New Testament Interpretation I

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

Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) have been found such compilation of passages as called florilegia (bouquet of texts); but no C. florilegia have been found (unless one looks at texts being embedded within other texts.  At any event, EC.s lived within oral history. Congregations were shaped by traditions

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

Readings from Johnson

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

Antioch
Alexander’s succession that founded Antioch in about 300 BC
      Cosmopolitan city,well planned, even contained a sewage system

Rome came in 64 BC
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
      Aquila
      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
Dead Sea Scrolls
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...
First Century Church and Synagogue

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


------------
First Century Church and Synagogues:

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.
      Rome civ. rel. were very much polytheistic

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. 

First-Century Church and Synogogue:
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”

Constantine is seen as the fall of the church with Chrysendom and the Church and State


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 fleshJesus 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 believingFortna, 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.