to the way inferences can be repeated enough that they
start to be used as evidence
We must
never confused the presence of the past (the functioning past) with the past
that has been reconstructed; lived history and academic history ought to
coincide, but they often do not.
Four Major
construes of History:
I. Classical Traditional view had
its eye particularly on doctrine. And
uses the history of the church for the preservation of “true doctrine” despite all of the challenges by
heresies.
Truth
in scriptures come first; the church fathers had the truth; changes occured,
but the development was ofetn an explication of what was already present in
fragments.
“Preserved
essence” among change; view of the Apostolic church was seen as a pure virgin
(Hegesippus), but we might say that the “virgin became street-wise.”
Classical
view has also been turned “upside-down;” what you begin with is pluralism
and gradually becomes standardized to become orthodox. (Bauer)
II. Many Protestants operate with some notion of
the decline and fall of the church, even in its early period.
Seen as“an orginally pure stream”
that became polluted along the way (and can be rehabilitated)
--
Earliest ex. Marcion who felt the church “blew it” when they abandoned Paul
Characteristoic of Lutheran, see
the church as early primitive catholicism (urkatholozismus); although
regrettably, historically inevitable.
Development
of the priesthood and episcopal system; marked by a develpoment of succession;
faith that’s carried by faith and committment.
The
institutionalization of a movement
(Baur)
two major developments: a Jewish Christianity and the theology of Paul, that
emphasized freedom from the Law (much of 1st cent. C.y was really a struggle
between these two ends). Later a
compromized was worked out --> Early Catholicism that honored Paul, but
abandoned following Paul (stayed this was way until Luther and agustus)
Acts is the flagship of
E.Catholicism, so is considered to be a second century document
Käsemann
Also seen by Baptist,
evangelicals that believe that the church was pure and made up of believers’
church, based on one’s own experience with believing and conversion.
III. Social Relationships
Seen in marxist vision
In much the same way, many
feminist groups state that with the Jesus movement that was paving the way for
equality and until the patriarchs “squashed all of that”
IV. In America
We who live in this “new world” are free
to do it “right,” and get back to the “early church.”
And have seen the E.C. as the
“Golden Age”
V. The
Emancipation of its Essence:
The heart of the matter through
its institutional core, the interaction of the tradition with the culture
around it.
Harnack (“greatest church
historian, esp. dogma”) --> speaks of the essence of Chritianity (Eng. “what is
Christianity”). As a historian, he
insisted that history itself, in time, will reveal the true essence
itself. For him, the essence was Jesus
Christ and his gospel.
* What
counts has changed, so is there any continuity?
* For
Harnack, the essence ------> (tape)
For
Harnack, the first big change was the Hellenization of the Gospel, held in by
Gnostic.
Also believed in the rise and
fall, which the rformation restored, but payed a high price
Bultmann --> Also regarded
Hellenization as the most important change since Pentecost
The
heart of C.y had to be emancipated from its Jewish heritage
The
high point of
the NT is the Gospel of John
Another way
to look at Hellenization is to look at the eschatology (the displacement of it)
Whatever
view one has, it must not be forgotten, that within that framework, the Jesus
development was fulfilled, interpreted ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Today, there
is no comprehensive, wide-spread, accepted story of E.C.y
Finally, the
basic issue that emerges for the interpreter of ECy and NT is: do we regard C.y
as fulfillment or promise
Do we or assume that real C.y is to be
found in the past at the starting line in some “Golden Age” (is that where the
rteal thing is?); or is the “real thing” going to appear at the finish line
(look at our destiny)
Are we
exiles or do we see ourselves as pilgrims energized by the promise of what we
can sometimes scarcely invision
Or is one of
these too short-sided? Are not both
escapes of the past and have built-in structural factors which share in the development
of the E.C., because in our own way, we are exactly what we are?
9/22/95 From
the Syllabus
1. Because the immediate context of the NT is
the Church, ideally one would write the history of the churches until c. 150
C.E. in order to read each NT reading in its proper setting. Unfortuneatley, much of that history remains
conjectural, and hence full of problems.
2. The first “history of the Church” was written
by Eusebius, a learned bishop of Caesarea , who
was a prolific writer. He produced his History
Ecclesiastica during the very years when the status of Christianity
changeddramatically by the Edict of Toleration in 313 C.E. The final form of this word brought the story
down to his own time.
Study
the extracts from Eusebius in the Packet.
A. HE II.23.1-19: Here as elsewhere Eusebius relies on the writings of
Hegesippus (mid-second century C.E.).
Note that Eusebius must make historical judgements about the information
available to him. Note the way James’
death is linked to the First Revolt.
B. HE II.1-2: Note that in
writing these paragraphs Eusebius explicity relies on tradition, on inference
(from 1 Pt 1:1), and on an explicit identification in 2 Tim 4:21.
C. HE III.5.1-6: Observe how
Eusebius relies onpolitical / military history for the overall historical
framework. Why is the Pella story important for Eusebius? Its reliability has been contested; what is
at stake historically?
D. HE III.11-17: Note that Eusebius’ concern to record the succession
of leaders. Observe also the concern to
link the first Epistle of Clement to Paul (Phil 4:3). Note the standpoint from which Domitian’s
reign is portrayed.
E. HE III.27: Note carefully
what Eusebius reports about the Ebionites and other Jewish Christians.
F. HE III.32.7-8: Here Eusebius
again draws on Hegesippus. Note the view
of the history of the church (and the allusion to 1 Tim 6:20). Compare this view with Paul’s words in Acts
20:29-30.
3. Readings :
A. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, sections listed
above. (Packet)
B. Johnson, L.T., Writings, 85-97 -end-
9/22/95
The
History of Early Christianity:
Key:
overall patterns. This entails grasping
the interplay of continuity and change across time and circumstance. Were there mostly changes or continuity? If
identity endures, in what does it consist? What is it that endures? Is it the essential or the accidental? Any
historian would ask these questions. The
N.T. period is relatively short--about 150 yr.s. Still, there were patterns within it. Our
information on it is limited, so we depend on inference. This is not evidence. We must not confuse the past that is
remembered by us our the people themselves of the time (the functioning past)
with the history that is reconstructed by the historian. Lived and the historian's history don't often
coincide.
Four
major types of construals of the history.
First, the classical view: the development of doctrine. The history of the church is the preservation
of true doctrine. Truth comes first,
then error. The apostles faithfully
transmitted the true faith. The church
did not merely repeat the tradition, but elaborated upon it (e.g. the
trinity). G.K. Chesterton: a puppy
develops into a dog, becoming more 'doggie' not less or something else. A preserved essence of christianity among
change in the context. The church was
seen as originally like a pure virgin.
Hegesippus wrote this. The
classical view has also been turned upside-down: the church began with
pluralism and ended with orthodoxy. A
process of standardization by oppression.
Walter Bauer held this view. This
view did not become popular until the 1960's here. Protestants have operated on
the model of the decline and fall of the church. An originally pure church got polluted, so
the original needs to be restored. What
went wrong and when differs. Marcian
thought the church blew it when it abandoned Paul. Urkatholozismus: primitive catholocism. It can be seen as a positive thing. The developments that led up to the 'great
church' included a hierarchical priesthood in place of a democratic
congregation. Also, rules for
succession. A shift from faith as truth
and commitment to believing doctrine. Rather
than one's life being oriented to one's future (eschatological), there grew a
greater emphasis on the sacraments. The
institutionalization of a movement. F.C.
Baur: the mission of Jesus contained the seeds of two different developments: a
Jewish Christianity and the theology of Paul (freedom from the law, especially
for gentiles). Much of the first century
was a struggle between these two, reflected in the struggle between Paul and
the Jerusalem
church. A compromise was worked out:
urkatholozismus. Paul is honoured but
not really followed or understood until Augustine (and then Luther). With this view, Baur read the New
Testament. The less a sentence reflected
this conflict, the later it was written.
Acts is the flagship of urkatholozismus and thus must have been in the
second century. Kasemann agreed with
this. A pure church is made up not of
doctine but of believers, entered into by one's own experience rather than by
baptism. Another form of the decline and
fall theory involves social relationships.
For instance, the Marxist view of the N.T.: a utopian communal church of Jerusalem . A golden age which has not been
recovered. Others relate the fall to the
time of Constantine . The Church was then of the world:
Christondom.
In
the U.S. , some forms of the
decline and fall theory has been salient because it goes along with our
national identity: we left polluted Europe to
get back to purity. To get away from
deep divisions, to the golden age.
Another
way of looking at early Chistianity is to see it as the manifestation of its
essence. The relation of the core
substance to its particular cultural institutional form. Theology itself reflect this. Harnack, see: What Is Christianity. He insisted that history will reveal the
essence of the thing. What it really was: Jesus Christ and his Gospel. History shows that Christianity underwent one
metamorphasis after another. Is there
any continuity? That is Harnack's
problem: to show this in spite of the changes.
What identity has remained through all the changes? What is the enduring core of
Christianity? The core had on it Jewish
clothing. The core: the infinite value
of the human soul and the commandment to love, and the Kingdom of God. The first change was the hellenization of the
faith. Gnosticism went too far, but
otherwise it was fine. Gnosticism gave
a metaphysical significance of historical fact.
The rise of the institutional church made it possible for the core to
have the influence which it has had.
Harnack regarded the fall as the rise of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholocism which the Reformation fixed but paid a high price for. Bultmann also regarded hellonization as the
most important change since Penticost.
For him, it went further into Christianity. For him, Jewish apocolyptic had to be
removed. He favored Jn. He favored the hellonization as a way to get
out of the Jewish restraints. The Greeks
emphasized essence and substance, which was salient in the creeds. Some resent this hellonization. They want to go back to biblical categories
(seeing the Jewishness of Christianity not as bad). On the eschatology: hellonization meant its displacement. Along with this, institutional religion
replaced eschatological faith. Albert
Switzer.
It
was in these develoments in its framework that the Jesus traditions were
transformed and interpreted. The
question: whether and to what extent Jesus is the victum of the Church's live
and to what extent he has remained its shaper?
Today, there is no single story of early Christianity. Is this because we know too much or because
we don't know enough (to put them together).
F.C. Baur: the history of the Church needs to be considered in this
question. The basic issue: do we regard
early Christianity as fulfillment or as promise? Do we think or assume that
true Christianity is to be found at the past, at its beginning in some golden
age? Or, is it going to appear at the
finish line at the end of the age? Do we look to its origins because it was
closest to Jesus in time and space, or to destiny because only in the end-time
will the Church approximate its Lord? Do
we want to restore a lost past or do we see ourselves as pilgrims energized to
hope for what we can scarcely envision.
Or, are both of these alternatives illusions? Are not both-the ideal past and future--escapes
from the tasks of discovering in the early Church the built-in sytemic persistent
factors in Christian identity which the church has shared through the
ages? If this is a viable alternative,
then the New Testament can address us as it did its first readers.
9/25/95
Jesus Historical Tradition
* Quiz this
weekend
--> ** Review Sheet **
We have been
trying to see the “real” Jesus
We have
three synoptic Gospels, but one different Gospel --> John
Matthew and
John are written by “witnesses”, so why do they differ
Why do the synoptics agree, while John
disagree with the Jesus story
It has been
assumed that the account that is closest in time , must be the most accurate,
so the question became: Which is the oldest story?
“What really
happened?” • “What was really said?”
Since we
depend on the Gospels for Jesus, we cannot have a historical understanding of
Jesus without, at the same time, having a historical undetrstanding of the
Gospels
** Reimarus thought he solved
this problem by saying the Gospel authors made up this story after the death of
Jesus because they did not want to back to fishing
1835 / 36 -- Strauss at
Tubian Univ. 2 vol. work: The Life of
Jesus Examined that along with FC Baur transformed the whole
discussion. Everything afterward is
essentially a discussion with these two people’s work.
* Strauss was interested in both Hegel and
Schleiermacher (“rival stars” at Berlin Univ.)
It was Strauss’ contention that
the Gospels are actual myth, dist.
* Pure
myth --> nartrative that expresses an idea (no real basis in history), i.e.
resurrection, virgin birth.
* Historical
myth --> influenced by an actual historical event, which in-turn influences
history, ie. Jesus’ baptism
To
Strauss, the (from Hegel) felt that the idea was more important than the
event. (he did not feel that he was
being destructive)
After
Strauss, one major theme in Protestant theo. wsa “how to find the “real truth”
in the stories. And more importantly,
“How much is actually true?”
Baur, his teacher was his primary
critic.
** Strauss examined the Jesus story without
actually examined the Gospels.
-- How did we get from Jesus to the story? (the early church)
-- So how did the EC think about Jesus?
-
Look at Paul 1 Thes.; or 1 Cor 15
-
First Cor 7, talking about divorce (retells Jesus’ answer)
-
But Paul quotes Jesus very little; makes no mention of parables, miracles, or
run-ins w./ the Pharisees. How do you
explain this strange silence about Jesus in Paul?
*
One response is to say he never mentions J, because there was no actual J
(myth)
*
What was at the core of Paul’s message was the importance, essence, and
circumstance
-->
Kerygma
(tape 25
min.)_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
How
do we get to the oral msg. ack from the text (working backward) and the seq. of
the synoptic Gospels.
Synoptic
Problem
How to account for the phenomenon
that the first thee Gospels are so similar at times, while other times, move in
three different directions; and yet talk about the same figure?
*
Problem recognized already by the 2nd century --> Tatian wove all three
accounts into one body --> the Diatessaron
(The East: The Gospel, lost now)
Solutions:
*
Grieesbach hypothesis, acc. to this, Matthew is the oldest, then Luke, and Mark
is the last. This is a minority opinion.
*
Majority view is either the 2 documents / or Four Sources:
Mark
is the oldest, then Matthew and Luke used Mark , but not used each other
-At
certain places, Matthew and Mark agree, but do not use Mark and therefore
depend on a second document, a collection of
other sayings, Q (Quelle = source)
*
But each work has some accounts that are not found anywhere else, i.e. 3 magi
**
Matthew is so different, the hypothesis is:
MT
= MK + Q + M
LK
= MK = Q + L
LK
= [MK+ Q] + L refered to as Proto-Luke
What do we
have to say about the Oral Tradition?
Form Criticism --> An analysis
of the pieces of the tradition ( the form), but not the work itself
* It
assumes some things:
* The
C. trad. developed in the first cent. and that this movement was the vehicle
for the development and dissemination of the Jesus trad.
* Everything
told about Jesus is an expression of that
faith (eschataological)
* Dibelius
--> Believed that in the beginning was the sermon
* Bornkamm
--> said that each item, reflects the faith, just as each dew drop reflects
the sun.
* Consequently,
the Gospels are primary knowledge of the faith (all about the meaning behind
the faith)
Second,
knowledge about Jesus
Form
Critics --> the transformation from oral to written was something they were
not interested in, they assumed that orig. the info. about the faith anf Jesus
were transmitted in small pieces throughout.
(The Passion narratives in this sense, were probably the oldest)
** Also assumes that “Form follows function” --> From the form, you
can infer the function, and the function can tell you about the people involved
This function was given the name:
Sitz im Leben (from OT scholars) What
was it:
Some
was preaching
Some
was teaching
etc.
**
Clue to the function of the material, thus the Church
Forms:
Pronouncement
stories
Miracle
stories
Wisdom
sayings
The
development of an elaborate story
Sometimes
mixed form
What do the forms tell us about
Jesus?
Bultmann’s work is the classic
source on this subject. He analiyzed the
various form and assigned each piece to a particular stage in Cy.
--> Bultmann looked to the
work of Bousset, his work: Kyrios
Christos (the C. belief history up
to 180 C.E. -- the first church in Aramaius)
*
Next what he called Hellenistic Cy. apart from Paul
*
Then Hellenistic Church with Paul
*John
*
“The rest”
Placed each aspect of EC in a
proper place, even as far back to attempt to back to Jesus.
-->
Discovered that most of the material cannot go back to the actual earliet
stage; fewer yet, to Jesus
Bultman (1927) Jesus, Jesus in Word
-end
of lecture-
9/25/95 From
the Syllabus
1. The churches thrived for more than three
decades before the earliest of four canonical Gospels (Mark) was written,
though it is likely that some written accounts were circulating during this
time (which were either incorporated into our Gospels or allowed to
disappear). On the whole, however, the
Jesus traditionsprobably circulated orally.
2. Apart from the Gospels, the words and deeds
of Jesus do not appear frquently in the NT.
Note the character, content, and function of the following:
* Paul: 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 7:10-16, 25, 39-40; 9:14; 11:23-26; 15:3-8
* Acts: 2:22-24;
3:12-26; 5:30-32; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 20:35
* 2 Pt: 1:16-18
(Compare Mark 9:2-8)
3. Form criticism of the Gospels focused on the
nature and function of the (oral) Jesus traditions in the churches.
- What
are the basic elements of a miracle story?
- What
are the distinguishing features of a “pronouncement story”
(=paradigm
+ apopthegm = chreia)?
- What
is Sitz im Leben?
4. The gospel genre continues to be debated;
acquaintance with the basic issues is essential. In what sense, and to what degree, are the
Gospels a form of ancient biography?
--> How
do the Gospels conform to ancient biography and how do they differ?
5. Whereas form criticism of the Gospels
conmcentrated on the pre-gospel oral tradition, redaction criticism of the
Gospels focused on the making of the Gospels as theologically shaped portrayals
of Jesus. What does redaction criticism
look for in the Gospels?
6. • What
is “The Synoptic Problem”?
• What
is “The two-document” hypothesis?
• What do the following stand for: L -
M -
Q -
7. Readings:
A. Johnson, L., Writings, ch. 6
-end-
9/25/95
For
over a hundred years, study of the synoptics
focused on getting at the historical Jesus. If Mt. and Jn. had the same author, why do
they tell the Jesus story so differently?
What was the relation between the Gospels and the life of Jesus. It was assumed that the report written
closest in time to the event is the most reliable. It would also tell of the sociology of the
time of Jesus. What really happened? What did Jesus really say?
Since
we depend on the Gospels for learning about Jesus, we can't have a historical
understanding of Jesus without that of the Gospels. The greater the difference, the greater the
need to account for it historically. The
eighteenth century Deist, Reimarus, stated that the Gospels deliberately
distorted Jesus, making up stories to make up a new religion. In 1835/6, The Life of Jesus Critically
Examined, was written by a young lecturer, David F. Strauss, who was a student
of F.C. Baur. Strauss studied and heard
(!) Hegel and Schleirmacher. Strauss:
the Gospels are mostly myth. Pure myth:
expresses the narrative form of an idea without having any real referent in
history. The transfiguration, the virgin
birth, and resurrection. A historical
myth is based on a historical fact but the story has legend. Jesus' baptism and the dove. Hegel had taught that the idea is more
important than the imagery in which it is express. The Christ idea is more important than the
life of Jesus. The incarnation idea for
instance is true because it takes place in humanity as a whole rather than just in one man. Strauss sought to answer the historical
question: what in the Gospels is historical fact. Also, he sought to find the
important ideas. Baur suggested that
Strauss analyzed the stories without analyzing the sources (the gospels
themselves). So, what are the Gospels
and how do we account for what they say and don't say. Keck: a historical question--how did the
early Church think and talk about Jesus.
Look at the letters of Paul, as they are the oldest text.
1Thess.
is the oldest. The oldest tradition was
1 Cor. 15: Christ died and was raised.
Probably a tradition at 35 C.E. 1
Cor. 7: marriage and divorce. Jesus said
don't divorce. Should a Christian marry a non-Christian. Why didn't Paul quote Jesus or cite his
miracles as the Gospels did? Paul's
focus: Jesus' death and resurrection.
Silence on his life and teachings.
Some say that this was because there never was a Jesus historical; Paul
relied on the myth of a dying and rising god.
Maybe there never was a Jesus. But
historical records show that there was a man named Jesus who was
crucified. Kerygma: the context in which
the stories were said. How much
factuality is in the kerygma.
To
go through the Gospels to the oral tradition requires that we get the Gospels right. Further, how do we get to the oral
tradition. Backwards from the Gospels to
the oral tradition, we seek to get to the historical Jesus. To do this, we need to go forward through the
time. For instance, which Gospel was
written first?
The
synoptic problem: they are similar in places and different in others. And yet they are talking about the same
historical figure. How are these
accounted for? By the second century,
Tatian weaved the four together into one account, The Diatessaron. It is lost. In Syria, it was the Gospel for many
years. The West insisted on four
Gospels. The synoptic problem was
crucial in the 1800's in the historical Jesus question. The Griesbach hypothesis dominated. It has been revived. Mt. is oldest, the Lk. and then Mk. That is now a minority opinion. The majority opinion: the two-document, or
four source, theory: Mk. is the oldest, then Mt. and Lk. used Mk. but did not
use eachother. Where Mt. and Lk. agree
but don't use Mk., they depend on a second document called Q. Q may come from 'Quelle'. So, two written sources to Mt. and Lk. But only Mt. has the birth story with the
magi whereas Lk. has the birth story with the shepard. That which was unique to Mt. is called 'M'
and 'L' is that unique to Lk, probably from oral traditions.
Mt=Mk+Q+M
Lk=Mk+Q+L
Proto-Luke:
assp. that Mk. and Q were already combined as a source of Lk.
What
can we say about the oral traditions?
Form Criticism. An analysis of the forms that make up the
tradition. It assumes that the Christian
faith developed in the first century and was the matrix and motive of the
teachings of Jesus. The Jesus teachings are Christian traditions. Jesus' salvific effect is assumed. So, everything told about Jesus is about that
faith. Dibelius: in the beginning was the sermon. Bornkamm: each piece in the tradition
reflects the faith. This has been
challenged recently. So, sources tell us
about the faith that was interested in Jesus.
For form critics, the Gospels are collections of oral traditions. The transition from the oral to the written
was not really important. This has been
challenged. The sayings formed small
indendent oral units which were collected into groups and then written
down. For instance, the Passion
narrative. Assp: form follows function;
from the form (the structure of a story), the function can be inferred which in
turn tells something about the people who formed it. By telling a story in a particular function,
it took on a particular form. The
function has been called: Sitz Im Leben (situation in life). This is the clue to the function of the
material which tells something about the life of the Church.
Different
functions: Pronouncement stories: context of the story is not important. The
function is to give a central message through a story. Not concerned about the context of the
story. The Miracle Story: to glorify
Jesus' power. The Wisdom Sayings:
aphorisms. Jesus as a teacher. Tales and Legends: elaborate, longer
stories. Sometimes these forms are
mixed. What do they tell us about
Jesus. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic
Tradition, tell a lot about this. Every
form is analyzed in detail. He assigned
the forms to particular stages of early Christianity. He used the work of Bousset who wrote Kyrios
Christos. Bousset: the hellonization of
Xn belief in Jesus until 180 C.E.
Several stages in this: the Aramiac, law-observant James-led church of
Jerusalem which looked to Jesus' second coming. Then, Hellenistic Xnity apart
from Paul. Then, Paul. Then, John.
Hellenistic Xnity was not Palestinian.
Bultmann placed each form into these categories. Is there a form that goes back to Jesus
himself. He judged many forms as not of
the time of Jesus but of the hellenistic Church. This was radical. Those who read the Gospels as histories were
upset by this. Bultmann wrote Jesus,
translated as Jesus and the Word.
9/27/95
Gospel Parallels
Bring 4
things to Section
Gospel Parallels; NT Exegesis; Packet;
Bible
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redaction
Criticism:
Interested in what holds the
whole work together
Emphasizes the indiv.
characteristic of each of the four Gospels
Red. Crit. came on the heels of
WWII, and until recently, dominated the scene of NT study
Bultmann had assumed that Mat and
Luke used Mark, as well as be interested in how Mark was put together and why?
Practised very close reading,
taking nothing for granted
What does the composition /
structure tell us about the evangelist’s own theology?
--> Result was Bultmann was
deemed “wrong” that Mark was more simply a steinographer.
Redactionists
feel little (if any) attention was paid to the theology of Mark; lokking at
Mark for the basis of Mark itself
Faith in history, thus, looking
at the theology of the Gospels
-->
This method does not interest lit. critics
Redaction does not help us answer
historical questions as well (not character dev.)
Gospels:
The oldest part of NT study is
text criticism (or lower criticism)
Both an exact science and an
art. Its aim is not to recover the orig.
wording (although fundamentalists still seek this and feel the Bible is
infalable) -- text crit. does not assume that the orig. text itself was
infalable, but to seeks to get the most reliable (the best) text possible.
* NOTE, every text you read refers to
someone’s judgement about what the textt says.
* ALSO
IMPORTANT to distinguish text from manuscript. (Text is what has been copied)
Gospel Parallels:
Wescott & Hort in 1882,
published the first critical NT work
Koine
(text behind the King James)
Also
saw a “Western text” (largely found in N. africa -- Carthage)
Third,
a “neutral text” (Vaticanus “B” / Sinaiticus “S”)
Various ways of classifying this
material
• Look
at wht the text is written on -- vellum or pethyrus (the material used in
publishing)
After
Constantine, the Church started to use leather (30 copies at the State’s
expense)
Until
a century ago, we did not have a pethyrus
-->
P52 thought to be one of the orig.
• Orthography
-- the type used
• Version,
the text of a version can be older than the text of a Greek manuscript
• Quotations
in the works of the Church Fathers
(i.e.
Origen, 3rd century)
Principles:
1 Do
not count the evidence, weigh it.
The majority can be wrong
2 The
most difficult and awkward wording is probably the most authentic (not
absolute)
3 The
shorter is to be preferred
4 Evidence
of agreement from different parts of the world (i.e. Syrian, Coptic, Greek)
5 Overarching,
which reading (form of the text) more likely accounts for all the rest
Designed to compare the items of
the 3 Synopsis, item by item
Based on the theory that Mark is
the oldest source
Notice that on p. 1 and p. 11,
p.11 begins w./ John the Baptist; 1ff the Birth stories because Mark does not
contain the birth accounts (acting as a prologue)
--> p.111 ( Paragraph [= §] # 137)--> Luke’s
special section
Whatever is in “Bold face” is in
their natural sequence --> See §1 for example
§2
is the same thing, everything is in bold; §7 Matthew is not in bold (=
this material has been shifted from its orig. place for our study and
comparison -- w./ texts in italics)
§1 The beg. of the good news of
Jesus Christ, the son of God.”
(empty
diamond) 1st makring at the bottom =
parallel material
(full
diamond) 2nd marking = text notes
(half
circle) 3rd =
§2 John’s Preaching repentence
Basically Mat and Luk are almost
the same, and is the classic example of the use of “Q”, for Mat and Luk agree,
but do not use Mark
§6 The Baptism of Jesus
Clear definition of M, Mat has
followed Mark and inserted M
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUR COLORS
AND WHERE ALL THREE AGREE, USE BLACK
FOR “Q” I USE RED
WHERE MAT & MARK USE BLUE
MAT & LUKE, USE GEEN
PARAPHRASED,
USE A BROKEN LINE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-end of lecture-
9/27/95 From
the Syllabus
1. This class and the following discussion
section will be devoted to the Gospel Parallels, a sophisticated tool for a
study of the Synoptic Gospels.
2. To prepare, scan the volume, noting what is
construction is designed to exhibit.
Also, read the introductory material!
3. Reading:
Throckmorton, “Introduction,” pp.
v-xl, especially pp. x-xxvi.
-end-
Notes:
Matthew and Luke use Mark, but not
each other = 2 document hypothesis
Mat & Luke agree, but without
Mark = Q (source)
Matthew only = M (probably oral tradition)
Luke only = L (probably oral tradition)
9/27/95
Form
critics were not so much interested on the text as a whole as with its
sources.
Redaction
Criticism: what holds the whole text together.
The individual character of the Gospels are emphasized. It came up in the late 1940's and dominated
until recently. Bultmann assumed that
Mt. and Lk. used Mk. But how? Also, how was Mk. put together and why? Trying to see the significance of subtle
changes made from Mk. by Mt. and Lk.
'Close reading'. Take nothing for
granted. Look at the composition and
structure of the text as a whole. What
does it say about the author's theology.
As a result, it could be seen that Mk. had his own theology. Compare Mt. and Lk. vis a vis Mk. too see the
unique emphases of Mt. and Lk. which can imply distinctive theologies.
These
methods compliment each other. Emphasize
one according to what you want to know.
For instance, redaction is not interested in what Jesus really said, but
in what the author believed. Historical
criticism is interested in what Jesus really said. Form criticism is interested in the contexts
of the texts (their sources).
The
oldest of N.T. study is text criticism(lower criticism). To find out what the text says, rather than
stuff about the sources or underlying theology.
Text criticism is a science as well as an art with the aim not being to
recover the original wording (that is impossible) but to get the closest to the
original. Every text extant represents
someone's judgment about what the text says.
It is important to distinguish 'text' from 'manuscript'. The issue here: what is copied is
important.
Westcott
and Hort, in 1892, published the first modern edition of the N.T. They distinguished three streams of
texts(three groups of manuscripts): the Koine (common--most manuscripts are in
this), the N. Africa Olive, and the neutral text (the Vaticanus (B) and the
Sinaitcus (S) combined--they often agreed).
Today, it is recognized that any one of these three groups may be most
accurate for a given verse or group of verses.
Other
than by manuscript, one could distinguish texts according to whether they were
written on Vellum or Pupirus. After
Constantine, leather copies. The Pupirus tends to get priority because it was
the earlier mode. The oldest manuscript of which is P 52 dated in the early
second century. It was not the original
of Jn., so Jn. couldn't have been written after the end of the first century.
Also,
early letters were written in the minuscules (capital letters with Arabic
numbers).
Also,
need to consider that a version of a text can be earlier than a manuscript.
Also, quotes of early Christians are from
manuscripts. But differences and there
was the oral tradition. So, it is a
science and art.
Some
principles: the majority can be wrong.
Don't take a poll. The most
likely reading to be accurate may be from only a few manuscripts. The most difficult and awkward wording may be
the most original. But sloppy copying
could account for it. Second, the
shorter is to be preferred. Scribes
tended to expand the text--to amblify the text.
Third, evidence of agreement from different parts of the world is
generally indicative of a closeness to the early original. Fourth, which
reading accounts most for all the others?
Throckmorton's
Gospel Palallels: based on Mk.
10/2/95
From the Gospels to Jesus
• •
•
Q
Q has an
interesting history within liberal prot. history
Probably
dated around the 50’s, closer to Jesus (being older than Mark)
Also because of its content
What it
contains is teachings and sayings of Christ (maybe the baptism)
The baptism
was important to lib. prot. --> from this moment on, Jesus knew himself to
be the Son of God in some literal way (special way) --> Jesus’ own
understanding
The material
presented J. as a teacher of the kingdom and mythical aspects
Q does not
have apocolyptic; nor passion narrative; nor Jesus statements in which he
interepreted his foreseen death as atonement for the world
The
resulting J. taught the ___________ of the soul
Harnack -->Jesus in essence
was about the rvelation of the knowledge of God and the moral call to repent
and believe
The J. of Q is more attractive to
modern, than the J. of the Gospels and Paul; describes a wide, creative teacher
of unforgettable truths, and he like us was alienated from the world he
inherited
Mark also has some things that are
like Q; but not dependent on Q
Mark
similarities:
Overlapping --> gives one an
especially strong historical warrant
Q --> What
is it?
Q is: Material that is in Mat. and
Luke, but not in Mark
If there was a single doc. “Q”
and MAtt. used part or even most of it (but not all of it), then what is lleft
over could be labled as “L” for Lukian source (still considered “Q”)
--> This is a reconstructed source as we study it
now; no one has seen it for at least 2,000 yrs
Again it is important to remember
that the existence has not been proven --> It has traditionally been
denied and reputiated
Within the “Q” group, there is a
growing concensus there was a “Q”; but there is no agreement of its content
(completely)
--> Secondly, some believe
that “Q” was not a document
--> KLOPPENBORG believes that
because of the close similarities, it must have been copied from a text.
--> Perhaps both are right
In general, people believe that
Luke has preserved the speeches and arrangement more than Matthew; Matt. probably
disturbed the order of the sayings
Q - What is
it? (contd.)
Q, itself developed:
Q1 Q2 and Q3 sort of arrangement
Earliest estranagement was wisdom
like syaing that calls one to a radical way of life
Q2 --> has a strong stress on
the impending judgement of Israel
Q3 --> story material / myths
--> baptism
The Jesus of Q:
If Q was compiled in the 50’s AD,
it would have been a contemporary of the Pauline letters; would have been so
different of what we see Jesus being from the Pauline letters
The J. of Q would not only be the
J. of a compilation of sayings, bt the J. of a people who used this
material; and proabably not all they
thought of Jesus.
-->
Just because theree is no passion narrative, means that they did not
necessarily not believe in it or even retold the story.
-->
What it refers to is the function that Q played in the worshipping community,
and not simply a statement of beliefs
Who were the Q people?
Some believe they were wandering
prophets who were trying to carry-on Jesus’ work
The
resurrection was not the direct meaning of their work
The J. of Q is a significant copy
because it examines a community that saw jesus differently
Also influences the canonical
Gospels we have now
Mark survived; Q did not -->
after Mat. and Luke used it, they made Q supurfalous
(not
necessarily “suppressed”)
How does Q look at Jesus?
In Q, because of the “wisdom like
sayings,” Jesus is seen as a sage, probably regarded by Q as wisdom (or
sophia’s) last emissary
“The J. of Q is not a ‘nice guy’”
--> very demanding of those who follow him
Produces
conflict and polarization with the world
Q-Jesus lacks compassion (not
meek and mild); probably true of the Q people
“Q followers” may have tought of
J. as a cynic-like sage (not so much for social reform)
For some Q followers believe that
Q is as close as we can get to the true historical Jesus as we can get, for
this was “a hippie among yuppies” and stripped of everything that was Jewish
It should not be forgotten that
such a Jesus depends on:
Having
the actual text
A
clear separationof three stages
Also
assumes that Q expressed everything that was important for the users of Q
** • If anyone has doubts for the validity of
H-criticism, then look at it in relation to examining Q
• If today, some of the Q is too
enthusiastic, examine the text thorouughly
-end
of lecture-
10/02/95 From
the Syllabus
1. Each of the Synoptics orders the Jesus
traditions (whether oral or written or some combination of both) in its own
way. Consequently, the immediate literary
context of a saying or story is the result of an Evangelist’s (or that
Evangelist’s predecessors’) work – which also implies that the historical
context can be recovered only occasionally.
This is one reason one must distinguish clearly exegesis of text from
reconstructtion of history.
2. Given the nature and presumed history of the
Synoptics, historical study of Jesus works backwards, from the texts to the
traditions to Jesus, insofar as this can be done.
**
An important strand of Jesus-traditions is in Q (though a few scholars doubt it ever existed, others are
assiduously trying to reconstruct it and the history of its development). Looking at Q, therefore, provides a useful opportunity to:
A) See
how one disengages certain sayings of Jesus from their present literary
context;
B) See
the sort of figure the Jesus of Q
appears to have been; and
C) Compare that with the Jesus of the Synoptics.
3. To what does the symbol “Q” refer? That is, what do we know about Q and the
form(s) in which it circulated?
4. In terms of genre, Q has been classed with
“Sayings of the Sages.” What was the
function of such collections,, and what does that imply about what
especially interested the creators of Q
about Jesus? Scan again the Gospel of
Thomas. Another example of theis genre
is found in the Oxrhyncus Papyri (See Gospel Parallels, introductory
material, for a short description of the Oxryncus Papyri and to locate
Oxrhyncus parallels to canonical sayings).
5. Read Lk 7:1-50 (pars 79-83 in GPs). How is the material about John the Baptist
(7:18-35) related to its context?
6. Now study Lk 7:18-35 (in GPs, Pars. 81-82;
see also 64-65), noting what has come from Q
and how the Third Evangelist used it.
Who are “wisdom’s children” in v. 35?
7. Imporatnt for Q’s view of Jesus are Pars.
141-142. Note that in Matt. these
sayings (plus par. 68) follow the sayings about John the Baptist (Pars.
64-65). Note the different contexts of
the Q saying in Par. 142.
8. Read Par. 154 and compare it with Matthew 23
(to be dealt with later). In the light
of Lk 7:35 (Par. 65), what is implied about the identity of Jesus according to
Q (Lk 11:49-51; Par. 154)?
9. Reading:
Kingsury, J., Jesus Christ in Matthew
& Luke, ch. 1 on Q. (Packet)
10/2/95
'Q':
It
has been commonly dated in the 50's.
Relatively close to Jesus. It
contains sayings of Jesus, his baptism, and the temptations. The baptism was important to
Protestants. A religious experience--a
consciousness that God was his Father was the heart of Jesus' own
self-understand. He is presented of a
teacher of the kingdom, especially its ethics.
Apocolyptic and the Passion story are missing. No statement by Jesus that his death was an
atonement. A Jesus free from traditional
Christian theology (e.g. Paul). Rather,
Jesus taught on the knowledge of God and the moral call to renounce the world
and believe, according to Harnack. The
Jesus of Q is more attractive to moderns than the Jesus of the Gospels or of
Paul. The Jesus of Q is not a
savior. No resurrection story.
Where
Mk. and Q overlap, it has been thought to be strong historically. Q: Mt. and Lk. not from Mk. 'L' or 'M' could
be parts of 'Q' which only the respective one had used, mislabeled as having it
source as Lk. or Mt., respectively. But
the existance of Q has not been proven.
Griesman hypothesis: Mk. used Lk. and Mt. If so, then Q is not necessary. But, if the reverse, then the existence of Q
is necessary. There has not been a
complete agreement of what is in Q. No
complete agreement on whether it was a text or oral tradition. Kloppenborg thinks it had to be a text
because the wording is so identical. In
general, folks believe that Lk. kept the accuracy of the order of the says more
so than in Mt. Q itself developed. Three stages.
The material has a certain amount of diversity. The earliest stratum: wisdom sayings that
expressed a call to a radical discipleship, emphasizing poverty and a radical
life style. Then, the coming judgment
and the unrepenting Israel. Then, legends
such as the baptism and the temptations.
Keck: this is possible.
The
Jesus of Q: if Q was compiled in the
50's, it was a contemporary of Paul. Q is so different than what is in
Paul. So much difference twenty years
after his death. The Jesus of Q is of a
group who compiled the sayings. But this
does not necessarily mean that they believed only in Q. The function of Q in the community rather
than the Christianity of the community (e.g. the beliefs) may have been why the
passion and resurrection were left out of Q.
Or, the community might have understood the resurrection as the
validation of his method, rather than making the resurrection the content of
the beliefs (as Paul did). Q, used in
Mt. and Lk., had influence. But they
used Mk. too, and Mk. survived. Did Mt.
and Lk. make Q redundant whereas Mk. was not (had more content than was used by
Mt. and Lk.). How does Q look at
Jesus? Due to the wisdom sayings, Jesus
is portrayed as a sage (not apocolyptic).
Sophia's last prophet. The Jesus
of Q is not a nice guy: his followers should expect hardship and
rejection. It produces conflict and
polarization with the world. Q's Jesus
lacks compassion. He urges the
Israelites to repent. Terse sayings seem
like the hellonistic cynics. Jesus of Q was
not interested in social reform; rather, representing the Kingdom of God on
earth was the imputus behind the 'counter-cultural' style. For some, this is as close to the historical
Jesus as we can get: a cynic-like challenger of convention rather than an
apostolistic savior. Such a Jesus as
portrayed in Q depends on a clear separation of three stages.
The
study of Q in the last century shows the value and rigour of the historical
critical method. Don't dismiss it; rather, engage it.
10/04/95
Gospel of Mark
Mark:
Older outlines of Mark was
biographical, it was assumed that Mark was the first of all to be read for
info. about Jesus’ ministry (emphasised Gal. ministry, then passion, etc.)
What is the intent, function,
perspective of the narratives?
Opens with an unusual phrase “The
Good News...” --> ARCHE (more than “starting point”)
Origin
(or even, “I rule”)
Gospel msg. is the Jesus story, its root, its “arche”
How
is this story (pericope), the “bearer of Good news” or “arche” (the main thing)
Gospel msg. is to be in the
Gospel text
How you structure this Gospel,
depend on what you think is going on
(also,
what are the turning points oin the story)
I First 15 verses, open the
Gospel as a whole
Turning Point:
Mark 8:27-33 ---> First
passion narrative prediction
§ 121 --> Jesus heals a blind
man in two stages (only occurrance), then Peter’s confession.
Why? Disciples did not understand
3 Passion predictions, each time
getting more and more detailed
8:22--10:52
11 -- 15 --> Passion narrative
16: 1-8 --> Easter story
Get
beyond simply reading for plot (what type
of plot --> Gospel plot)
Mark itself Strating at Mark 1:1
§ 4 --> John describing Jesus
When
does this happen --> Jesus will baptize with the Holy Sprit
§ 6 --> Baptism of Jesus
Jesus
is introduced suddenly, no background or biographical info. --> assumes that the reader knows who Jesus is already.
-->
Compared with Mat. when “Jesus came from Gal...”
-->
Luke skips the intro. all-together
Mark reports a spiritual vison
that Mark had (dove); the “voice” is not addressed to Jesus, but to the
generalaudience
§ 8 --> Jesus in the
wilderness
“the
spirit” immediately expelled him into the wilderness [forced him out], where he
was tempted for 40 days
-->
Mark, there is no narrative, suggesting that the word should be translated as
“tested”
Follow the lead of the text and
what is implied
Re:
the angels attending, the point is he was not alone and the story continues...
When Jesus starts to preach, we
are not told when (how long after), was it after John’s arrest?
It
does not say, so don’t blend the two accounts --> don’t assume that it was
2 Parts of the proclamation:
“The
time was fulfilled”
6:1
--> The Kingdom of Gos has come near”
2 parts again:
“Turn!”
Change, convert
And
hear the good News
§ 11 --> The Call of the First Disciples
The story offers no explanation,
just the narrative of action --> Jesus calls and they respond
The story is calling you to
listen to the Gospel in the story (not just how they came to follow), but the
“arche” behind the narrative
§ 12 --> Jesus in the
Synagogue at Capernum
Matthew moves the account
somewhere else
“What is this, a new
teaching? With authority?”
What is going-on here?
-->
the first specific thing Jesus does is an exorcism
Demonstrated
his victory ove r the desert tests
Also
testifies to the John predictions
-->
this is the actualization
§ 12 --> The healing of
Peter’s Mother
Dont get “bogged-down” with the
fact that she served them, for that was expected
“All” is an exageration
What is happening with the demons
(J. would not let them talk for they knew who he was)
Messianic Secret in Mark
From baptism on, J. knew who he
was, but kept this a secret for they would misunderstand and think he was a
political messiah, instead of a spiritual one
Jesus needed to educate his
disciples, something that would not be totally comprehended until the
ressurection
Wrede (The Messiah Secret), argues that there is no hint that Jesus
developed hs thinking about being he Messiah, no sense of spiritual struggle,
or discernment --> Mark was not
interested
This time limit (“don’t tell”)
refers to all the commands and that only after the ressurrection can who Jesus
actually is be told publicly.
ressurrection was what installed
Jesus into the office of Messiah (for there are no stories that describe Jesus
caliming to be the Messiah, although Jesus knew it from his baptism on)
Jesus knew, but it was a secret
If Wrede was right then the whole theory was wrong
10/4/95
Mk:
The
outline of it has been biographical; that is, it has been assumed that Mk.
gives a biography or history of Jesus.
But, the question is 'what is the intent of the narrative?'. The book begins 'the beginning of the good
news of Jesus Christ'. The story is the
bearer of good news. How is this story
the bearer of the salvation? How you structure this gospel depends on
this.
A
proposed structure by Keck:
1:1-15:
these open the gospel as a whole. Key:
the word 'gospel' Isaiah is quoted:
proclaiming that Jesus is the one whom they had been expecting. Mk. is the only
synoptic to mention that John the baptist had baptized with water. The story
starts at this point in Jesus' life. It
assumes that the reader knows who Jesus was.
No mention of Jesus' background as a kid. In Mk. unlike Lk. and Mt., the dove and 'this
is my Son' was addressed to Jesus only.
Mk. intends the experience of Jesus himself. The Spirit forced (only in Mk.) him out into
the wilderness. The temptations are
spelled out in only Mt. and Lk. Mk.
merely says that he was tempted. The
narratives of the temptations are from Q.
Keck: he was 'tested' by satin.
Angels ministered to him: Jesus was not alone. Jesus then comes out the wilderness at some
time after John was arrested (how long after?) and proclaimed the good news of
the Kingdom of God. The time is
fulfilled. An apocolyptic idea: that God
has set the time. The Kingdom has come
near. Also, repent. Turn around.
This does not mean to feel regretful or remorseful; rather, it means to
change.
1.16-8.21:
Two disciples immediately left what they were doing and followed him. They left their job and family without
question, from Jesus' call. Hear the call and go. Keck: this kind of interest shaped the
story. The story is not giving a
historical account; rather, the point is how we should respond to the calling
of the gospel. Jesus goes to the
synagogue and his first test is an exorcism.
The unclean spirit knew who Jesus was.
Jesus could beat him because he had already defeated satin in the
wilderness. He told the unclean spirt to
be silent and it obeyed him. Then, he
went out and healed Peter's mother-in-law.
Then, he cured many and casted out demons. He would not permit the demons to speak
because they knew him. Why was it the
evil ones who knew him? Knowledge of who
Jesus was at that time would have destroyed him. Why?
This gets at Mk.'s theme of the messianic secret. After his baptism, Jesus knew himself to be
the Messiah. Keck: he knew that it would
be misunderstood as a political messiahship until the disciples had been
educated. Even when Peter professed him
to be the Son of God, he did not understand.
It was not until the resurrection that they understood. Wrede wrote on the Messianic secret in
Mk. No hint of Jesus' own thinking about
his messiahship in Mk. No interest in
his spiritual struggle. Indeed, all the
commands to secrecy are unhistorical.
This is dogma. 9:9:
transformation story. Jesus told them
not to tell anyone anything until after the resurrection. Only after the resurrection can his identity
be known publically. It was the
resurrection that installed Jesus into the office of messiahship. But some folks regarded Jesus as being the
messiah during his lifetime. Jesus did
not claim that office during his lifetime.
But he knew it from the baptism on.
He kept it secret. So, Mk. could
write a messianic life of Jesus even though Jesus had not claimed to be
one. Wrede assumes that Jesus knew
himself to be the messiah during his life even though he didn't say so.
1.16-3.12: begins with Jesus'
relation with his disciples.
3.13-6.6: begins with Jesus'
relation with his disciples.
6.7-8.21: begins with Jesus'
relation with his disciples.
8.22-10.52
8.22-26: a healing of a blind man.
the only story of Jesus healing in stages. Why?
Historical? Keck: because the disciples did not understand in
8:14-21.
8:31: the first prediction of the
passion.
9.30-32: the second passion
prediction
10:35-45: the third
10:46-52: a second healing of the blind
man.
Note:
the three predictions are bounded by healings of blind men. Before this unit is
several accounts of Jesus' relation with his disciples.
11-15
16.1-8
10/06/95
Mark II
Some of
these stories are not coneected to each other in any way.
They do not
present the history in type of historical format
The sequence
is strange.
The most serious charge -- blasphemy (one
would think it would come last; but is first)
Work on the
Sabbath (5th story)
Only in the
last story, does it say that Jesus is angry
See also
chap. 12 Para (§ 6)
We have a
cycle of stories (that ev. Mark knew) and is used as a “unit”
All accounts
of Pharisees are stereotyped voices of opposition
§ 52 -->
Jesus heals a paralytic
• Story told in considerable
detail, Mat. leaves all the deatils out and Luke changes the setting.
• Mixed form --> Miracle
story, as well as, pronouncement story
• J. tells your sins are forgiven
(not specifically, I forgive you)
- Jesus
speaks for God. This what angers the
scribes (it is blasphemous to them)
• vv 8-10 “Jesus saw that they were asking such questions” and counters w./
another ?
• v. 10 --> “Son of Man”
(correctly capitalized, Mark assumes that J. is the Son of Man, although Jesus
never declares himself as such)
- Luke
describes the man as “glorifying God” as he returned home
- Matthew
describes “fear” “crowds were filled with awe” [an epithany]
§ 53 -->
The Call of Levi
• Inserted here to lead into v.
15 (could have been put anywhere), placed here, provides a link
• Text variation of v.16:
Scribes
of or and (and is a correction
that many manuscripts contain, but of is prob.)
• 2 “I come” statements
-->
“I come” statements state in a clear and short way Jesus’ mission on earth
• Luke adds, “to repentance”
• Matthew adds, “go learn what
this means” (will quote Hos. again)
§ 54 -->
The Question about Fasting
• § 53 and 54, both are about
eating and drinking (makes sense to place them together)
• Jesus’ reply in 2:19-- What
does J.’s response have to do with the ?
It is a riddle,
(“where’s
the wedding?” --> It’s implied [“wedding time”])
*
Current non-fasting will give way to fasting when “the bridegroom is taken
away”
- Bridegroom being allegorious
* Speaks
of taking away the bridegroom (= Jesus’ death) --> Christian fasting after
J. is gone. J. merely suspended
fasting (did not abolish it) ** Cannot
fast while
• Verse 21
- Christian fasting is not a
“return to status quo fasting”
--> It is new fasting.
• Near the end, only Matthew and
Luke talk about spilling the wine and destroying the wine.
-
Mark does not use that language, suggesting that here, Mat. and Luke also knows
Q
** If this is so, then Mark and Q are saying the same event and w./ 2
witnesses means that the material is pretty reliable.
• Luke’s ending is puzzling, “And
no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good.’”
-
Luke seems to know his wine, but... ??
§ 69 --> Plucking Heads of Grain on the Sabbath
v.5 “with anger”
• First, Jesus legitimates his
disciples’ actions
• In the second part, Jesus
legitimates his own action
** Chiasm: A-B,B-A (ex.)
Inclusio
“[ ]”
• Acc. to Mark 25, work is to
cease on the Sabbath
No Rabbinic text forbids what the
disciples did
If accurate, then there was a
stricter sense of following the law then was implied by texts
If inaccurate, reflects a
Christian imbelishment
No hint that the bread was such and
** The high priest is wrong
*
If Mark is right, then Jesus made a mistake
*
If Jesus is right, then Mark misreported
* Second approach for v.27 -->
“Sabbath was made for humankind; not mankind for the Sabbath (people have
thought this was the original answer)
* Third approach is to look at
when J. saya, “so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath
• Matthew adds, “something
greater than the temple is here”
- Matthew leaves the impression
that the disciples were guilty of breaking the sabbath, and so has to
legitimate it differently
- Implying that J. and the
kingdom is greater than the centeer of the Jewish rel. / trad. itself (the
Temple)
- “the guiltless,” for they were
“hungry”
**Focus
is kept on Jesus’ authority
Loisy once
said, “Jesus proclaimed the coming of the kingdom, and what came was the
Church”
-end
of lecture-
10/6/95
Mk:
Five
stories that deal with controversy plus the call of the Levites. The stories are not historical; the sequence
is strange. The issue of blasphamy, for
instance, comes first in the book but this doesn't make sense
historically. Keck: Jesus' rejection of
the Pharasees and the Pharasees' rejection of Jesus shape the sequence of the
stories. 2.1-3.6: a cycle of stories
that the author knew and used as a unit.
In these confrontational stories the scribes and pharasees are
stereotyped voices of opposition.
For
instance, the paralytic story (2:1-12): different village scenes in Mt. and
Lk. The latter two tended to keep the
speech of Jesus and mentioned less detail on the scene. Jesus assumes a connection between disease
and sin. This was seen as divine action:
Jesus did not say "I forgive your sins" but "God has forgiven
your sins". The scribes object to
both: that Jesus is forgiving sins and that Jesus is speaking for God. Then, Jesus deliberately puts an ambigious
question designed to put his questioners on the defensive: which is easier: to
proclaim forgiveness or cure a disease?
The former seems easier, but it is safer to be a healer than a spokesman
for God. Jesus transcends the question
by doing both. Jesus refers to the
eschatological judge then on earth: the Son of Man. The author assumes that Jesus is the Son of
Man, but no where in the Gospels does Jesus identify himself as the Son of
Man. The crowd responds: we have seen
paradox today.Mt: they were made afraid (not awe). Fear is the stereotypical response to an epiphany.
Next
story: Mk. 2:13-17. The call of Levi,
the tax collector (v. 14) is complete in itself. But it provides a setting for the dinner at Levi's
house. v. 16: 'scribes of the pharasees'
is awkward wording, but probably thus more accurate of what Mk. really
wrote. Most manuscripts correct for
it. The more difficult reading in
general is probably closer to the original.
v. 17: 'I come...' This is a form used throughout the Gospels. It looks like a Christian formulation. In Mt. and Lk., the story has different
editing. Lk.: eating with the wrong
people is also in Ch. 15, where it leads to three parables. An interest by the author of Lk. in this
practice. In Mt., a third response to
the question: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'. Jesus is not the purity that the pharasees
assume God requires but is the mercy that is in God. Jesus is legitimating his own ministry.
Next
story: Mk. 2:18-22. The fasting of
John's disciples but not Jesus'. New and
old wine and skins. New wine into new
skins was deleted from some manuscripts.
Jesus uses this story to legitimate the response of his disciples. Only Mt. and Lk. talk of pouring out the old
wine and destroying the old skins.
Perhaps because Mt. and Lk. know Q.
Two witnesses to the same point: probably a good indication of its
historical accuracy rather than being redacted.
Jesus uses the word 'bridegroom' to answer as a riddle. Implied: wedding time because the Kingdom is
at hand. Those who know this will
celebrate; others will fast in anticipation of it. Current celebration will give rise to future
fasting: when the bridegroom is taken away.
Bridegroom is a metaphor of the wedding.
But in v. 20, it is allegorized to a specific person: Jesus, not the
Kingdom, will be taken away. Thus, there
will be fasting in the midst of the Kindom.
The time of the historical Jesus was a special time. Jesus merely suspended fasting rather than
ending it. The coming close of the
Kingdom does not occasion the ending of fasting. vv. 21-22: not relevant to fasting; rather,
these verses seem to have been appended here.
What is the point of addingthem there?
Christian fasting will not be a return to the status-quo of old fasting,
but new Christian fasting will produce its own forms and have its own meaning. Lk. and Mt. wants to keep the old wine. Do
they want to retain the old Jewish piety along with the new Christian
piety? Lk. is Greek, writing to
gentiles.
Next
story: Mk. 2:23-28. Eating during the
Sabbath. The Son of Man is Lord even of
the Sabbath. Keck: Mk. seems to know that Jesus was the Son of Man and that
Jesus knew that he was. The Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
So, Jesus could heal during it, meeting the needs of man. Jesus legitimates the disciples' action(v.
29) as well as his own. A Chiaistic
sequence: Jesus, disciples, disciples,
and Jesus. The healing by Jesus forms a
unit, an inclusio. According to Exodus,
work is to cease on the Sabbath. But what kind of work? The type of work cited does not include the
work of the disciples. Is this a
Christian distortion? Jesus replys: Have
you read what David did? On Abiathar as
the high priest when David ate the sacred bread. But Abiathar was not the priest then. Was the author of Mk. or was it Jesus who was
mistaken? Could be either. The point: human rules can be broken when
there is a human need. Rabbis were
saying this too during Jesus' time. Mt.:
the disciples were guilty of breaking the Sabbath and Jesus needs to legitimate
it. The sacrifice and the Temple is less
than the mercy of God which should be imitated.
Something is greater than the Temple.
Mercy over sacrifice or purity.
Mk. doesn't have to go this far because he does not think that the
disciples or Jesus had broken the Sabbath.
Mt. keeps the focus on the authority of Jesus.
10/06/95 From
the syllabus
10/09/95
Mark (II)
&
The Kingdom of God
The idea of
Yahweh’s reign (closest to “the kingdom of God”) appears a great deal, esp. in
the Psalms
Expresses the sovereignty of God
Eschatalogical
hope that God’s truth will not just be proclaimed and believed, but will be
actualized.
AD 73, God’s
present kingship was affirmed, despite what was happening in the temporal world
around his people
In Rabbinic
Lit. --> idea expressed that God will
be king -- ruler over creation -- the kingship will be manifest. “The yoke will be taken up.”
Heb. Bible
to Rabbinic Lit. “the Kingdom of God” is rare within the apocolyptic lit.
(perhaps the authors took this idea for granted); insisted on the future act of
God that will be enacted (expressed in other phrases)
Apocolyptic
Means “revelation”
A text that records a revelation,
esp. disclosed unveiling of the present, and the anticipated actof God that
will occur soon.
They are pseudepigraphic (depict
that all of this has been predicted in the past)
Fundamentally, the coming of the
“glorious” future when God’s rule will be unchallenged be as it should; this time
is discontinuous with the furture (in contrast with the time to come / from
this time currently) --> this is not
a neutral designation
More than just a phase, such as
the “Golden Age,” but is the age to come
*
Under this notion, all of history falls under “this Age” and after theis age
will come a great judgement and “everything will come apart” --> will get
worst until Gid intervenes
What runs through all of this is
a discontinuity (this time from after)
What is constant in all of
this? That God will come, and is never
dependent upon human efforts (divine intervention); pessimistic about the present,
but optimistic about the future
The point is: When J. spoke of the “kingdom of God,” he did
not intorduce a new concept, but introduced a new way as to how we understand this concept. (it is probable that there was a variety of
interpretations)
2 --> ________________
Source: Reimarus --> published a manuscript about J. and his
teaching. Insisted that we cannot
confuse J.’s teaching with those of his Disciples (for they had their own
prejudices present). Argues that Jesus
did not seek to abolish the Jewish rel.
Thus, when J. preached about the “Kingdom of God,” the Jews knew what
was being referred and that it was almost
here (the Messiah was still to come)
Reimarus had his own understandin
of the Kingdom of God
Lib. Prot. the kingdom of God was
a spiritual one --> a moral task (not lit. or temporal)
1892--> Weiss
and a few years later by Albert Schweitzer.
Sch. --> the preaching of J.
can and can only be understood acc. to reimarus.
This was to be an event coming
(like Mark 1:15 says)
J. remarks are so radical because
they are inetrim ethics --> emergency measures
- Only
within a certain context do they make sense, not for eternity (to satnd on its own)
- Not
permently moral teachings
- Applied
this to both J.’s teachings and J. as a man
* Argues that Mark is a reliable
narrative of what happened. (arging against Weber)
- Sc.
arguest that J. did belief that he was the Messiah, revealed at his baptism,
and did keep it secret; as ell as aspect to see the coming of the
kingdom to happen while he was still on earth (when it did not happen, take up
his messianic role and ultimate sacrifice “messianic woes” by crucified for us)
*
How this happens in Mark, except for the “transfiguration,” where Mark puts the
account after Peter’s confession (it should be reversed).
Published,
“The Quest for the Historical Jesus”
*
concern for recovering the real meaning of apocoplyptic (without worrying about
the mythologicval complication, i.e. “messianic woes”)
* Eschatology,
is seen as the heart of Christain life (and belief) --> the kerygma is a scandal (no scandal, no
Gospel, no faith)
Kierkegaard
Barth’s commentary on Romans led
the way
Kir. talked in ways of thinking
in either / or, and talked about, “a
leap of faith”
*respnses included that the life
of Jesus cannot and should not be attempted to be reconstructed
The coming of the kingdom ends
everything earthly (temporal things)
The kingdom, being eschatalogical
is supernatural (not an ideal)
The kingdom of God is power,
entirely of the future, but wholly determines the present
*
The KofG is not an invent of time (and never will be); chronos is irrevalent
the moment is important (when faced with the kerygma, the Gospel); but not the “date on the wall”
To Bultmann (as a Lutheran), one
must be born again --> everyday
New
direction for study:
Perrin --> Main -line NT scholar
(had studied with Jeremias)
“The Kingdom of God, the teaching
of Jesus” --> an apocolyptic concept in the teaching of J.
Revolves around two central
themes: God’s intervention in the world
and the where that intervention leads (final state of the redeemed)
Bernard Scott --> argued thatA
concept and an event
Perrin
--> ≠ a concept --> it was a symbol
Steno
symbol --> specific and clear
Tensive
symbol --> more than one meaning
Refers
to something that is itself is symbolic and not obvious
Meaning
could be continuous and constantly unfolding
Therefore the connection between
the K & G parallels.
10/9/95
Mk: The Kingdom of God.
Jesus
is introduced as preacher who announces the coming of the Kingdom. Background of the Kingdom of God. It does not appear in the O.T. as a concept,
but the idea of Yahweh's reign appears often in the royal Psalms. The soveriegnty of God over creation and
especially over Isreal. Kingship of God
runs through this tradition. For
instance, when Isreal wanted Saul to be the king. The contradiction between the reign of God
and what is actually happening led to an eschatological hope. So, God's kingship could be affirmed in spite
of hardships. In Rabbinic literature,
God is ruler over creation. He is sovereign.
The yoke of the Kingdom: the discipline of being an observant Jew,
observing Torah. To convert. It is striking that the concept is rare in
apocolyptic literature. It may have been
assumed. It was assumed that there would
be an act that would usher in God's reign.
On
the Apocolypse: it means
revelation. It is a text that records a
revelation, unveiling the decisive act of God which is expected to occur
soon. They claim the authorship of an
ancient author. Fundamental to apocolyptic
thought is the idea that God's rule will be unchallenged at a time that is
discontinuous with all of history (this age).
So, this age is set against the age to come which is the God-given
alternative to it. Within this age,
there are epocs. An age is not a phase
of time, but includes time. All history
is thus in this age. At the end of the
world (this age), there will be a judgment, preceded by messianic chaos. Things will get worse until God
intervenes. Various images of this; no
standard teaching. Sometimes, there is a
messiah. Sometimes, a resurrection. No standard scenereo. But there is a motif
that there will be a radical break between the ages. Further, that God will bring about the new
age--the God-given to human history which is going downhill on its own. Pessimistic on the present; optimistic on the
future.
So,
when Jesus spoke of the Kingdom, he did not introduce a new theme. Rather, how he understood the coming was
unique. That there was no standard
Jewish version to oppose, Jesus probably did not set out to oppose something
here but wanted to preach his own version.
His version among alternatives.
Reimarus,
who launched the historical critical study of Jesus in the eighteenth century,
wrote on the intention of Jesus and his teaching. Don't confuse it with the
teaching of the apostles (who have their own agendas). Jesus had no intension of doing away with the
Jewish religion. The apostles taught and
practiced just the reverse of what Jesus commanded. Thus, when Jesus preached on the coming of
the Kingdom, the meaning of the Kingdom was common knowledge. The good news: that it was almost here. For Jesus, there would be a Messiah. Jesus didn't identify himself as that
Messiah.
Given
the importance of Mk., liberal Protestantism made the Kingdom the central
element of Jesus' teaching. The kingdom
for them was a spiritual kingdom in the heart and an ethical task. A liberal Protestant spin here. So, we could help to bring the Kingdom
in. The moral task. This prompted the Social Gospel movement
around the turn of the century.
In
1892, this view was challenged by Weiss and in 1901 by Albert Switzer. Switzer took on the liberal Protestant view
of the Kingdom of God and Reimarus' view of Mk.
To Switzer, for Jesus the Kingdom is not a spirtual state in the heart
but was an apocolyptic event. Mk. 15.1. Jesus' ethics were so radical because he
presumed a short time span until the new age.
Interum ethics. Only in that
context do they make sense. E.g. hate
your Father and Mother. Society can't be
based on that. Jesus' ethic: not meant
or applicable as perminantly. Switzer
continued to think that Mk.'s story of Jesus is historically reliable. Vrada disagreed. Switzer argues that Jesus did think he was
the Messiah from his baptism. Jesus
expected the kingdom to come while he was still active. But it didn't happen. But Jesus didn't give up. He would deliberately provoke a confrontation
for the sake of the Kingdom, giving himself as a sacfrice to bring in the
Kingdom such that his disciples would not have to suffer. This, according to Switzer, is how Mk. had
it, except that the transfiguration was actually before Peter's
confession. With this alteration of
these two events, Mk. is intelligible as a historical account. Switzers' challenge was clear. That Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom was
eschatological. Switzer: Jesus didn't
get the time wrong; rather, the kingdom was indeed coming in his time (by his
messianic self-sacrifice). The task was
to recover the real meaning of apocolyptic.
Eschatology was not just on the literal end of the world, but was really
to be accepted because the Gospel message is an offense. This offense is necessary for faith. A fundamental shift in viewing apocolyptic
eschatology. How?
Kierkegaard
was a key. Further, Barth's commentary
of Romans during WWI led the way. Barth
referred to a leap of faith to a new way of being. Led to
Christian existentialism. Bultmann
followed Barth as a leading form critic.
He considered much of the synoptics as not going back to Jesus himself,
outside of some disconnected says. So
the life of Jesus could not be reconstructed and should not because it
circumvented faith from God. For
Bultmann, the Kingdom is the eschatological deliverance that ened everything
earthly. It doesn't stop the world. Existentialism. This decision confronts us as an 'either
or'. The kingdom is wholly supernatural
(Switzer would agree). It is not having
to do with human history vis a vis another age (Switzer would disagree). Key: the ultimate 'either or'. The Kingdom is
a power that is entirely future but wholly determines the present by how you
respond to it. The Kingdom is not an event in time. What is relevant is the hour in the sense of
the moment of decision when you are faced with the Gospel alternative to that
of the worldly way. Issue: the end of my
world. Bultmann believed that this
moment recurrs everyday. Born again
every day.
Recent
study of the Kingdom of God has moved in another direction. Norman Perrin, from a working-class Baptist
family, sided with Manson. He studied
under Jeremias. He wrote a dissertation
concluding that the Kingdom is an apocolyptic concept in the teaching of
Jesus. Moreover, he noted the variety of
images in the jewish sources. Two
central themes picked up by Jesus: the idea of two ages and the final state of
the redeemed. However, Jesus is
distinguished from the apocolyptic in that the Kingdom is within you. For Perrin, the Kingdom is a constant and an
event. As an event, time is
relevant. But since when is a concept an
event. Perrin later rejected 'concept'
and adopted 'symbol'. Two kinds of
symbols: stano and tensive. A stano
symbol has a clear reference. A tensive
symbol has more than one referent and meaning, referring to something that is
itself symbolic. The Kingdom is not a
concept or a thing (that can happen as a war can); rather, it is of something
that cannot be defined once and for all--a tensive symbol. Easier to say what it isn't than what it is.
Then perhaps there is a connection between the Kingdom and the parables.
10/16/95
Parable:
It
has many forms and functions. The
parables of Jesus were unusual even in Palestine. Benard Scott: parable is a mashal (a short
narrative fiction to reference a symbol).
The english word translates the Greek word 'comparison', but the Septuagent
translates the Hebrew 'Mashal'. What
distinguishes a parable from other forms of mashal is that a parable has a plot
and references something else than the plot.
The plot is as intellible as a story, but the point is not in the story
but points beyond itself. In many ways,
it functions as a metaphor (understanding one thing by speaking of another--it
is not speaking of something as being 'like' something else). So, parable is not explicit comparison. According to Scott, the parables of Jesus
have as a reference not the Torah but the Kingdom of God. A symbol points beyond itself, so the
parable's plot reference defies definition.
Today,
Jesus parables are being treated like asthetic objects, like poetry. Today we
insist that parable form isn't an ornament for an idea or a consession to those
who can't think abstractly. For
centuries, the Church treated the parables as allegories. Keck: but parable is not allegory. For instance, Augustine allegorized the story
of the good Samarian, decoding each thing in the story into another meaning
(Jesus takes Adam to the Church...). To
allegorize: 'this means that'.
In
1899, Julicher stated that parable is not allegory; rather, parable has one
point only which is always a simple truth or observation. Switzer: the point was thought to be 'when
the people thought the Kingdom was coming'.
C. H. Dodd argued that the point was:
for Jesus the Kingdom was not near but here (realized eschatology). Still, the parable was seen as having only
one point. It was not seen as a moral
maxim. Jeremias tried to distinguish
everything that the early Church added to Jesus' words. He translated back into Aramaic. He also wanted to find the one point; the
exact meaning of the parables. Keck: he
misused form criticism to find three points.
Form criticism involves Sitz Im Leben which is the culture--the
situation in which an oral tradition is formed.
He interpreted as a historical setting.
Jeremias' three points in Jesus' parables: announcing the Kingdom,
calling for an absolute response, and defending himself and his message against
criticism. Keck: this is problematic because there is a difference between the
words spoken by Jesus and the beginning of the tradition. Jeremias sought to find the point of the
parable in its context. Keck: look into the parable itself rather than its
setting to find its meeting.
Today's
view: the parables are not designed to convey information or tell a story, but
are seen today as word-events designed to make it possible to make something happen
in the hearer who gets the point. It is
a story-event; not just a story. The
meaning of Jesus' parables have a riddle quality. Why did his message require that form? What was it about Jesus' notion of the
Kingdom called for that form? Parable: designed to communicate. Mk. 4:
Introduction:
1-2
Seed: 3-9
Purpose: 10-12
Interpretation
of Seed: 13-20
Purpose: 21-25
Seed: 26-32
Conclusion:
33-34
vv.
13-20: The interpretation of seed in
allegory. v. 15 is a transition to a
different interpretation. Different
things happen to those who hear the word: those on the hard path, those on soft
ground (not roots), and those who are chocked.
The fourth group: those who bear fruit (three amounts). There is a realism to it. Is the fourth group a good harvest? Unclear. Moreover, the parable seems to say
that despite the failures, there is going to be a crop. The Kingdom is not to be manifest in stupendous
results. Still, the meaning is
ambigious. Thought about the meaning of
so much failure.
The
use of the passive suggests that God is the source. Jesus does not say what the mystery of the
Kingdom is. v. 12: for those 'outside',
everything happens in riddles so they see and yet don't see. Donahue sees the relevance of the mission of
Jesus in Mk. That he was to be ordained
to failure shows that he was meant to have a destiny vis a vis those who don't
believe.
10/18/95
Interpreting the
Interpreters of the Interpreters
Parables
Long and lasting history of
parable histories
What we interpret is what the
Evangelists have already interpret
Jesus, himself was an interpreter
Treatment of
the Parables:
Originally circulated as
independent units
Meaning is within the story
itself; not outside of it.
Canonical
Gospels --> Mark 4/Matthew 13 (or 15??)
Evangelists
as teachers
Context now
becomes the key to understanding the content; different contexts produce
different meanings
§ 172 The
Parables of the Lost Sheep and Coin
Real interest is in the son
Told
last and is always the climax
(Matthew) “astray” is used several times
(Luke)
“lost”
(Luke)
is completed in v.6
Both
Mat and Luke have concluding lines
Luke also provided a parable
setting
Page 44 § 53
The Call of Levi
Now mentions “grumbling”
Luke has his eye on the third
parable
Who is the older son in Luke’s
eyes
The parable itself does not point
in that direction and is not all quite clear what it is about.
A
dysfunctional family; the father; the older son; the younger son --> what
the story about
(Luke) w./ the sheep -->
This is about a sinner who repents
(Matthew 18) Church discipline
§ 133 The Prable of the Lost Sheep (Matthew)
[p.109]
Look at § 129 --> word
association about a child - “whoever welcomes a child, welcomes me
Then goes on about making “one of
these little ones” stumbling (better to be tossed into the sea w./ a millstone)
--> also present is the notion that we are bound to stumble
§ 134 --> It is not the
intention that anyone stray-off and how we are to forgive
§ 185-186 “L Material” The Parable of the Widow and the
Unjust Judge
Strats by telling what the
parable is about before he even tells the parable
The argument is from the lesser
to the greater --> from the lesser judge
What will God find when he
comes? Faith?
§ 186 The Parable of the Pharisee
and the Tax Collector
The faith of a confessing sinner
is the kind of faith that God is looking for
Separate
edition from redaction --> the Evangelists
2 Can we know what Jesus really said? And how do we know?
The historical question --> we
are dealing with degrees of probability
The story has consistently
focused on Jesus’ teachings
“Nature
miracles” --> stories made to make a point
The parables are characteristic
and distinctive of Jesus
Use
the parables to get in touch with Jesus
“The
Vary Words of Jesus” vs. the “Living Voice” --> Ipsissima Verba vs. Viva Vox
Three major categories:
1. Double attestation - such as Mark and Q
2. Criteria of dissimilarity or negative criteria
Sometimes
added things or paraphrased the sayings
Doing
so reflected their own Christian experience
The
more Christian a saying sounds = the less likely that Jesus actually said it
What
was added to a text is typically what was a result of time and circumstance
The image of Jesus that results
is an utterly unique Jesus, the more distinctive = the more likely that it is
Jesus himself
Still the method is essential;
but it has to make historical sense
The material needs to fit what we
know about Judea in 70 AD, the parable of the Egyptian does not fit for it
rteflects Gnosticism
Assumption that there was an
original word of the text (one manuscript); but doubtful if this fits Jesus and
te Jesus tradition. No reason to asssume
that he only said something once, nor that he would repeat using the same words
in each case --> some the word variations within the teachings MIGHT BE
probable that it leads to the “authentic Jesus” himself.
If some of the material were not
said by him, how do we account for them?
Jane Bouring --> appeal to the historical paculiarity of the time
(various prophets), they did not draw a sharp line between what Jesus said then and what he says now (through the Spirit)
-end of lecture-
10/18/95
Parables:
Interpreting the Interpreter of the Interpreter.
We
are interpretors ourselves. The sayings
of Jesus originally circulated as independent units. But if a parable's meaning
is found inside it, then this doesn't matter.
But different contexts produced different meanings. For instance, the parable of the Lost
Sheep. In Lk, it is the first of three
parables on the 'lost and found' motif: Sheep, coin, and son. Lk.'s author edited to do this. He combined the Q story of the lost sheep
with the L stories of the coin and son. Interest is concentrated on the son
parable because it comes last and has the most detail. The 'lost-found' motif is unique to Lk.; Mt.
has the sheep going 'astray'. Lk. v. 7
interprets the parable: value of the one who run off lost (the one who turns
away from God) is found (repents) over those who were not lost (the
righteous). Same theme in Lk. on the
lost coin. Lk. v. 10: the lesson of the parable. It is not part of the parable. The context of the 'lost-found' stories in
Lk. is Jesus sitting with sinners(Lk. 5:27-32 and 15:1-10). The context of Lk. influences the meaning of
the parables. The lost son returns and
repents, so he is like the sinner and Jesus is like the welcoming father so
Jesus eats with the sinners. But, unlike
the sinner at the table, the lost sheep does not return but is found (i.e.
returns but did not repent, yet still was taken back).
Mt.
uses the words of Jesus to tell the lost sheep parable. The theme of the parable in Mt. is church
discipline. Mt. 18:15-20: how the church
is to go after the lost sheep: forgive them.
If not, the church is the unmerciful servant.
The
Parable of the Unjust Judge and of the Pharisee and Publican: Lk. 18:1-14. L material, so can't compare with Mt. The unjust judge: no favoratism. God has no favoratism either. The logic: if even an unjust judge regards
the cry of the needy, how much more will God respond to the cry of the
elect. v. 8: assumes that the Son of Man
will come as a judge. What will he
find? Faith? If so, what kind? The parable of the Pharasee and the publican
answers this question. The faith looked
for by the eschatologal judge: of a confessing sinner. All exalted will be humbled; all humble will
be exhalted.
The
Historical Question:
Criteria
for genuineness: can we know what Jesus really said? How do we know? Key: probabiliity. The quest for the historical Jesus has
focused on his teachings. This is due to doubt on the miracles. Nature miracles have been thought to be
constructed to make a point (Strauss).
Did Jesus tell the parables?
terms:
Ipsissima verba: the very words of Jesus--in Aramaic from the Greek; viva vox:
the voice of Jesus--Greek, but in which the content seems original so there is
a sense of hearing Jesus' voice.
Three
criteria for genuineness:
1.
Multiple attestation: As many independent source manuscripts as possible. For instance, Q and Mk. Not one text that came from another (e.g. Q.
and Mt.).
2.
Dissimilarity (the negative criterion): the assumption here is that as stories
are passed on, additions are made reflecting the Christian view, vocabulary and
experience of the redactor. The more
'Christian' a saying sounds, the less likely that it was genuine; Jesus was a
jew. But early followers were Jewish
too. So, neither typically Christian or
Jewish content would be thought to be genuine.
Result: an utterly unique and distinct Jesus. But Jesus was Jewish, so he would not be
utterly unique. Also, a unique Jesus
would be disconnected with history. So,
a historical sense is needed. So, a historical
sense is needed.
3.
Historical plausability: a fit with the religious and social conditions in
pre-70 Galalee.
In
the quest for ipsissima verba, it is assumed that there were original words of
Jesus. But Jesus was a wandering teacher, speaking to different people. So, one
can't assume necessarily that he only said something once or that he always
used the same words. Some of the
variations might be tracable to Jesus himself.
So, don't cut out too much.
How
could one account for non-genuine sayings?
This is a historical question.
Perhaps prophets spoke in the name of Jesus. There may not have been a sharp line between
what Jesus had said (memory) and what new words were created by the spirit.
10/23/95
Theological
Question:
Exegetical
Question:
What did the texts say about
Jesus?
What do the Gospels say about
this message or even Jesus?
Historical
Question:
How did Jesus teach what was in
the text as well as what is not contained
History of
the controversey of the study of Mark
Dispute between Schweitzer and Weder
Schweitzer --> Switched the
transfiguration, giving a reason for Peter’s identification
Scholars view Schweitzer’s theory
as the minority opinion It seems as those the texts has been shaped by Mark’s
own theology
Emphasizes the character of the
storyline, aiding us in seeing the plot
Literary:
Informing the reader at the
outset (1:1) and whose destiny is announced by John the Baptist
Jesus’ own baptism, God’s own
voice is heard to identify Jesus as the “Son of God”
In the wilderness, Satan knows
this too; but no one else.
Transfiguration --> Again,
“This is my son”
Ch.12 murdering tenants -->
allegorical parable about himself
Githsemine --> praying to God
as God’s son and obedient son facing death
Passion: the high priest asks if
he is the Son of God (Son of man) --> Jesus replies, “Yes, I am.” -->
Only time that we see Jesus affirming his identity.
**
Not so in Matthew and Luke (they change it) --> which the h.p. cries,
“Blasphemy”
At his last words --> and the
centurion declaring that clearly this was the son of God (the only time we see
awareness of Jesus’ identity)
§ 122 and
123 “The Confession at Caesarea Philippi
and The First Prediction of the Passion”
Seen as the hinge before the
Passion story
Known as “Peter’s confession”
It is not Mark’s point that Peter
“got it right” or wrong
-->
Is seen as being in the inside or outside?
Rebuke implies the strength
behind the moment and exchange
Matthew points out what Peter
says to Jesus --> giving “more interest” to Jesus response
Usually thoughts that Peter
objects to the idea of suffering (a Markan theme throughout)
Mark assumes that Jesus is the
Son of Man; but Matthew wants to make sure that the reader does not confuse who
Jesus may be and is the focal point
If Jesus accepts Peter’s words,
why does he not go to say that the Christ must suffer, is he changing the
subject or simply assuming that he is
the Son of Man?
*
Accepted that Jesus accepts “Christ” or Messiah, but needs to define what type
of Messiah Jesus is
*Some Read Mk as a report, that
is so accurate, that you can trace Jesus’s thoughts and motivation.
**Much more likely, that Mark has
put together different traditions to point out that Jesus is the Son of Man who must
suffer, whoever objects to this is an outsider --> the destiny of Jesus is
the necessity set by God --> the So of Man MUST undergo the Passion
(suffering and death)
**What we really have is Mark’s
Gospel within his own Gospel
Passion
Predictions: Para 122
God given necessity:
1. Rejection
2. Suffering
3. Rejection
Resurrection in Mark implies that
Jesus, himself did it; unlike Matthew and Luke that make it perfectly that it
is an act of God, the father.
§ 127 The Second Prediction of the Passion (Mark
9:30-32; Mat 17:22-23; Luke 9:43b-45)
Son of Man seen as a Cosmic
Figure
Luke sees this ironic and
paradoxical reference, and disassociates it from the Passion story -->
leaving it ore as a riddle ( and God’s concealment from understanding)
Matnever says that the disciples
fail to understand anything; but does imply it here
*The Gospel authors leave room
for ambiguity
§ 191 The Third Prediction (Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34; Mat 20:17-19)
Leading right into § 192 “Jesus
and the Sons of Zebedee”
* For the Son of Man came not to
be served but to serve, to give his life a ransom for many”
Climax in 10:45 a saying that
expresses the reson why his death is necessary: (see above)
**This is the most descriptive
account.
Matthew seems to want to protect
the reputation of the disciples, by having the mother ask.
In Luke, J. took the twelve aside
and does not explicitly talk about the Son of Man, but they understood
“nothing” and did not grasp what he said
*This anticipates Luke 24, when
the risen Jesus “explains it all.”
*Luke also omits the disciple’s
request, protecting their reputations
Luke
moves this squale of who’s the greatest to being at the last supper and
replaces the idea of ransoming for simply “I am the one who serve”
*Luke sees Jesus’ mission not as
a ransom but a miscarriage of justice (as will be seen in Acts)
-->
Jesus’ death was the result of ignorance “they did not understand”
Back to §
123 “The Conditions of Discipleship”
J. called the disciples and
the crowd
Leading to Para. 124 “The
Transfiguration”
*
“6 days later”
34 makes it clear that this
message is not simply limited to the twelve; although Matthew does just that
“Take up their cross” interesting
because he does not mention a cross in his prediction
The “four sayings” (separated
“then” and “for”) each reason gives a deeper reason the last one
“Take their cross...because those who ...because...what is the point if ....because....”
The son of Man, here, is not a
judge, but a “prosecuting attourney, whose recommendation to the judge then
depends on one’s action now.
The coming of the Kingdom:
To Mark this is a word of
assurance to others, a word of consternation
*Wouldn’t Mark thought Jesus was
wrong (from when Mark was written and it was not fulfilled), unless the passage
was fulfilled, if so, how?
-end of
lecture-
10/25/95
Matthew (I)
Ending of
Gospels are important clues as to the perspective of the Evangelist, hence the
Gospel text. --> How the Jesus story ends is where and how the Church’s
story begins. Provides a link and the
nature of that link illustrates how the evnagelist understands the Jesus story
himself.
Ending in
Matthew:
Witness to the resurrected nature
of Jesus by showing himself and eating fish before them.
Coicnludes by commisioning them
to be witnesses and that the Holy Spirit will be with them.
*John has a double-ending and
Pentecost seems to come right then and there (not 40 days later)
*Markan ending has been amplified
and “corrected” by adding a “more suitable ending” than simply leaving the two
women shaking with fear at the empty tomb.
Matthew’s ending: § BB
“The Commissioning of the Disciples”
Passage has two parts: the appearance
the
commissioning
*By far, importance is placed
upon the commissioning
*No Gk. word for “some” --> so
the text really stated that they (all) doubted. What Jesus says in this situation deals with
that doubt.
Cosmic authority • commisioning •
promise
Cosmic authority:
All authority from Heaven and earth has
been given to Christ by God.
Mat.
11:27 --> “All things have been given to me from my father”
-->
Implies that the resurrection did nt confer a completely new status on Christ,
but rather confirm on a cosmic level the authority that God had given
him in his mission.
Translational choice “nations” or
“Gentiles”(in Commission)--> “Gentile” makes most sense
*
Has a warrant in the cosmic order
The Commision has one active
verb: Make disciples, everything is a
modifier from there.
“Go”
is a participle that modifies the main verb
Provides a Trinitarian baptismal
formula
* includes the formula that he is
accustomed to in his own Church, it is a liturgical development
**Two orders: Baptising and teaching (in that order), the
sequence implies that also the baptized are to be taught to make them aware
*
words had a mandatory importance --> “following the teacher’s way”
*Ths
Jesus will be the coming judge for which everyone will be accountable
*MArk
& Luke agree but do not emphasize
The Promise:
That until the ending of this age
Presence is an interesting
motiff, look at Parallel p.2 --> Emmanuel “God with us” (until the end of
the age)
*One
thing is missing: except for the baptismal formula there is no reference to the
Holy Spirit. No accident. Has to do with Prophets
Matthew has Jesus talking at
great length about false prophets and hypcritical “evil doers”
--> p.37 Pericope 42
Declare his identity in the
baptism
Is nervous of the usage of the
the Spirit to do things that is more abusive than anything else
Even after Baptism, we are all
accountable
The Overall
structure of Matthew:
Kingsbury analysis:
Problem
with starting a section at 16:21
Ben. Bainton made good advances
Problem
was calling the Passion an epilogue
Keck feels correct is Discourse,
followed by narrative Ch.5-7, followed by 8-9 (as one unit)
10 + 11-12
13
18
23-25
Know these discourses!!
More importantly, is to see the
nature and function of these discourses:
Each has their own theme
5-7 inagural sermon (the
Platform)
10 mission
13 parables (what happens to the
word
18 ritual life
23-25 judgement
All end with a word about
judgement, the final discourse is all
about judgement
Utilizes Q, Mark, and M as he
needs in order to make his point
Storyline
does not depend on a storyline
Double function:
Discusss
the Church 60 years ago
and the Church now
Chapters 8-9 Ten Healings (Not allegors to ten plagues)
Healing stories within healng
stories --> stories within stories
10 healngs, but 9 stories (last one is a double story)
3 healings: leper, Getile, woman
2 sayings
3 miracles
2 stories
3 healings
This is how Matthew works, it is
easier to remeber, a “teacher’s Gospel”
In Matthew, the first healing is
a leper, not an exorcism as in Mark
*Ministers
to “the outcast” from the beginning
First 3 healings are are all
involving marginal people why? To reconstitute the People of God
Last story, Pericope 57
Colorless account as well as a
strange way to order such a creatively started series
Matthew is more interested in the
response
Para. 64 --> is a paraphrase
of Isaiah
Presents
the evidence before presenting the conclusion.
10/25/95
The
Commissioning of the Disciples:
Three
parts:
1.
the declaration: Jesus declares himself as the ruler over heaven and earth. How
is this related to what he said during his ministry? The resurrection conferred on a cosmic scale
the authority that Jesus already had.
This cosmic authority legitimated the Church. Does he say 'all nations' or 'all
gentiles'. If the latter, then no more
attempts to convert Jews. Keck: but the
apostles did not give up on the Jews. Further,
Jesus told them when he was alive to go only to the Jews. So, Mt. recognizes
that the spread to the gentiles is not licenced by Jesus as he taught but by
the cosmic Christ who was Jesus resurrected.
Mt.
is the only gospel that has the risen Jesus command baptism (in a Trinitarian
formula!). In Acts, baptism was in the
name of Jesus only. Mt. came later.
2.
'Making disciples' includes baptizing and teaching. Mt. does not imply that those who do not know
of Jesus should be baptized. This implies
that the baptized should have been taught.
To be a disciple includes following the teacher's ways. This important to Mt. because Jesus is
emphasized as the eschatological judge.
3.
The doctrine of the two ages. In this
age, he is present when two or more are gathered in his name. Mt. is nervious about the charismatic type,
because he finds a discrepancy between their words and deeds. So, he does not emphasize the role of the
Holy Spirit in this age. Security is
taken away from the activist. Jesus is
the bearer of the Spirit; the more one considers his own Spirit as decisive,
the further he is from that of Jesus.
Also, passivity is not given security:
it is not enough to proclaim Jesus at baptism. One must follow what Jesus did. Otherwise, hypocricy!
Mt.'s
Jesus is a teacher of God's Will to whom
we will be accountable.
The
overall structure of Mt.:
If
break it at 16:21, Peter's confession is split.
Ben Bacon at YDS emphasized the discourses of Mt. But he considered the Passion story as an
epilogue. On the dialogue, he saw
five. Keck: discourse is followed by
narrative: sermon on the mount(ch.s 5-7), then ch.s 8-9, for instance. Ch. 10, and then 11-16, too..
See
the nature and function of the discourses.
Each has its own theme. The Sermon
on the Mount is Jesus' platform. Ch. 10
is the mission discourse. Ch. 13 is
parables--what happens to the word in the world. Each discourse ends on the note of judgement
and the last is about judgment. Mt. used
Q and M and sometimes Mk. He structured
this material to make his point. The
story-line narratives don't depend on the discourses. The speeches report what Jesus taught (sixty
years ago) and let Jesus speak to the church now.
Ch.s
5-7 of his programmatic teaching are followed by his programmatic mission (8
and 9). Ten miracles are included. Mt. follows Mk. in having one miracle story
within another. Three healings: a lepar,
a gentile, and a woman. Then, two
sayings about discipleship, then three sayings of Jesus' identity, then two
stories then three miracles. Mk. used an
exorcism to begin Jesus' mission. Mt.
uses a leper. The outcaste. Then, a Roman whose servant was sick. Again, an outcaste. Why marginized people? Mt. reconstitutes the people of God. The last story in this sequence is
interesting. A mute spoke. Keck: this is colorless. Mt. is interested in the response rather than
the healing. The people vs. the
pharasees.
10/30/95
Sermon on the Mount and Plain:
Beattitudes
Most famous
speech and teaching that J never gave.
It is a compilation of different sayings.
The initial
task is exegetical --> to understand the story on its own setting in Matthew
(and Luke)
We face the consequence of the nature of
the sermon itself --> the setting was provided by either the Evangelist or
his predecessors. ------> Sayings
were put into a literary setting
The sermon is like a diamond necklace,
together they make a wonderful product, taken apart, each aspect is beautiful
in it own right, but its not an isolated sustained unit
The context
means to preach the sermon from is Matthean context --> it is theol.
legitimate to preach the G acc. to Mat. as well as Mark, Luke, etc. bt know the
difference.
The Sermon as a whole:
Comparing it to the sermon on the
plain (Luke) show that both star w./ parable of the beattitudes and end with
the sayings of the two houses, inside may differ.
This implies that there was an
estb. oral trad. of sayings
•
Enatles a certain amount of
circular reasoning
Sources of the Sermon in Mat. are
Q and M (no Mark)
- M
could be either Matthew’s source or Matthew’s own formulation (simply
distinctly Matthew’s own vocabulary)
- *One
thing to formulate a teaching, another thing to all together create one.
•
The setting of the two sermons in
Mat & Luke are different
- Esp.
how they are both introduced and started
In Luke it seems not as important
as it is in Matthew
Matthew Para.9: (Mat
4:12-17)
Reason J. moved to Capernum was
because of the fulfillment of scripture (a
fav. theme of Mat)
-->
What John the Baptist says in Para.1 (theme of the message is the same in both
figures)
Para.11:
Calling the Disciples
[lectures moves directly to 16
and 18]
Para.16:
A Preaching Journey in Galilee
Wedo not know what Jesus preached
about; however, we do know the theme --> “repent for the Kingdom of Heaven
is at hand.”
Para.18:
Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount
The Sermon on the Mount (som) is
the “Exegesis” to the theme of repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. --> Repentance is turning around (not
feeling regretful --although it may be part of it, but the imporatnce is a
turning of action to a “new course”)
For Mat the SOM make the
concreteness of “turnin” nec. and part of the “Good News” of the Gospel
Jesus of the SOM:
No explicit Christology in the
SOM (apart from “those will come to me, saying, “Lord, Lord”)
No explicit doctrine plays a part
•
A Christology of some sort is
built into the roof of the account and is assumed throughout
•
The knowledge of who Jesus is was
not “checked at the door” in ch. 5
There’s a hinto of the
Christology at the end --> talking about “their scribes” (scribes were also
an explication of the teaching)
Christ speaks as though he knows
the Law exclusively, confidence, and full-knowledge
Jesus also speaks with a
knowledge of the heart
•
He speaks as though he was the
“mouthpiece of God” (Mat 1:23 --> Emannuel), not as a “cosmic pal,” but “God
with Us”
Formal Christology is further id
who Jesus is and to estb. the auth. from where J speaks.
Structure:
Ch. 6 is more clear sturcturally
than 5 and 7 (to Keck)
Ch. 5 poses a more inclusio
format
5:21
6
5:48
Ch.6 concerns three acts of
righteousness (or “piety” in NRSV -- which is misleading)
Righteousness
is a key term for Matthew. • Notice the theme of judgement
Parable
of two houses is a par. of judgement
The Beattitudes: Para. 19 (Matthew Ch. 5)
Beattitudo --> Makarism --> blessing
Congratulations (bestoing
fortunes)
Two Kinds: Congratulatulatory towar others
(other) Apocolyptic --> expressing hope despite the
present
•
In both Mat. and Luke the
accounts show that in both cases, the words of Jesus have been shaped and
reformatted
•
Turn
to Para.73: Luke 6:20–23
Did not include in 6:23 “false”
which is to be before “prophets” (false prophets) good editorial move (on the
part of the Evangelist)
Uncertain if Luke or Q added the woes to create balance --> if in Q,
them Matthew left them out and was an ed. choice of the Evangelist, who changed
to the 3rd person plural (Luke they are more declamatory) --> Each accounts
point out the interest(s) and theology of each Evangelist
Matt. makes the same general
point as Luke, but make it differently.
Both have modified Q in their own
way
•
5:10 --> has no parallel in
Luke, suggesting it was an inclusion made ny the Evangelist himself
•
Notice the use of the future
tense
-->
Interesting to examine the relation of the future to present
* Use
of the passive in the future suggests that it is God who is in the active and
is the unexpressed actor.
•
“Meek shall inherit the earth” is
a praphrase of the psalm verses
-->
but is different as it appears in the NT, than in the psalms
•
Their “hunger” will not be
perpetuated forever
•
Kingdom --> is expressing an eschatological notion of the
last judgement
•
The first word of the first
discourse (in Galilee) and the last word in a discourse reflects a “peace” and
notion of the kingdom
In Matthew’s kingdom in two
things:
1. Eschatological
Disjunction between this age and
the age to come --> an eschatological reversal of circumstance (to
those whose spirits are poor and crushed)
Reversal
2. Fulfillment
Beattitudes are Good News not
prerequisites and the nearness of the kingdom is what makes it possible for
such great things to happen. When God’s
unqualified rule takes place, “this is what is going to happen.” The Beattitudes are Gospel.
10/30/95
The
Sermon on the Mount:
It
was actually a compilation of sayings. Important: to understand it in its own
setting in Mt. Then, go beyond Mt. to
look at Jesus himself. The setting of
the sayings of Jesus was provided by either the evangelist or his
predicessors. So, difficult to get what
Jesus actually said from what was in the context. So, respect the context--especially the Mt.
context.
The
history behind the Sermon: in comparing it with the sermon on the Plain in Lk:
both begin with beatitudes and end with the parable of the two houses. Sayings inbetween. This implies sayings in a preexisting text
such as Q. The genuineness of the
sayings must be considered on a case by case basis. Ask: does it fit with Jesus' teachings as a
whole. 'M' is that which is unique to
Mt., but it does not say where it came from.
Did he invent or re-state a teaching.
Mt. and Lk. put into their own words a teaching which likely goes back
to Jesus. But don't claim to know more than what we know.
Lk.
v. Mt. settings: these differ. In Lk., Jesus prayed alone on the hills,
chose disciples and resumed teaching.
So, the sermon here is not as important as it is in Mt. Mt.: Jesus heard that John had been arrested
and went into Galilee so scripture might be fulfilled. Jesus and John basically proclaim the same
message: the Kingdom is at hand. Then,
he called the disciples. He preached in
the synagogues and healed the sick.
Repent is not regret but is turning around. The sermon may seem like a kind of new
law. A Moses-like quality. For Mt., the sermon makes clear the response
to the Kingdom rather than a new law.
There
is no explicit christology in the sermon.
Nothing is said about belief; about Jesus' identity; rather, it is about
doing as he did. Keck: Jesus' identity
is implied as Jesus quotes nobody knowing the will of God directly. He does not
cite sources. He speaks with
self-confidence but does not say what justifies this audacity. He makes clear what divine reality requires
for divinity to be required. Keck: this
audatiousness can only be accounted for as implicit attempt to say who Jesus
is.
After
the parable following the beatitudes, there are six antitheses regarding Jesus
and the law. Then, three acts of
rightousness in Ch. 6. This is a key
term for Mt. Notice the theme of judgment,
which increases in Ch. 7 and then with the parable of the two houses which is
about judgment.
The
beatitudes: the word means 'beatitudo' or 'makarism' which means
'blessing'. What does 'blessing'
mean? The beatitudes in Mt. and Lk.: In
both cases, the words of Jesus have been reformulated. Distinctive to Lk: Four beatitudes followed
by four woes, promising reversal of the present. Did L or Q add the woes? If the latter, why did Mt. leave them
out? Lk used 'you' plural. Mt. used 'they'. In Mt., they are more generalized and less
intimate. Lk preserved Jesus' own direct
promise to his listeners. Mt. expanded
the number of beatitudes so that there are nine of them. Mt.'s v. 10 on those persecuted is omitted by
Lk. Mt.: uses 'kingdom of heaven' in the
present tense. What is the relation
between what is assured in the present and promised in the future? God is the actor who does what is promised. v. 5 is like Ps. 37:11. vv. 3 and 10: the KOG belongs to the poor of
spirit and to the persecuted. This is an
eschatological version of the judgment.
Mt.'s beatitudes in general maintain the disjunction between this age
and the age to come, in an eschatological reversal. A reversal is promised whose spirits are
crushed. Reversal and fulfillment: those
who show mercy now will themselves be shown mercy later. Those of pure heart will come into God's
presence. The beatutides are
pronouncements of God's grace and mercy rather than requirements or
prerequisites. Rather, it is the
nearness of the Kingdom that makes it possible for Jesus to say such
astonishing things. God's unqualifying
rule will be experience in particular ways by folks.
11/01/95
Sermon on the Mount
(II)
Para. 21
Detach verse 20 and attatch it to
the six antithesies, then you have the following structure:
17–19
20–48 (which is more logical and coherent)
17–19 are among the most
difficult in Matthew.
The
purpose of Jesus is clear enough -->to fufill scriptures, to actualize
it •
transform from promise to dees consumate with the kingdom
• “Did not come to abolish the
law or the prophets”
Christian formulation
• What does it meand to
fulfillment? --> the law of the prophets (probably)
• Emphasis on the permanent
reality of the Torah
Framework:
Entry into the kingdom is
conditional. This is the first time the
reader gets the idea of entering the
Kingdom of Heaven, referrring to the final destiny of the righteous who do
God’s will --> the age to come (to Matthew) the Eschaton. The kingdom coming to us now, but the future
entering the kingdom. The question
emerges from the coexistence of both ways of talking about the kingdom. Mat lets them stay in tension --> the “already
and the not yet.” the kingdom is near
enough already to evoke an appropriate response. But the response itself is not entering the
kingdom. When the quality of one’s
discipleship and obedience will be judged.
Dikaiosyne “justice” here, “righteousness”
Rigtheousness is an important
word for Matthew. the n. Righteousness is used 6 times (first
in para.6); the adj. of righteousness
is used 12 times. Apparently meaning to
bring to pass everything that is right for us to do. The last reference is in para.203. Here J is responding to ?s at the
temple. “For John cae in the way of
righteousness,” John’s way is the “right way” (God’s way). The other times are in the Sermon on the
Mount. In each case, it appears as
though it was MAtthew who added the word as his own comentarty or emphasis on
righteousness. • The basic meaning is rectitude,
rightness with God (in line with the will and character of God). • When
things are as they ought to be.
Something the disciples are to achieve.
It is also something that is to supersede scribes and Pharisees, who
were so careful of developing “oral torah” what it was to do righ and be
right. •
“How are you going to exceed those who’s whole purpose is just that, not
to mention Qumran?” •
Look at the conclusion (Para
27) •
Mat 5:48 • TAMIM “whole, complete, nflawed, uncomprimised, true.” Intergrity is to be as true as God’s. “What makes you consistently good?” • For
sectarians (Qumran), it was achieved by complete obedience to the law as they
understood it (rigorous). • v.48 is the counterpart to v.28. •
v.20–48, provides the framework for the teaching in between --> Jesus
(to Matthew) is the definitive interpreter of God’s will and law. • “Is
it strict and rigorous obedience to Torah?”
6 Antithesies:
Is
Jesus’ teaching the antithesis of what has been said or is it fulfillment. No agreement as to whether this material is M
or Q (more side toward M). • Para 24 (the divorce sayings), exclusively
Mat. •
Current expert on Mat, LUZ,
thinks that the two go back to Jesus
himself. • Jesus never criticizes what the Lord says,
but puts his words against the OT scripture.
• To interpret a given
antithesies, look at what Matthew attaches to the sayings. We can see what Matthew understands what
Jesus means. Once this is done, what we
see in Mat is Jesus addressing an aspect of human condition that Torah
addresses but cannot control, that is whoever obeys Jesus is living the
nearness of the kingdom --> a nearness of God. • What
Torah is after is bringing one near to God, to be shaped by that nearness. •
Repentance is the turning and nearing to God.
Para.22 (Mat 5:21–26)
Jesus
quotes a double saying here. 1st fr. the
decalogue, the 2nd from a legal ruling.
• What is striking is how absurd
Jesus’ words are (anger to judgement) --> no real difference between the
three offenses, but there is a difference in judgement. That’s what is so absurd. • It
is a signal that a legal approach to an offense will not work. Only reconciliation can real deal with what’s
happening in the human heart. • v.25 and 26 start with a realistic
situation. • A “Debtors prison” is not a Jewish
institution, but a Hellenistic creation --> it is used here to stress the
urgency of the situation.
Para.23 (Mat 5:27–30)
Here, again, are two
sayings. • Mat seems to like the saying about cutting off
a limb (uses it twice) --> see note.
• GYNE, although many times translates as “woman”, here, is more
likely to mean simply “wife” --> adultery does not deal with what causes the
adultery, here the legal approach to adultery is “exploded.” • The
theme is with regrad to adultery, one has to act stringently.
Para.25
This is not a direct quotation of
Leviticus. • What is unique is this absolute prohibition
of an oath. • creates an avoidance of purgery, but only a
person’s integrity makes one truthful.
No oath can guarantee integrity (if one does not have it, they just
don’t have it).
Para.26
Not design to limit vengence, but
what is involved here is the doer, who is ionvolved in a cycle of evil which
can only be broken by act of love toward the aggressor.
Para.27
Loving one’s equal simply
confirms reciprocity (basic human community); but only when love is extended to
the enemy, aggressor, and sinner are we living in love and union with God. • At
no point will Jesus accept the excuse we obeyed the law, one does not need the
law to know how to live. • This attitude goes beyond the scribes and
pharisees.
11/1/95
Jesus
and the Law:
Mt.
5: 17-20. v. 20 belongs with the next
section (the six antitheses). vv. 17-19
is then an introduction to this block.
This introduction's point: Jesus came to fulfill scripture; to transform
it from a word of command to a deed constanant with the Kingdom. Who is in mind who is teaching against a
commandment? Also, what does Mt.
understand as fulfillment? Notice the
emphasis on the permanent validity of Torah.
The antitheses are not about abolishing the Torah.
v.
20: the entry into the Kingdom is conditional. This is the first that Mt.
speaks of entering the Kingdom. It
refers to the final righteousness of those who do God's will. It is Mt.'s way of referring to the age to
come. What is the relation of the
kingdom coming near to us and the future entering the kingdom? No saying in Mt. addresses this
question. So, there are two ways in Mt.
of talking about the Kingdom. Mt. let them
stand in what appears to us as in tension--between the already and the not
yet. The Kingdom is near enough already
to evoke an appropriate response, but the response itself is not yet entering
the kingdom because that comes at the end when the quality of one's response to
the kingdom's nearness will be judged.
'your righteousness', meaning 'dikaiosyne' which does not here mean
justice. Righteousness appears as a word
only six times in Mt. But it is
important in Mt. John uses it in
response to Jesus' baptism.
Righteousness: to do what is in accord with God's will. The way of righteousness is the right
way. Other uses of the word are in the
sermon on the mount. Mt. may have added
the word as his own emphasis. Keck:
Mt.'s use of 'righteousness' means 'rectitude' or 'that which is in line with
the will and character of God'. In verse
20, it is righteousness that is required which is to exceed that of the scribes
and pharasees who were committed to righteousness. They were concerned with what it means to be
right and do right. How can one have a righteousness that exceeds this?
Mt.
5:48--Be perfect as your Father is perfect.
This notion was not in the Hebrew Scriptures. Tamim: whole, complete, uncompromised, having
integrity uncompromised as is God's.
What makes it unflawed? What
makes you consistently good? v. 48 is
the counterpart to v. 20 which requires righteousness above that of the
scribes. For Mt., Jesus is the
definitive interpreter of Torah.
The
antitheses: 'You have heard, but I say
to you'. Then comes Jesus' own teaching.
Is his teaching the antithesis or the fulfillment on what has been quoted
as what has been heard? No concensus
here. Mt. seems to have created the
introductory sayings (you have heard) of each antithesis. Mt.'s Jesus never criticizes what the Law
says in Torah. Jesus simply puts his
word next to it. There are no rabbinic
parallels to this.
To
interpret a given antithesis, consider what Mt. attaches to it to see what Mt.
understands that Jesus says. Is Jesus
addressing an aspect of the human condition which Torah should address but
can't change. For instance, who ever obeys Jesus discovers that he has
transcended the response to a text in living near the Kingdom which elicits
that type of behavior. What Torah is
after is actualized in becoming shaped by the nearness of the Kingdom. The turning toward it is crucial. This transcends following the text.
The
antitheses:
On
Murder: You have heard not to murder,
but Jesus says one who is angry should be reconciled. Jesus quotes a double saying: one from the
Deckalogue and the second is from the minor laws. To be mad, to call one a fool, are different
but the punishment is really the same.
Correlation between crime and punishment breaks down. It is a different ballgame. Only reconciliation can deal with what is
going on in the human heart.
On
Adultry: Lust is actually committing adultary.
Cut off that which makes you lust.
Two sayings: one about adultary; one about cutting off. Looking at a woman probably here means
looking at someone else's wife. Not
committing adultary doesn't really solve the problem of lust. One can't rely on the law on adultary (e.g.
that we really didn't have sex). More
stringent measures are needed. That is why the 'cutting off' statement is
added.
On
Swearing: this is not an exact repeat of the Torah. What is unique here is the absolute
prohibition of an oath. Avoiding perjury
does not necessarily make one truthful; neither does swearing.
On
Retaliation: turn your check. Don't
refuse one who asks for something. Don't
resist the evildoer by retaliation. The
cycle of evil can be broken only by an act of love toward the aggressor. Love that restricted to those one likes
confirms the reciprocity which already makes human communities. But only when love is extended outside of it
to the outsider (considered immoral people) is one responding to the nearness
of the Kingdom. Only the unalloyed makes
this possible. Exposure of the human
heart and will here. Legality is not an
excuse. The nearness of the Kingdom
provides the constraint. This goes
beyond the righteousness of the scibes and pharasees as well as those in the
Churches and seminaries.
11/03/95
Matthew 10
Para 58 and
following The Sending Out of the Twelve
Chapters 5-9, Mat had protrayed
the mission of J in word and deed. 3
things concrete:
1) theme of J’s message 4:17
--> Repent for the Kingdom is near”;
2) the lead-in for the sermon on
the Mount 4:23,25;
3) Amplified what it meant to
follow Jesus, followed up by material (ch.8-9) w./ discipleship
9:35 Para.58 --> (End of
Ch.9), another setting, a discourse, a narrative
in between two discourses. Discourse in
ch.10 is the second, (first is proclamation of his mission), this speech is
about the disciple’s mission.
Chs. 11 &12, This material is
linked by word association, common theme, but little plot --> shows what
happens and what will happen
Para.59 Coming Persecutions:
amplified in 11&12, 10:34
(Para.61), did not come to bring peace.
This is actualyzing Christ’s own
spirit.
Para.89 Jesus’ True Relatives
“Who are my mothers and my
brothers.” This sets up the theme of the
next discourse (the fate of the Word in the world).
How did
Matthew arrange all this?
By freely rearranging material
from Q, Mark, and M combined
Up through ch. 13 (parable
chapter) follows his own material
From Mat 14 on, follows Mark (Mark’s
narrative)
Discourse in
Chapter 10
Start w./
Para.58
Summary 9:35 / compared to ch. 16
[similar summaries]
This summary is very much like it
and tells the reader that we are starting the second cycle.
Took some material from Mark, but
amplified --> added “they were
harassed and helpless” different sayings brought in because of the thematic
association. Business w./ the shepherd (see Mat 2:66 --> use in saying, “Shall shepherd my people, Israel).
Numbers 27, 17, 1st ki 22:17; II
Chr 18:16, EZ 34:5
Harassed and helpless This was
important
Harvest was a standard metaphor
for eschatology
This type of language was not
accidental --> “ESchatological time” (Harvest time)
Provides a clue to the
eschatological events --> will entail
a “type of sifting”
Greek
translates as “Jesus says” [different from NRSV]
The List of names (that do not
agree)
Disciples
Mission in the Bible:
Only in the Synoptics (not in
John)
Mark --> Para. 72, naming the
twelve to A) be with him and B) to go later
(Para. 109), everything in between the disciples are called to be with him
(preparation)
Para. 85 --> notice that after
this, he looks at Judas Iscarriot, but then the story continues. Text says they were saved (NRSV: “people”)
Para. 109 --> The Sending of
the Twelve in Mark
Para. 112 --> The disciples
are back ... time to report the response is to have the come away to a
“deserted place” (odd response to a well-planned out mission)
Luke:
Para.72 “Calling of the 12”
* then Para.71 (reverses the
order)
**Back to 109, in keeping with
Mark
Luke records the disciples’
reports
Para.139 and 140 --> “The
Sending of the Seventy” - Reports include accounts of demons being
subjected (although no mention of Para.139)
[back to Matthew]
Matthew
never mentions that the disciples never came back. An oversight?
(Keck doubts it) Then what’s
going on? --> The mission is not over
yet, despite everything that is happening; it has not been cut-off it has been
expanded.
Dicourse
Para 58:
Verses 5-23 addressed to the
missioners. 2 parts 5-13 can go to Israel (Go nowhere among the
Gentiles). Give without payment (receive
without payment). “Gentiles are present
in the wings from the start.” Birth
stories, Galilleee, ch. 8 -Gentiles coming to him. Emphasis of being Jewish is double-edged:
emphasizes the relationship and auth. of Jesus -> continuity; which causes
the greater sense of casuality and loss when rejected. Does not mention repentace. Four things: Cure the sick, raise the dead,
cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons.
They are to leave seven types of belongings behind --> theyare to go
vulnerably. How they should act upon
being received vs. rejected --> does not say they are to pass judgement (it
will come elsewhere). Only time in
the whole Gospel are they told to to trust on the Spirit (they’ll need
it). v.23 --> Peculiar to Matthew,
whether a construction of Matthew or an orig. saying of Jesus or simply two
instead of one saying. Second part,
“truly” (“Amen”) looks to Keck as a separate sying brought in by the tradition
or Matthew.
vs. 23-39 the disciples TELEIOUV
--> completed “you will not have completed the missions in the towns” Israel
will respond before Israel is converted.
Totally different than what Schweitzer thought --> the verse
tells us of Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ mission and his own
eschatology. The very next saying is
that the servant is not above te master.
The church’s mission is also of the eschatological event that
will not be fulfilled until the Son of God comes again --> the end of the
age --> the eschaton!!
vs.40-42 those who receive the missioners themselves
11/3/95
Mt.
10: The Mission Discourse
Mt.
ch.s 5-9--Mission of Jesus in terms of word and deed. The theme of Jesus' message: repent for the
KOG is at hand'. The lead-in to the
sermon of the mount was made concrete in Mt. 8 &9. How to follow Jesus was made concrete in Mt.
5.
In
Mt. 9:35-10:16--a narrative between two discourses. The first discourse: about Jesus' mission;
the second is on the disciples' mission.
Mt. 10:17-23--what happened to the disciples when they went out. Ch.s 11 and 12 amplify this.
Mt.
rearranged items in Q and Mk and added M.
Through the parable chapter (ch. 14), Mt rearranges Mk. From Mt. 14 on, Mt. follows Mk.
Mt.
9.35-10.16. 9:36--the shepherd. The idea of the ruler as shepherd is an
ancient Near East motif. Jesus' crowds
were like sheep without a shepherd before he came. The crowds were harrassed and helpless. The sheep are related to a harvest. Why?
Sheep aren't harvested! Harvest
has the elements of time needed (eschatology) and of a shifting. This is the setting of the mission.
Disciples'
mission in the Gospels. Jn: the disciples never go on a mission. Mk.: Jesus appointed the disciples to be with
him and to be sent out later.
Preparation time. They prepared by following Jesus and going with him to
a lonely place. Lk: Two missions. Prayer precedes important events. Jesus prayed and then went on to give the
sermon on the plain. Then he sent his disciples out to heal the sick. The disciples returned and reported to
Jesus. They went to a city. (in Mk, they
went to the desert). Then, in Lk 10,
Jesus sent seventy ahead of him.
Mt:
it is never said that the apostles never came back, unlike Mk. The mission isn't over yet. In Mt., it is a mission to Isreal. Mt. 10:5-23--to the missioners. Go nowhere
among the Gentiles or Semarians. Heal
the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepors, and cast out demons. Rependence is
not mentioned. Then, the negative side: don't take three kinds of money or bag
or extra clothes or staff. They are to
go vulnerably. Then, he tells them how to act.
Don't go from house to house; find out who is worthy. If none, shake off the dust off your
feet. Don't cast judgment; that will
happen. Be wise as serpants as they are
as sheep among wolves. The emphasis on
Israel is double-edged, emphasizing Jesus' relation to Israel, which in turn
sets the stage for the rejection of Jesus.
10:23--if persecuted, flee. Also,
you will not have gone through every town before the Son of man comes. Keck: this verse probably came from the
church. Schitzer: this came from Jesus;
Jesus thought he would die before they would return. But he was wrong, so it could not have been
something added by the church. But, Keck
sees this verse about the mission to Isreal than about what was to happen to
Jesus. That is, an eschatalogical
caste.
11/06/95
Matthean Jesus and
the Church
It is in
fact a way of speaking of the whole Gospel, particularly true of Matthew, he
alone uses the term, ecclesia -->
putting the words on the lips of Jesus himself.
This use of ecclesia presents
challenges to us in the 20th century, for the term has meanings (now) -->
meanings not available to the Evangelistin his own day. • Also
continuity, in terms of institution, liturgy, and what we understand Church to
be --> instituted by Jesus. We are to
do more than simply exegete a text.
• The history is more than just a
community summary, as a result, J. was the warrant for Matthew’s attitude
toward the Synagogue. Matthew, for this,
in all liklihood, omits the sections that Jesus agrees with the Pharisees and
scribes. The intention is to illustrate
the tensions. • This message becomes antisemitic, not in its
original, but when the meg comes to represent all Jews (not just Rabbinic
Judaism). Be aware of words and possible
interpretattions. • We would sell Mat short if we would miss the
way J. relates to the church. In Mat, J.
wared w./ the ZChurch, became the basis for both the security and insecurity,
being both founder and judge, leading to Para.122.
Para. 122:
Since Mat. was written in the
90’s, we can expect the Gospeal to reflect Peter’s role in Ch.y
• 1st
leader in the Christian community;
• The
resurrected [1 Cor 15] Jesus first appeared to Peter [confirmed in Luke 34];
Paul acknowledged the leadership of Peter [Gal 2:7-8] --> but Paul does not
regard Peter as his superior, nor refer to him as Simeon or Cephas;
• In
John, as in the Synoptics, Peter (as in Simeon Peter) speaks for the disciples,
but there was another disciple --> the one whom Jesus loved -->
presumably Peter;
• There
is unanimous evidence in the 1st gen. of Peter’s role and the NT as a whole
points to the the denier becomming the leader;
• Also
known that this man was also known as Cephas (which came from Jesus --> 2
stories how he got the name [John 1:40] and [Mat ] 4 &8 called Peter before
the account
Para. 122:
“Simon Peter” answered... -> difficult to translate Christos here (may not mean Messiah
here)
We know that in MArk, this is a
pivotal para./ in the storyline, because of the fact that the disciples did not
understand; but Matthew does not have the situatuation this way. Para.120
--> “How can fail to
perceive...” --> Moreover, Para. 113:
Story of Peter walking on the
water as well, in addition to Jesus saving Peter. All, here acknowledge Jesus’ identity long
before Ceasarea-Phillipi. Para.67:
Para 67 --> The claim of Jesus
is no secret (said openly) --> Back to Para. 122:
122: This does not present a breakthrough in understanding; instead,
the focus is on people.
“But
who do people say I am?” -->
Theological question on identity
Peter clearly identifies Jesus
as the Son of Man
3 Christological titles: Son of
Man, Christ, Son of God --> Matthew uses all three, but is very much
interested in the “Son of Man” (referring to the Judgement)
Son of Man: work here on earth
Suffering
of the Son of Man
In
reference to the coming judgement (the second coming)
** NO sayings combines two or more; never
combined or put into a synquence
- Debate
as to whether or not Jesus did use
“Son of Man”, never says I am the son of Man
*
But this would be odd, because the phrase only appears in two places: Stephen
and Jesus
*
Relying on the fact that Jesus used it because it was not Christian vocab.
*
Mark’s implications through identities (confirmation of Peter) are removed by
Matthew
The “rock” is Peter in sofar as
he makes the confession, for ha can also be “a stumbling block”
*
Jesus goes on to say I will build my church upon “this rock”
*
Gahal, a community, a church
“Hades” the expression is
peculiar, probably referring to that death will not have any hold on the Church
Use of Rabbinic idiom, here the
point is Peter’s role on earth is confirmed in Heaven by God.
Para.134:
Discourse on Church
discipline. Here Jesus gives words in
which to regulate the Church. Matthew
uses “your brother” (instead of “another member”) will be a “Gentile and a tax
collector” --> the binding is shared upon the community. “Church Discipline”
Discipline done with care,
concern, love, and openness for forgiveness and reconciliation.
Para 122:
This, was in fact, according to
the will of Jesus (not for a “power trip” for Peter)
Uses the phrase, “my church”
Serious doubt as to Jesus seeing
himself as founding his own community.
Wasi: “Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom, but what came was the Church”
*
What kind of church --> an impure (“mixed bag”)
Regarding 134 (again) the fact
that such a provision at all proves that the Evangelist has a realaistic view
on what the Church will include (w./ the personal dynamics involved); never uses
“righteous”; ex-communication as only a last resort.
Matthew in Para.96, insists that the weeds and crop grow
together. Then and only then will there
be a great weeding at the end (also Matthew
13:~50? --> Kingdom is like a net)
Para.217--> looking for the
Messiah again. Be careful of being led
away...for the coming will be from the Son of Man (you will know)
Para.226 -->
In Matthew, given the nature of
the church, the nature of Jesus, being a member of the Church is important, and
being excluded is an awful thing. Being
a member is not enough, the Church is not the kingdom of God, but whose work
should produce a type of righteousnes that will allow them to enter the kingdom
at the end.
11/6/95
The
Jesus of Mt. and the Church:
This
is to speak of the whole gospel because they are its theme and angle. Mt. has Jesus say 'church'. This word has come to have different
meanings. So, what did Mt. mean by
'church'. But there has also been
continuity. Mt. understood the church to
have been built by Jesus, for instance.
Mt.'s Jesus was the warrant for establishing a separate church. So, Mt. emphasized the points of tension
between the synagogue and the teachings of Jesus. Pharasees are called hypicrites seven times.
Keck: it is embarassing to have Jesus presented this way. However, this was intra-jewish polemic. It became anti-semitic when gentiles took
hold of it. Also, harsh polemic was not
unusual within Isreal.
Mt.
is complex. Was it a patch-work or was
the message a complex thesis? For instance,
Jesus was both the builder and the judge.
Mt.
was written in the 90's. So, it reflects
the role of Peter in the church as understood then. Keck: no reason to doubt that Acts' account
of Peter being the first church leader.
1 Cor. 15: Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the twelve... Lk. 34:
The lord has risen and appeared to Peter. Also, Gal. 2: Paul acknowledged the
leadership of Peter. But Paul did not
consider him to be his superior. In Jn.,
Peter speaks for the disciples. But
there was the disciple whom Jesus loved.
But, it was Peter whom Jesus made responsible in Jn. for feeding the
disciples. So, united evidence of
Peter's leadership. There is also agreement that he denied Jesus in the
trial. So, the denier became the
leader. Peter got that name from Jesus,
meaning 'rock'. Two stories on how he
got the name. Jn. 1:40--on the moment of
encounter. Mt.--it was at an event.
Peter's
Confession at Caesarea Philippi:
Peter
said that Jesus was the krystos. Keck:
it may mean the Messiah. Mk. and Lk.
have Peter say 'Christ'. Mt. has Peter
say 'Son of God'. In Mk., this is a
pivotal paragraph because the disciples did not understand. But Mt., it does not mark a radical new
understanding.
The
Walking on the Water:
Peter
doubts while walking on the water. They
acknowledged his identity as the Son of God here, before Peter's confession.
Also,
Jesus claimed to be the Son at an earlier time: No one knows the Father except
the Son.
So,
in Peter's confession, the focus is on Peter and the Church. Mt. assumes that the Son of Man is
Jesus. It is not clear that Jesus say
himself as this figure. For Mt., Jesus
is the Son of Man, the Christ, and the Son of God.
In
the synoptics, the Son of Man is used 1. in reference to a figure on earth
(self-reference), 2. the sufferings undergone by the figure, or 3. the figure
coming in judgment at the end of time.
All three gospels assume that all three applie to Jesus, but the three
are not put into a sequence. Debate on
whether Jesus used the term Son of Man.
Debate on whether he meant
himself, become he never said 'I am the Son of Man'. In the N.T., the term is applied by Steven
and Jesus only. It was not Christian
vocabulary, so Jesus probably used the term.
But this does not mean that Jesus saw himself as that figure. Mt. assumes that he did.
It
is not the confession that is the rock; rather, it is Peter. Peter could be not only a foundation stone
but a stumbling block.
Peter
gets the keys to the kingdom; not to the church.
The
discourse on Church discipline:
Mt.
has Jesus tell the disciples to treat ill-repentant church members as a Gentile
and tax collector. But Jesus ate with
the latter. Oops!
Peter's
role in his church:
For
Mt., it was not just due to Peter's estuteness in getting to the top fast, but
due to Jesus deliberately founding his own community. But, Mt. 10--Jesus did not send disciples out
to recruit for his own community.
Recall: Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom but what came was the Church. What kind of Church came. In Mt., it is an
impure Church. Mt. 18;15-20--something
has happened in the church needing reproof.
The fact that such provisions are included at all shows that Mt. does
not see the disciples as righteous. Mt.
regards exclusion from the church as serious.
Mt. insists that the wheat and the weeds have to grow together until the
harvest; not before which is there going to be a pure church. Mt. 24: beware that no one leads you
astray. Some will claim to be prophets. So, the church will not be perfect, according
to Mt. Given the nature of the Son of
Man and of the Church vis a vis the eschaton, being a member of the church is
important. Yet being in the church is
not enough. Not even prolaiming the Lord
is not sufficient. The Church is not the
kingdom; rather, it should produce a kind of righteousness that will admit us
to the kingdom in the end.
11/08/95
Luke:
Luke 24 Para. 253 Outline
Chapters 1–4 for Friday’s Section
-->
Overall observations:
There are a number of text problems (i.e.,
v.5). Compared with Mat & Mark using
the passive, Luke implies (w./ active) that Jesus arose himself. Footnote Eusebius and the omission of “He is not here” (p.205 “Para.253”). There is an anticipation, literally. V.12 Peter ran into the tomb, some
manuscripts omit v.12. Case can be made,
for the clothes may be a parallel reference to John 20 (or at least indicates
an influence). Aslo, the saying may be
added because what is said in v. 24 (Some went to the tomb and found...) Very carefully chapter; despite a few rough
spots. Verse 36 --> See the footnotes
for all the varying forms of Jesus’ words.
Some manuscripts omit, while others expand the passage. There seems to be a concern to “get the words
right.” Verse 50, most important, may
have been expanded (Para.EE – p.209). If
the footnotes are correct, then there are no mention of the ascention in the
Gospels – only in Acts. Maybe it was
added because of the tension of the omission.
The point is that this is a proime example of how important it is to pay
close attention to the textual variants.
Structurally, of the four parts, the Emmaus story is the
longest and the last section is the shortest (simply closing the story) Vol. 2 (Acts) were coming, perhaps written at
the same time. Each of the first three
parts, state a major theme of the chapter.
Each of these 3 statements get longer and longer (i.e., v.7, 25–27) Not accidental. Luke is a very careful writer and the story
was designed that way. So effective
because eerything happened in one day, including the ascension.
Para. 253:
Either
Luke has a different tradition, or interprets Mark very drastically. Acc. to Luke, the women bought spices on
Friday, more according to the law. Luke
has only one young man, as opposed to Mark w./ two witnesses. Luke’s women did as the women told them, as
in Mark they did nothing (seemingly). In
Luke, the women were not believed. The
emptiness of the tomb is not the main piint; but the starting point, the words
of the man and the disbelief of the disciples -- set in motion the dynamics of
this chapter. The angels ask the women
to remember what Jesus had said in Galilee, in Mark that they would meet in
Galilee. In Luke, they are told to NOT
go to Galilee and stay in Jerusalem. Indeed,
Luke and Acts, both have a Jerusalem focus to their content. “It’s impossible for a prophet to be killed
outside of Jerusalem. Para. 191, 3rd
Passion prediction. Back here, the women
did remember. The road to Emmaus...
Para. CC
(p.207) The Road to Emmaus
Uses
the old motif as the unrecognized stranger, told artfully ith suspense, and at
the end the identity is made known. This
recapitulates the Passion story and the tomb story and the dissapointment. This reminds the readers of the opening chapters,
as well, as guiding to the opening chapters of Acts. The reader should see the irony of the
situation, these guys tell Jesus about Jesus.
Jesus then expands the theme of the angels by the tomb, emphasizing the necessity
of Christ’s suffering (a theme of all the passion narratives). Interestingly, connected with Paul, in Acts
9, as well as Paul’s preaching -- Acts 14.
V. 27, “How foolish you are...”
Sweeping stmnt. that makes the point that a Christ oriented
interprettion of the scripture reflecting Christ himself. A Christological bent to the OT. The meal scene brings tha various elements of
the story together. Their eyes were
opened and they recognized him (then He dissappeared) Eucharistic overtones present. Also an echo of the feeding story. Para. 112 --> the feeding story, v.16
--> taking the five loaves, this is liturgical language, it assumes that the
reader knows it, understands it, and the meaning resonates with them. Also present in Acts with Eucharistic
meals. Luke does not tell the reader
everything. Jesus was made known in
the breaking of bread. (being as
communion). Para.237 --> Aside to
Simon (Peter). Luke puts into the Last
Supper scene that the acts of Peter has happened (for “the Lord appeared to
Simon”). Luke includes in the passage
reference to repentence and restoration.
Jesus tells Peter after you have (sinned) and return, you will be
strengthened and will need to strengthen your brethren. •
Stay here in the city until you are given power from on high. Luke goes to the limits (and even beyond) to
estb. the realities of the ressurrection.
The physical to illustrate the spiritual. If Luke’s risen Jesus did not appear, then
one might think that Jesus simply was recessitation -- but the flesh and bones
-- even eating, gives a greater dimesnsion -- for Luke, the resurrection
emphasizes the glory of Jesus. “Did he
over-do it?” “Does a ressurrected body
need to eat fish?” • Notice v.41, “while they were in their joy,
they were disbelieving -- previous closure of their minds was also an act of
God, but now that is all taken away...Jesus teaches them, they understand, and
their minds are open to the vista of Acts.
• Notice the theme of witnessing,
which also appears throoughout the Gospel and throughout Acts. •
Jesus commands them to “stay in town.”
• It’s been a long day...leads
them as far as Bethany and then the ascension and they returned “with great
joy.” the story ends with where it
began, in the Temple --> also where Acts begins.
-enjoy-
11/8/95
Lk.
24: The Empty Tomb.
Some
text-critical problems. Verse five, for instance. Did Jesus raise himself or did God do
it? It implies the resurrection but does
not announce it. Verse twelve: some
manuscripts omit it. Peter seeing the
linen clothes at the tomb. Verse 36:
some manuscripts have Jesus say: Peace be with you. Others don't.
Verse 51: if he ascended then, then there was no forty days. Some manuscipts left out that they worshipped
him. Keck: pay attention to the text
variants.
The
structure of Ch. 24: The first three
parts of the chapter states a major theme of the chapter. For instance, vv.s 7: on the third day rise;
vvs. 25-27: the messiah should suffer these things vvs. 45-49: He fulfilled the scriptures... These get longer and longer.
Note
that everything happens in one day: Easter.
Ch.
24: v. 1: the woman from Galilee came to the tomb. They did not find the body. Different from Mk. Where did Lk. get this material? Lk.'s woman reported their experience but
they did not according to Mk. In Lk.,
the women were not believed. The
emptiness of the tomb is the setting for what is important: the words of the
men and the disbelief of the apostles.
In Lk., there had been three Passion predictions.
Lk.
24: 13-35: The disguised stranger who
was really Jesus. They were kept from
understanding. The disciples were
disappointed. Jesus called himself a
prophet. The strangers tell the
disciples about Jesus and rebuke them on their ignorance! Ironic!
According to Lk., Jesus as Christ goes back to the testimony of the
risen Lord. He called himself the
Christ, according to Lk. Then, Jesus
broke bread and fed them. Echos of the
feeding story. It was eucharistic. And
it point to Acts, where breaking bread is the sign for shared meals. The Last Supper was expanded by Lk in Ch.
22. Lk. alone has Peter's denial at the
Supper. Again, disbelief of the
disciples is the theme.
Before
what was hidden, on Easter he opens their eyes.
Preach to all nations. Nations of
Isreal?
Lk.
goes to the limits to establish the reality of the resurrection. The use of the physical to make convincing
the spiritual is also found at the beginning of Lk.: that a real bird brought
the Spirit. If Jesus had not disappeared
after breaking bread, it would have been a resuccitated Jesus. For Lk. the resurrection is part of Christ
entering into his glory. Keck: did he
overdo it? Does a resurrected body eat
fish? While they were disbelieving with
joy, Jesus asked for something to eat (24:41).
The
theme of witness is fundamental in Acts.
They witnessed his ascention.
Then, rather than being sad at his going, they went back to the temple
with joy. They ended up in the temple
where they had started.
11/13/95
John
Preliminary
Remarks:
Many reasons
why John is problematic. Quite
different, but not separate from the Synoptics.
Problematic because it is deceptive: 1) Deceptively simply (simplicity
is deceptive) --> syntax is simple / small vocab. but the content of the
speech --> what Jesus is saying is subtle and complex --> Beware of
thinking it easily understandable; 2) dangerous, mostly when we think we
understand it, it’s portrayal of Jesus, Church order, treatment of the Jews
--> John does not present himself as an option, but the “real truth” (many people in the past have thought of this
Gospel as the “apex” -- BEWARE).
Historical
Background. Fourth, only in order of
canon. Cannot excape noticing that the
reader is now in a different world than the the other three Synoptics. This world is dualistic, i.e. spirit against
flesh --> either or (no greys). Jesus
claims to be the shepherd, the door, talks about himself all the time. Gospel begins with celebration of the Logos, the word. We are left the question of “where did this
stuff come from?”
There is
adefinite role of parallels and antecedants.
Reason is that there are
parallels and antecedants, we can all find outside examples --> both
Hellenistic and Jewish.
Goodenough
(to Keck) was on to something in his view of John; but still have not accounted
for what was in the text --> particulary Jesus, a specific human being and his ideas.
John was
produced for a specific community, similar to Matthew (Keck speculates that
John and Matthew was written around the same time and same general location)
same concerns for synagogue and Judaic-Christians. This was the “Post-’70s Environment.”
Centrality
of Christology (not the same as the centrality of Christ -- as in the
Synoptics). Here, a particular
understanding of Jesus, a doctrine of his true identity is his central theme
and is further put on the mouth of Jesus himself. Implicit Christology (Synoptics). John, the Christology is the explicit (not
implicit) center of his message, pointing to himself as the revealer of
God. See Mat 11:30--”All things have been deliered to me...” This emphasis on the exclusiveness of the
rel. of Son to Father has been called the “Johanine meteor” an extraordinary
explicit account --> not common in Matthew but all over John. Distinct, but obscure Christology (in some
ways). John portrays Jesus as “a God
striding across the earth.” Some take
the oposit view -- why would he cry and then...his death. John’s Passion is different chronologically
than the Synoptics. To John, Jesus is thelamb slaughtered to take away the
sins of the world. Odd, because to Jews,
the Passover is not about atonement.
Others say simply this is the time that Jesus is glorified and returns
to God. Another interesting aspect is
memory. Jesus uses words with one
meaning, his listeners take him literally, and thus, misunderstands. Now the narrator points out that after the
events, Jesus had foretold this (ex. destruction and rebuilding of the
“temple”). In John, there is no
messianic secret, Jesus always tells us, instead there is a remembering that is
generated and clarified by the Spirit (one reason it is so suggestive).
Prologue: One of the most fascinating passages in the
Bible. Term: logos, defies translations, because it has a wide range of
meaning. Logos can mean word, or reason,
rationality, argument, message, the point, paragraph, etc. This was a key term in
stoic philosophy. For the stoics
everything operates according to the logos.
The Stoics differentiated between two forms of logos:
Logos
Endiathetos
Logos
Prophorikos Sent out and prevades all
things, including each of us, so that the same law that governs the cosmos
governs you and me. Stoic msg.: live
according to your logos, you are part of the vast cosmic machine --> under
your same way, be true to yourself.
*Also a cultured way of describing God.
Most scholars have moved to looking for
Jewish (Hellenized) parallels and
antecedants, particular in wisdom literature, proverbs, even Psalms. Sophia
is now the outpouring out of knowledge and “the way.” Same was said of Isis. In other words, what the prologue says about
the Logos, is said in Sophia.
The Text:
In the Prologue we have prose,
different kinds of prose, breaking up the logos. Jesus, himself is not mentioned until v.17,
v.14, we get first person plural --> “we”.
Can this be accounted by the history of the material? Barrett thinks that the Evangelist wrote it
as we have it, but that has not been accepted by many people. Robinson, feels that the Gospel begins in v.6
and continues with v.15 --> creating a nice framework of John the Baptist,
breaking up the material with the prologue.
Perhaps it is the other way around, the hymn to the logos is broken up
with the Gospel. The present prologue is
the result of several expantions and was probably added last to the
Gospel. Interestingly enough, this is
the portal to enter the Gospel and the lens in which we view the entire Gospel,
and yet, theis is tha last time the term is used --> it is never said again.
First five verses. Notice the shift in tenses. The Evangelist wants to see these verses as a
unit. These five are the most dramatic
and the most poetic. It asserts, but does
not explain. It highlights doctrine, but
does not discourse. From the satandpoint
of lit. criticism, the prologue is the voice of the narrator and tells the
reader how to think and view this story.
“In the beginning,” arche, sounds like Genesis (God spoke
and something happened), but no explicit reference to that --> here, the Word, not through the Word, but that
all things came from Him. “The logos was
with God in the beginning” --> not expressive of how it got there (no
begetting, no splitting, etc.) Was not
in God, but with God, in fact,
the logos was God. • What
God was the logos was. Not explicitly
divine, does not disclose that this is the same substance. Logos is God all over again. Not interested in how it happened, simply that it happened. Verse 3 is crucial: “All things came into
being through him, and without him, not one thing came into being. What has come into being was life” The last two words of the Greek text could go
either way. The lights shines, the
darkness did not overcome it. This is an
allusion to what is said later, that the light was refused, but keeps shinning.
11/13/95
The
Gospel of John:
Jn.
and Mt. were contemporaries. Jn. is
problematic because it is deceptively simple and its simplicity is
deceptive. For instance, the use of
light and darkness. But what do these
mean? Simplicity is used to express
complex, even offensive, theology.
Bultmann sees it as the apex of the Christian Testament. Jn. is an alternative to other construals of
Christianity without criticizing them.
Its danger lies in forcing us to decide before we understand what it
means.
Historical
background: The vocabulary is different,
so it is from another world. For
instance, Kingdom of God appears rarely in Jn.
Also, things are either/or. No
grays. How to get from one side to the
other is not given. The 'Word' is
celebrated. This is another side of
Jesus' teaching. Where did it come
from? Too much hellonistic philosophy to
be from Jesus himself? The historical method
stresses parallels and anticedents to show that that material is not new. There are parallels and anticedents in
antiquity, in hellonism and the Judaisms.
Especially salient are Jewish anticedents. The Sayings, for instance. A common religious thought in the first
century that showed up in religious texts.
But this does not account for the creative use of common ideas with
regard to Jesus. Also, the social
location in which Jn. was produced was one of alienation from the
syagogue. Keck: Mt. and Jn. were
probably written in the same area. Bad
relations with the synagogue; condemnation of heretics. So, look at the community, especially vis a
vis the post-70 Jewish environment.
The
centrality of Christology in Jn. This
does not mean that Jesus was central. A
particular understanding of Jesus: a doctrine of his true identity, is the
central theme and put on the lips of Jesus himself. Jn. points to the identity of Jesus. In the
synoptic Gospels, Christologies are implicit in the narratives. In Mt., the unique relation between the
Father and the Son is rare, but it is the centerpiece in Jn. In Jn., everything turns on accepting Jesus'
claims about himself. The humanness of
Jesus in Jn. has been debated. Kasemann:
the divinity of Jesus in Jn. is so strong as to be docism: Jesus only appeared
to have a human body. But 'Jesus wept'
and was tired, is only in Jn. In Jn.,
Jesus is crucified when the passover lamb is slaughtered. Jesus is the lamb who is slaughtered to take
away the sin of the world. So, the
identity of Jesus is central to the human condition. But in Judaism, the Day of Atonement is in
the Fall, rather than at Passover. So,
Jesus as the sacraficed lamb is not the atoning victom.
The
disciples' memory: For instance, Jesus
against the money-changers. Jesus says
he will destroy the temple and build it up in three days. His disciples and others take it literally
and thus misunderstand it. After he
raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that. Not until after the resurrection do the
disciples get the point and remember.
Unlike Mk., there is no secret; rather, there is a memory that is
clarified by resurrection and Spirit. It
is a result of the Spirit's work.
The
prologue: The Beginning was the
Logos. Logos defies translation because
it has a wide range of meaning in Greek.
We translate it as 'Word'. Logos
means word, statement, argument, message...
It was a key term in Stoicism.
Stoics were monists: everything operated according to the Logos. This is how we are to understand the
world. There were two types of Logos:
Logos Endiathetos (remained itself thought) and Prophorikos (that which went
out in speech). The former pervades all
things. Thus every person has a sliver
of Logos Endiathetos. It can govern us
if we control our passions. The Stoic
message: be rational: live according to your Logos. The Stoics didn't believe in any god outside
of the cosmos.
Look
also at the Wisdom of Solamon literature in which wisdom is a mediator of
creation. Greek: Sophia. He almost becomes a divine being. She is the outpouring of the divine. Similar to the Greek Isis: regeneration of
life. Sophia is the radiation of
God. Same idea said about the
Logos. Logos and Sophia are alternate
ways of talking about the same thing.
Literary
touches in the prologue: simple clauses
at first. Then, prose interrupting what was being said about the Logos. Alteration between poetry and prose needs
some explanation. Jesus isn't mentioned until v. 17, but he is the Logos talked
about. Also note the 'we' in vv. 14 and
16. Is this due to the history of
material? Look at the text to be
accountable. The first five verses have
been considered as coming from an early hymn to the Logos. The present prologue is the result of several
expansions that can't be identified. It
was probably added last to the Gospel.
It is the portal to the Gospel, through which we are to read it. Even as 'Logos' is not mentioned again in the
gospel. It is paraphrased: that Jesus is
the Logos.
The
first five verses are the most dramatic and poetic. Don't expect it to say everything; it asserts
but does not explain. It highlights but
does not discourse. The prologue is the
voice of the narrator who tells the reader what to think. 'In the beginning'. Like Gen. 1.
Is Logos a reference to Genesis?
Keck: no explicit reference to it.
It is not said here that God created the world through the word, but
that the Logos was with God in the beginning.
Gnostics came up with ways in which the Logos came to be. The Logos was not in God, but was with
God. The logos was God. The narrator is not saying that the Logos is
divine. So, not trinitarian. Rather, the point is that the logos is what
God is. God as active: as prophorikos. What matter is that it happened. How you get from the divine to the material
is not considered. No demiurge or
emmination. The logic here: creation
from nothing.
Verse
three could read: that which was made in him was life. The Greek language could be read this
way. Verse five: the light continues to
shine even as there is still darkness.
Implied: something happened that brought about darkness. This darkness is an illusion to the fact that
the light was refused; that the logos was in the world and keeps shining but
was refused too.
11/15/95
John (Second Lecture)
Some regard
1:9 the beg. of a new para, while others link it to the preceding one. One cannot refer coming into the world as
every man (dividion in the house). NRSV
translate correctly, relating to the incarnation. Cosmos, the whole created world, including
the human world. --> the world we
live in not the world we live on (seen
and unseen). “Jesus was in the
world” Was in the creation world, as
well as the human world (which has a negative conotation in John -- watch of --> in the world not of the world). The world did not recognize who he was.
Verse 12
reflects that one has to modify the wording (thew world did not accept him),
for some people did accept him. RSV states “power” to be born, to become children of God, to be
born of God.
Verse 13,
not born of blood, but of God. Some manuscripts make this singular is born of God --> referring to the
incarnation (but this is secondary literature).
This is birth and new life.
V14-18, back
to the prologue. Two accents in the
verse -- where is the emphasis? The
incarnation is paradox. The revealer is
no other than a man. The logos (to
Bultman) is this man -- accenting the first part of the verse. Kiseman’s interpretation, the incarnation
does not hide the glory, but makes it possible for us to see. The story of an Epiphany.
**
Both of these are extreme
V.18, God in
this peculiarity, the only Son. Must be the Son of God, who was with God, expressed as intimacy (between
Son and father) the only one as close to God to reveal God (exegeting
God). Exegeting God by describing the
relationship to God. The book is a kind
of comentary on this verse. At the end
of the Gospel, the disciple, whom Jesus loves and has some allegorious
authority, was next to Jesus at the Lord’s supper and has the authority to
authorize this book. When the logos
enters the human scene, when the creator dwells among the creation and
creatures.
Reading this
book:
The logos became flesh. Do not assume that we know the force of this
statement. Flesh was not simply a
costume, the eternal became temporal,
the creator became a creature. Became
flesh. Pre-existence became existance. Pre-existence:
How
can something be before it exists? When
can “istness” begin. “Things simply are”
they exist, cahnge, and become something else; but nothing comes from
somewhere, unless there is another realm of being beyond this one --> a
dualistic philosophy -- two levels of existence. No was, is , and shall be in the other
world. We do not have words about that. The other realm is the realm of God, the
realm of eternity, heaven. Thought of
above, becomes it is higher than this realm.
* This world is our real
world. Ancient is different, those wjo
thought in dualistic terms. Even in
Jewish thinkers. In a specific writing
(____________)Sophia becomes
Torah. Rabbi’s said that there were
seven prexistences: Torah, repentence, the Temple, the name of the Messiah, the
throne of God, _______________, and _______________. One thing for a prexisting reality to appear
in time, i.e., Epiphany. But what
happens when this becomes a part of this world. How is one going to tell this story -->
this is John’s challenge. The
incarnation is not simply the opitmy of something. Not the purest form of logos, not the purest
form of flesh. Became in such a way that the eternal was not abandoned, replace,
nor transformed to being only
flesh. How is it possible that the word
can become flesh. This has created the largest metaphysical
problem for Christian theology. Although
logos, it can receive / perceive. John
does not say that Jesus prexisted, but the logos
is the one thing that presxisting. The
Word became flesh” the term Word bcame
flesh, the incarnation is an abstract way of describing the event. Other places it is Jesus was sent by the
father, like John the Baptist. As the
heaven sent one, Three ways: incarntion,
saying of the Son, mythological (Came down from Heaven). How does one tell this?
Certainly not by a birth
story. It has to be a narrative about a
human being that resembles but is different from others. the text cannot be taken at face level. The surface is real, but the core meaning is
implicit --> below the text. There
will be a constsnt division, a sorting out of the house. The readers are placed in the same place as
the characters, requiring one to decide, just as the characters that this is
true.
Prologue:
Some do accept Jesus for who he was.
Why? Because he came among us. No one ever said
there goes logos in flesh. Jesus uses ordinary words to say
extraordinary things. Performs
wonderous deeds, “signs,” which signify meaning. Sign as a legitmating miracle. In Q. the only sign was to be the “sign of
Jonah.” Nature miracles, ideas in
narrative forms, are told to reveal wo Jesus is what h can do. The feeding story is told with symbolic
overtones. In John , the stories are
told as regular stories; but four are the occasions for debates. Major issue for an interpretation, faith
based on science --> roles of
miracles in faith. What is the realtion
between seeing and believing? Fortna, think that John used a written
account of signs, and that this material valued signs to reveal the person, and
told the story to show and persuade people to ceome to Jesus. In 2:23, Jesus seems to distrust the people
who believe on the basis of seeing. Believing, the man with the dying son, simply
believed. John seems to say that science
should elicit faith --> they should see and blieve.
Ch.12, Jesus departs, and
although he had performed so many signs that they should believe, but they did not.
For those who believe, the signs are so much more than simply the basis
of faith.
11/15/95
The
Gospel of John:
The
Prologue (con't). 'Coming into the
cosmos' Refers to the incarnation coming
into the created order. Jn. refers to
the cosmos as if it were a person. He
was in the world and the world was made through him. Creation has become world. Jn. uses 'world' with a negative
connotation. Even though the logos
enlightens everyone, the world did not acknowledge who he was. The logos came to his own things and people,
and was not received. The Jewish
people? Or, all people. He is the creator, so he comes to
everyone. Some people did receive and
accept him. They were thus no longer of
the world. They were authorized to
become children of God. That is to be
born from God. They were born not of
bloods or flesh but of God. This may
refer to the virgin birth, but not likely.
A God-originating birth that comes to those in a new life. The Logos became flesh and lived among us,
and we saw his glory. What is the
relation here? Bultmann: the logos is hidden in the flesh; the revealer is
nothing other than a man. In his
humanity, he is the revealer. Kasemann:
emphasizing the glory aspect. The
humanness of Jesus receives the logos.
The incarnation was not to hide the glory but makes it possible for us
to see it. An epiphany: an appearance of
the divine in manifest form. Keck: both
Bultmann and Kasemann are extreme here: there is an aspect of hiddenness and
revelation in the logos made flesh.
Jesus was uniquely God's Son, who was with God. This 'withness' is expressed as intimacy
between son and father; he is the only one close enough to God to exegete
God. Jesus talks about his relation to
God--this is how Jesus exegeted God. The
rest of the book is a commentary on this.
At the end of Jn., the disciple whom Jesus loved has an analogous
authority. So this disciple tells the
story, having that authority.
Pre-existence
and incarnation. The logos became flesh.
But what does this mean? The eternal
became temporal; the creator became creature.
The pre-existent became the existent.
The pre-existence of Christ. How
can something 'be' before it 'is'? When
does 'isness' begin? For the monist,
this is a meaningless questions because things have always been. They didn't come from anywhere and are not
going anywhere. Pre-existence presumes
another realm of being. A sort of
dualism: two levels of reality: the transitory visible realm (use terms of
existence) and another realm (without terms of existence). That realm is of God. It is thought of as 'above' because it
represents the really real. But many
folks think that this world is the really real.
For the ancients, the opposite was true, especially to the Greeks. But Jewish thinkers began to think in this
direction. Sophia becomes Torah. Torah is the mind of God, so it did not come
into being at some point. So, the
problem of pre-existence is here too.
How could Sophia pre-exist the mind of God? For those who believe in the transmigration
of souls, the soul pre-exists.
Christian theology has rejected that.
What does it mean for the pre-existent to become in the world? This is Jn.'s problem. Incarnation presumes pre-existence. Incarnation does not mean that Jesus is the
purest form of flesh; rather, the eternal became temporal without being totally
transformed or replaced. Jesus was not
only flesh. What kind of glory and
seeing is referred to here? Implied:
that even flesh is somehow hospitable to the eternal of God's realm. Jn. does not say that Jesus pre-existed;
rather, it was the logos that pre-existed.
Jesus refers to the logos became flesh.
Incarnation is an abstract way of indicating the identity of Jesus. So Jesus says that he was sent by the
Father. But so too were the
prophets. But the sending is from the
Father's lap. So, he says that whomever
sees me sees He who sent me. Also, he is
in the world but not of it. Third, he
said he came down from heaven. Three
ways in which Jesus is related to God--this is how Jn. exegetes God.
For
Jn., the real meaning is not just on the surface. There is a theme of a sorting out of the
house. The reader is placed in this
place. Is this for real? Jn. says we are born of God.
On
signs. Some folks accept him for who he
claims to be. Why? Jesus made claims about himself that were
extraordinary. Ordinary words to mean
impossible things. He does things that
are misunderstood. For instance, signs. Signs are miracles, but what is important is
what they signify. Following Jesus, you
get the fill of the loaves. In Mk.,
signs were seen as legitimators. Signs
are also used as symbolic deeds which are ideas in narrative form. Such stories in the synoptics tell about
Jesus or what he was teaching. In Jn.,
most of the stories are told as occasions for debates about Jesus. What did Jn.
think of faith based on signs? What is
the relation between seeing and believing?
What kind of seeing? Fortna: Jn.
used a written collection of signs which valued them as signs of Jesus'
identity. Jn. used them to win people to
Jesus. Jn. used them for his own
purpose; he did not think that faith based on signs or miracles amounts to
much. Signs should occasion faith, but
there is more to faith than that. Ch.
12: Jesus did many signs but they did not believe him. They should have. They should have seen something in them that
showed that Jesus was the logos.
11/27/95
Jesus
the Life-Giver:
This
theme runs through Jn. Jesus as the
giver of life. Jn. uses two words for
life: Bios (ordinary existence) and Zoe(special, or real, life). Jn. 3: be born of the Spirit to enter the
Kingdom. From belief in the Son of Man
comes eternal life. This is a brief
story, followed by a discourse on aspects of the story. No break between what Jesus said to Nicodemas
and what is said in abstractions; from the story right into the discourse. The theology in Jn. controls both, so this
distinction really doesn't matter.
John
the Baptist served as a witness in Jn.
Why? The relation of his school
to that of Jesus has been unclear. John
the Baptist's followers saw him of a prophet.
In fact, the Mandaeans believed this and regarded Jesus as a
deceiver. A tension between folks in the
schools. Read Jn. in light of this
context.
Jn.
3: on Nicodemas. He regarded Jesus as a
God-sent teacher because of the signs.
Jesus then says: unless you are born again, you shall not see the
kingdom. 'Again': Gk word is Anothen: from above. Nicodemics: misunderstands. A few references to the Kingdom: a spiritual
state. Nec: being born of water and
spirit. Then, the water aspect was
ignored. Bultmann: water was added by an
editor who wanted a reference to baptism.
If so, the gospel had no interest in sacraments. But it could have been original. Baptism and the Spirit go together in Acts
and Paul. Did an editor apply this to
Jn. or was Jn. the sourse of that in the former.
Paul:
neither flesh nor bone shall enter the Kingdom; all will rise at the
parasia. What is perishable becomes
imperishable. Jn.: the transformation is
not metaphysical: of the empirical self at the parasia. Rather, the solution is to be born at any
time of the water and spirit. That which
is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit. Two different categories of existence. To be born of is to derive one's existence
from. That upon which one is truly
dependent. You can see the effects but
you can't account for it. Language of
confession: 'We...'; 'You...'.
Moses
and Elizia were believed to ascend to heaven.
Jesus event seen as decent and ascent.
Keck: the 'U-shaped' Christ event.
Viewing the Son of Man as doing this.
But the ascent had not yet occurred, even as Jesus had not yet
occurred. The one who came down can tell
you of the above. Moses and Elizia never
decended. Jesus as the Son of Man
did. Recall the prologue: The Son of Man
was on the Father's lap before he came down.
Further, only the one who is lifted up can redeem. Num. 21: Jews in the wilderness were bitten
by snakes. Those who looked at the pole
did not die. Jn. sees this as forshadowing of the lifting up of Jesus on the
pole (cross). He who looks at the cross
is redeemed. For Jn. the cross is the
deepest humiliation. This degrading
execution is the glorification of Jesus.
At the last supper, Jn. has Jesus claim that he is being glorified and therein
is God too. It is the hanging which is
the glorification. Also, on the cross,
Jesus asks the Father to glorify all through what was happening to Jesus. Eternal
life is to know God.
So,
Jn. 3 is deep into Jn.'s thought.
Creation has become darkness which people love. But God loved the world so we would know
Him. Knowledge of God is affected by the
moral activity of the self. Deeds
matter. He who does what is true comes
to the knowledge of God. He who is of
the earth belongs to it. Keck: pay attn.
to the use of 'of' in Jn. He who
believes in the Son has eternal life.
Now. Same point being stated in
different ways. To believe is to have
eternal life is to believe that Jesus is whom he claims to be. It is not that God is mad if one does not
believe; rather, God's rath is of the eschatological verdict. But being born of the spirit is available
now. So the last judgment occurs now
when you say yes or no to Jesus, rather than occurring at the end of the
world. When one says no to the light,
what could a last judgment at the end of the world end to what has already been
judged.
Jn.
5: Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Jesus:
my Father is working still. Jesus called
God his Father and he was working on the Sabbath. 5:24--he who has heard my word and believes
has eternal life. Judgment is not
referred to here. The hour is
coming. Is this a futuristic
eschatology? But Jn 3 referred to the
present eschatology. The work of an
editor? Did Jn. really expect a future
judgement when everything depends on 'now'?
The
'I am' sayings. Ch. 6: the passover is
at hand. Then, dispursing the
bread. "I am the bread of
life". What did he mean? Then, "I am the living bread". He who eats me has eternal life and will be
raised up on the final day. Keck: does it really make sense that the final day
would matter if one already had eternal life?
An editor. These 'I am"
sayings have different forms. First,
just 'I am' (Ego Eimi) is an expression for Jesus' identity; something
necessary for folks to have life.
English adds "I am he".
But it is a self-proclamation of God.
Jesus is God's eschatological revealer in whom God utters Himself; God
comes to speech. But at other times,
Jesus uses Ego Eimi as self identification: eg. when he is about to be
arrested. Then, there is a predicate
metaphor form. I am the bread of life; I
am the light, the shepard, the resurrection and the life... Seven cases of
these. Each show the significance of
Jesus as the Life-giver. These metaphors
are in Hebrew scripture, but not as formulated as "I am...". None of these expressions said by Jesus say
that he is like the predicate. Jesus
does not compare Himself with something else.
'I am the bread'. An exclusive,
absolute claim. 'I am the true
vine'. The metaphor challenges the
reader. Does it disclose an invisible
truth. It is in the incongruity that the
point lies. "I am the light of the
world". Jn.'s imagination blows the
mind, inviting the hearer to say yes or no, and thus to have life or darkness. Notice that the 'I am's are in the first
person. Jesus himself. Jesus announces his own significance so that
the response is not about someone's opinion about him, but is about whether the
hearer says yes or no to him. Suddenly,
the nineteen centuries that separate us from him disappear.
11/29/95
Jn.
11:
Climax
of Jesus as the Life-giver. In Jn, the raising
of Lazerus is that which begins the Passion.
The story is told in detail.
Jesus is shown as lacking in
compassion in failing to respond to the illness of a friend. He stayed two days longer away after he heard
of the illness. The story is not called
a sign, but it is clearly the clearest sign.
Unlike other signs, the discourse precedes the sign. As usual, the disciples didn't understand;
they took Jesus literally: that Lazerus had fallen asleep rather than
died. Misunderstanding is not limited to
the Jews. Martha had faith that Lazerus
would be resurrected on the last day anyway. A pharasetic view. Jesus: I
am the resurrection. An astounding claim! She believes it, making the ideal confession:
You are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world. Notice that Jesus did not make such identity
claims about himself. But he did not
deny her confession. Unclear from this
what he saw himself to be. Lazerus was
merely recussitated. He will die
again. It is a sign that Jesus give
life; this points to the reality of the resurrection. Ironically, it was Martha who had been
resurrected into eternal life because she believes the word of Jesus. In Jn., Jesus offers eternal life (knowledge
of God) which makes possible a life so dependent on God that it can be said to
be a radical change, born of the spirit.
This life is possible before physical death; in this life, one is
resurrected, whereas for the pharasees resurrection comes at the last day. Resurrection for Martha is in believing who
Jesus said he was (but Jesus did not make any identity claims, so is the
resurrection the faith itself, rather than the content thereof being correct?).
The
Farewell Discourse:
It
is distinctive in that there is no prayer in the garden when he asked to be
relieved but took God's will for what it was.
In this discourse, Jesus refuses to ask to get out of it. He wanted to glorify God. The story has a last supper, rather than the
initiation of the Lord's Supper (as in the synoptics and Paul), even though Jn.
makes a reference to the Eucharist. Why
didn't Jn. cite the origin of it in the last supper? Keck: Jn. is not indifferent to the
sacraments. In Jn., the sacrament is not
something Jesus created; rather, the sacrament is Jesus himself. It is something he is.
The
discourse adds the story of the foot-washing.
The time of the last meal is before the feast of the Passover. For Jn., the Passover is the time of the
crucifixion. Did the author of Jn.
reject the chronology of the synoptics?
If so, why? So Jesus' death could
be related to the sacrifice of the goats at Passover? But atonement was not at Passover, but at Yom
Kippur. The death of Jesus was important
to Jn. It was part of Jesus' ascent back
up. Going is as important of
coming. Moreover, if Jesus did not
clearly leave, then his successor, the Holy Spirit, could not come.
The
story is an enacted parable of the Christ-story as a whole. It resounds of his cleansing of the
temple. He is establishing something
new. He used water to become wine--so
those who are washed can have a part in him.
An illusion to baptism. The
raising of the temple was to be after his ascent. Peter didn't understand. He didn't want Jesus to wash him.
vv.
12-15 (Ch. 13): the meaning of the feet-washing. You should serve each other. The interpretation before of it was as a
cleansing. This one here, however, is
moral. Act as a slave. This is the earthly, social, analogy to 'a
word become flesh'--an enactment of the incarnation.
Ch.
17: Jesus knew that the hour had
come. Then, the Father gave Jesus power
over all life and the authority to send those who believe into the world. Jesus says a prayer at the table concerning
his mission. The disciple whom Jesus
loved was next to Him. Also, he was the
first to reach the tomb. Also, he
outlived Peter. So, the editors of Jn.
attest to the truth of Jesus as attested by the disciple whom Jesus loved. This story is thus portrayed as a
witness. Luke made no such claim. Neither did Paul. This is relevant because much of the material
in Jn. is unique.
On
the last supper: it begins with foot-washing and ends with a prayer (that which
the synoptics place at the garden--while the disciples were sleeping, so how
did they know it???).
The
literary structure of this material is baffling. Ch.s 15 and 16 repeat much of what is in Ch.s
13 and 14. The former is a later
edition? The most important historical
question regards the idea of the counselor or advocate or comforter or
paraclete. Paraclete means: one called
in to help. But the content of it depends upon what is said of it. In Jn, it is Spirit. The meaning of it is found in the book of Jn. itself. The paraclete discourses look at things
after Jesus returned to God. At the
first of Jn., the logos was part of God.
Then, incarnated as Jesus. Then
what? Jn. does not use the word
'church', but he expects the movement to continue. In Mk. 13: don't get too excited about the
apocolype coming too soon. But in Jn.
the community is not looking for it or the second coming or the final
judgment. But, the believers are said to
be living in a hostle environment. But
this follows from Jesus' life and message, if they are indeed followed. See 17: 14-19--the world hates you because
you are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Key: 'of'.
Their 'ofness' is different. The
implication is not that the Church is the continuance of the incarnation/ but
is the witness to it. Once the world's
stance vis a vis the believers is exposed, there is no going back. Mutual love within the community is evidence
that they are disciples of Jesus. No
loving thy neighbor. No hint that this
condition in the world will ever change.
No end of history. No last
day. The world will not come to know of
Jesus. Jesus will come again to take the
believers back to God. Not a final
judgment. Not a coming of the Son of
Man. Only a trace of the apocalyptic eschatology. The future coming of Jesus has been
actualized in the coming of the paraclete which will be with us forever. The paraclete is with us and within us. Jesus is the first paraclete which come and
goes; the second, the spirit of truth, will stay. It is not visible. It is knowable only by those in whom it
resides. So, the world will never know
it. Jesus goes and the second paraclete
comes, implies that the coming of the spirit of truth is important. This spirit resides in the believing
community; this is not to say that it is limited to the church. The paraclete is also referred to as the Holy
Spirit. The role of the spirit is to
remind the believers of what Jesus had said.
The gospel is not only the witness of the disciple whom Jesus loved, but
is the memory of the spirit of Jesus.
The spirit will teach you what Jesus meant. The spirit links the church to the incarnate
logos forever. Spirit as witness to
truth as in Jesus. The spirit will show
light on the world, but the world will turn away. The Spirit will convict the world, and prove
it wrong. The spirit does not speak on
its own authority, but makes Jesus clear.
The coming of the spirit is not associated with any sign of power, but
is a presence.
12/4/95
Who
was/is Jesus?:
This
question concerns his identity. The name
Jesus is a personal name, whereas 'Jesus Christ' is not. In asking who 'Is' Jesus suggests: who is the
Jesus in history now. The ongoing import
of past action. Consider the 'isness' of
the Jesus who was. We could use cultural
history or theology to get at this.
These differ. Of the first, as
interpreters of culture, we would look for the influence of Jesus as a
historical figure in society today. This
would involve looking not only at religion, but political and social aspects of
culture as well. This implies a
distinction between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels. The theological standpoint concerns Jesus'
identity in the faith community.
Historically accurate information on Jesus is used as well as who Jesus
is in the faith communities today.
The
Permanent Particular:
The
scandal of particularity: that God choose one person/nation at a particular
time and space. The particularity of
Jesus is important to considering who is Jesus.
Did the real Jesus differ from the reported Jesus? Critics have relied on negative
criteria. Result: Jesus seems jewish
rather than Christian. But the earliest
Christians were Jews. So, look also for
something original and distinctive.
Jesus becomes a unique Jew under this tool. This went along with a theological
stance. Historical criticism was
developed by liberal protestantism: historical facts over the inherited
tradition. The historical Jesus came to
be preferred to the Jesus of the Church.
So, elements of Christian add-ons of Jesus were cut. Also, Jesus' reported hostility to the Jews
was dismissed as coming from the polemic of the early Church against the
synagogue. Also, liberal protestants did
not like the law, so the uniqueness of Jesus was shown as being against the
law. The Jesus who remained was
consistent with the sensitivities of the critics. Keck: this agenda distanced the historical
Jesus from the Jesus of the Gospel. To
Keck, Jesus should not be distanced from Christianity or Judaism.
After
1945, there has been an effort to portray Jesus as part of the Judaism of his
time and place. The Dead Sea Scrolls
required a reconstruction of first-century Judaism. Jewish scholars have helped us to view
Judaism as a valid religion in its own right.
In fact, Judaism has been able to acknowledge Jesus as one of their
own. Who he was for them is not for us
to decide.
Jesus'
identity, as his context as well, was complex undoubtedly. Galilee was cosmopolitian and included
non-Jews as well. The Gospel is silent
on Jesus' relation to hellonized gentiles and Jews. Did Jesus avoid gentile centers? He did not include them in his
itinerary. Indifference to gentiles and
hellonized Jews? References to gentiles
by Jesus show that he was skeptical about them.
According to Mt, Jesus forbid his disciples from going to the gentiles;
they were to remain outsiders. We
gentiles may be attracted to Jesus, but he was not attracted to us! Also recall that Jesus had twelve
disciples. Jewish significance--limited
to the twelve tribes. This symbolized
the restoration of Israel. How were the
Kingdom and the twelve linked? His task
was not to explain. His passion for
Israel, rather than his status as a marginized person of socio-economic status,
was how Jesus saw himself. Jesus did not
ask folks to build an alternative society, such as a structureless utopia. Jesus saw himself as the champian of Israel,
rather than Judaism. The broadness of
Judaism in his day inhibited the latter.
The religion of Rabbism was not Judaism of Jesus' day. Rather, the pharasees were just one school of
Judaism back then. So, it was a vision
of the twelve tribes, guided by God's action, that guided Jesus. He saw himself as committed to Israel, rather
than as a reformer.
The
'isness' of the Jesus who was: What is
the ongoing significance is there in who Jesus was? Even though he did not include us within his
scope, it is our commitment to him through which the promise to Abraham is
being realized. Conversion to Judaism
has never been salient. Rather, it is
our faith that includes us in God's plan.
It was because he was a Jew that he
is our link to the people of God. This
is rather different that discarding Judaism or forming a new community. Jesus was not an ethnic-cleansing 'orthodox'
or a law-centered pharasee. He was also
not a baptiser Jew because he distanced himself from John. Rather than preaching judgment without mercy,
he preached the coming in of the Kingdom.
Was this coming is the restoration of Isreal? He did not want Jews to abandon Isreal, but
to actualize God's way for Isreal. That
is, he came to be seen as messiah.
Because of this, it is amazing that after his death, some of his
followers went to the gentiles and did not demand that they become Jewish
themselves. So, Jesus, unlike the
Gnostic gospels, was not out to hellonize Judaism. Rather, that Jesus was so thoroughly Jewish
is salient in showing that his immediate link was to Abraham. This allows us to claim Jesus by our faith,
even though Jesus limited his vocation to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew.
12/6/95
Who
was/is Jesus?:
The
Death of Jesus: It must be dealt with in
considering the 'isness' of Jesus. The
cross is important here. It has become a
symbol which refers to this death. With
Jesus, the means of his execution came to stand for the man himself; it has
come to stand for an 'isness' in history.
It also has a theological meaning: the meaning of his death for our
understanding of God. The doctine of the
atonement came out of this. For us: what
is there of the death that tells us of the God-reality. If Jesus was committed to a program of social
reform (eg. Bultmann), then why were not his followers arrested too? Second, he went to the city vuluntarily, even
as he said of his death that it was necessary.
He must have regard this journey as of a piece of his mission. He likely regarded it as the capstone of his
work. So, a solid historical basis for
linking his death to his mission. Third,
he was executed not by accident; the reason for it though by Pilot is
unknown. But, it was aimed at a person
to whom Jesus belonged.
What
is the ongoing significance of Jesus' death for us? The God we are talking about is the God of
Israel. To speak of God and Jesus is to
speak of the God that Jesus loved and obeyed to the end. This god was the creator, the redeemer in the
exile, the one whose kingdom was to be established, who had promised to his
people a land. It was this god who did
nothing to rescue Jesus. This silence of
God. At the cross, the truth of Jesus
and his god are called into question: that they stand or fall together. His resurrection has many meaning, depending
on the context therefrom. But it was not a miracle of a return to life only
(resussitation). If not, he would have
died again. It was not a miracle. It is important to remember that the god that
resurrected him was the god of Abraham.
God was showing that Jesus was not to be separated from his people. Resurrection itself is a thoroughly Jewish
way of talking about God in the world. It is in Daniel. Belief in resurrection in the apocolyptic was
held by the pharasees. What divided the
Xns for the Pharasees was the belief that it has already begun in Jesus. So, it has nothing to do with ancient myths
of dying and rising gods, but came out of Judaism. The resurrection does not indicate a state of
nature (coming back to life in the Spring), because it occurs in the Autumn in
Isreal. Rather, it is about a reality of
life after death. It is about Israel's
god keeping faith. God transformed the
victim into victor. It is not Christian
Triuphalism because the eschaton has not arrived. Without the resurrection, Jesus would not
have become the basis of a major religion.
Without the resurrection, remembering his could result in despair. The cross is in Easter. Jesus is the prism that was fractured. We don't repair it, but see God through
it. What do we see? The God-reality is a mystery that eludes
human minds by definition. It is a
paradox. What matter is whether what we
see is true of the God-mystery that we can count on it through thick and thin. It is
the defining character of God that we need to discern through the rised
crucified. The need to see God truly
is not socio-political but religious/theological. Political correctness should not determine
the character of God we see. The roots
of the need are not in present protests of oppression, but in human misery that
is not limited to coming from oppressive socio-political structures. What of those whose agony is not due to
oppression but is due to the fact that they love deeply or are faithful to
it? Needed: seeing a truth of the
God-reality that is not made by us. This
is the God of the boundaries--the reality we are in, yet it is mystery. We are no more faithful that Jesus, so we
should not expect more than his lot in life. The rain falls on the just and
unjust alike. Why we don't get what we
think we deserve; we want to know and live by the law of distributive
justice. We get hooked on 'fairness',
thinking that our goodness has been overlooked or that we are being punished
for our sins. This neglects Jesus on the
cross: there is not a correlation between our goodness and joy. God justifies the ungodly. We are obsessed with entitlements and
rights. So we see the cross as a scandel
and offense. But the cross uncovers the
way things really are between mankind and God.
Everything does not depend upon us; rather, it depends on the nature and
character of God. God's otherness is
shown in the cross. God's holiness. Consider the holiness of God in light of the
cross. The cross interprets Jesus'
teaching as well as God. It is in the
holiness of God that our faith and theology begin. God's self-sufficient perfection is his
holiness; his otherness, whose passion it is to establish itself in its other
(the creation), according to Forthith.
The holiness is the density of God's being itself; holiness is the basis
of our encountering God as the other and not simply as goodness, fairness, or
justice. God's holiness is the opposite
of God's indifference. It exposes the
not-god; the profane. Unlike Descartes
who can doubt all but himself, we in the holy are relativized by it. The holy has the right to make a claim on the
unholy, actualizing the unity of goodness and power. In the silence of God, the holiness of God
becomes audible. In this way, the
God-reality can be seen in the historical crucifixion of Jesus. The cross shows that God's holiness does not
protect its own; implying that if we are faithful to God, we won't suffer or
die--and this would be a lie. This would
be power to demonstrate the goodness in history. There would have been no resurrection. But this is not how it happened; as a holy
man, Jesus did not appeal to his goodness for power, but used it for
others. Holiness actualized itself in
becoming vulnerable. The otherness of
the holy was at the cross, and thereby being made present/seen to us.
The
fractured prism: presisely because it is fractured, it shows God. Not by being a fixer, but by being vulnerable
holiness: love and Jesus.
12/8/95
Who
was/is Jesus for our Moral Life?:
The
focus is not on Christian morals (the habits of Christians) but on the moral
dimention of Christian existence itself: what we deem worthy to live and die
for; what we deem worth doing and avoiding.
Distinguish between the influence of Jesus now and the moral influence
of Jesus in his time. Separate Jesus
from the Church. Jesus goes beyond his
biographers and followers. Did
Christians domestic his teaching because they understood it or because they
failed to grasp it? There is a sense
that his followers have betrayed him and his teachings. The Jesus who was is considered to have been
on target; he has thus been a target or norm in our culture. So, the 'isness' of the Jesus who was is
salient in the moral life. This is not
only to grasp his ethical teachings, but to consider the role of Christ in
Christian existence. James Gustanson
wrote Christ and the Moral Life. No one has continued this work or offered a
replacement. But he ignored the role of
Christ of judge(which itself has become associated with the Last Days and final
judgment).
Consider
the relation between our thinking and that of Jesus on this topic. We don't need to think as Jesus thought that
he was the judge of the Final judgment, because we don't know this. His role does not rest on his own mind or
intent. His role as authorizing judge
may not be how Jesus thought of himself.
But we can include what we think about who he was (even if he
didn't).
Jesus
as the autorizing Judge: Authorizing vs.
authority. The former does not exclude
the latter, but they are not the same.
There is the authority of the past itself. Respect the independence of the past, apart
from what we want it to say. The past
includes not only what happened, but what did not. While theory is useful, it also seduces us
into blurring the details of the past and present. Armed with our theories, we tell the past
what it was. Jesus is the victim of
theory as well as dogma. The authority
of Jesus was structured in the teacher-disciple dyad. P.T. Forthith: the first duty is to find not
one's freedom but one's master. One's
master can be external or internal authority.
Keck assumes external authority is necessary, but is problematic. To be authorized is to be given the right to
be or do by be given the power to actualize it.
While Jesus is an external fact of history, in the moral life his role
is moreso in authorizing the will and imagination. The external fact of Jesus
is internalized. For instance, doing
something for the sake of Jesus. This
is not to appeal to him as the external authority, who can be quoted, but as
the inner authorizer--a presence that can influence. So, Paul states that in Jesus nothing is
unclean in itself without Jesus. He
spoke of the indwelling of Christ. He is
referring to the authorizing Jesus as Christ.
That Jesus becomes the internal authorizer makes sanctification
possible. He must be known for so to be. We are not authorized by strangers. Be shaped by him and that which shaped
him. The result is a disposition, which
becomes the foundation of virtue and character which enables us to remain the
same while changing. In the long run, it
is the way Jesus lived out his vocation that grounds him as our authorizing.
Jesus
is the authorizing judge. Our accountability
is reckoned with here. This point has
dissappeared from discourse on Christian ethics. The transformation of literalness of heaven
and hell to symbol has not been without cost to our accountability. We must recognize the price we've paid in
freeing ourselves from the final judgment.
So, all verdicts have to be somehow historical; history will judge
us. Dismissing the last judgment has led
us to assume that we are primarily accountable to ourselves, to others, or to
an ideal or principle. All verticts are
historical in this scheme.
Accountability being primarily on the self, ethic will concentrate on
how to make moral decisions, rather than on what one ought to do. Process has replaced the content of the
moral. The problem: our understanding of
our relationship to the ideals. What has
been missed is that we are accountable to a judge outside history. Ideals can be redefined to fit our interests
if they remain abstract. Failure to make
the moral content concrete, such as in being accountable to a person outside of
history, leaves the content of the moral abstract.
So,
Jesus' life should not be on the periphery on Christian ethics. So, the question of what I ought to do should
be put aside in favour of to whom am I accountable. In being accountable to Jesus, we are
accountable not just to his teaching, but to his lived life which is not an
abstraction but is a concrete event. It
is not a mere illustration, even though that life is about something else. That life is about the realization of the
criterion of that to which we are accountable.
We know ourselves summoned; that Jesus has a moral right to call us and
judge us. The redeemer is the judge. The one to whom we are accountable authorizes
us to live in a certain way. This is not
to say that Jesus is to be presented as a law or obligation, rather than as an
unconditional gift. We are accountable
to a gift. So, we are summoned and
accountable to live in giftedness. This
is not due to our innate goodness, for we don't generate; rather, it is
authorized by Jesus. Because Jesus was
the offended one, he can forgive. So, he
is not a judge without mercy. We need to
reckon with failure. The moral life is
not just making right choices or having right goals. In the real world, things interfere with
these. To be in history is to be subject
to evil. Remembe that Jesus' striving
was not ended with earthly success. Only
a love willing to suffer in order to forgive can be the judge to whom we
are.
The second coming is myth.
There is truth in it. Don't
de-mythologize it into the abstract.
Rather, let its narrative grasp our imagination such that our
imagination can have the horizion of eternity.