The printed version is available here.
The Kindle version is available here.
I will probably try to do an Explanatory Notes on the Crucifixion/Resurrection Stories too around Easter.
Showing posts with label gospels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gospels. Show all posts
Saturday, December 17, 2022
Explanatory Notes on Birth Stories -- Published
Monday, October 05, 2015
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Parables of the Kingdom 2
... continued from yesterday.
_____
Given the fact that these parables have traveled from Jesus through decades of Jesus-followers to the individual gospel writers, it is not surprising sometimes to find a "layered-ness" to them. For example, it is no coincidence that parables involving money and women stand out in Luke, because these are some of its emphases. It is not surprising to find more pronounced parables about judgment in Matthew, because Matthew specializes among the gospels in weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
Similarly, it is not surprising that we do not always pick up on the "political" overtones Jesus' parables probably had originally in terms of Israel as a "nation." In the next volume, I will argue that all four of the gospels in their current form likely date to after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, so it is no surprise if we have to dig a little to hear them as the Galilean peasants on the countryside would have. The gospels were written to present Jesus to their audiences and so understandably focus on Jesus' ministry in terms that apply most to their communities of faith in the late first century.
For Luke, this was the "times of the Gentiles" (cf. Luke 21:24). For Matthew, this was the time when the mission had shifted to all the nations (cf. Matt. 28:19). By contrast, Jesus' primary focus on earth was surely on Israel and the Jews (cf. Matt. 10:5-6), and even then only on a subset of Israel. [1] The last chapter showed how likely it was that the restoration of Israel politically was part of John the Baptist's message, and it is not hard to find hints of this dynamic in the gospels even as they now stand (e.g., Matt. 19:28).
Originally, Jesus' audiences would not have distinguished the kingdom of God from the kingdom of re-established Israel, and it would have been understood undoubtedly as a kingdom to come on earth. In the period after Easter, it no doubt was clear to Jesus-followers that only those who accepted Jesus as the messiah would be part of this kingdom. Nevertheless, even Paul argues that the vast majority of Israel would eventually come to have this faith (cf. Rom. 11:25-32).
These observations remind us of how differently we read the Bible than its first audiences would have heard them. We tend to think of the church as something completely separate from Israel as a nation. Similarly, over the centuries Christians have tended to think more in terms of heaven and hell than in terms of a coming kingdom on earth. Recent days have seen a movement to recognize that the Bible primarily teaches about eternity on a restored earth after a resurrection of our bodies. [2]
And there is an increasing recognition that Christianity did not become a separate religion from Judaism perhaps until after all the books of the New Testament were written, [3] with some arguing they were not completely distinct even in the early 300s. [4] In the thinking of the New Testament, Gentiles were added to the kingdom of (true) Israel. Christianity was not some new religion, and Gentiles who converted to Christianity saw themselves converting to a form of Judaism. It was not until around AD200 that the Gentile Christian Tertullian made his famous comments about Christianity being a "third race," neither Jewish or Gentile. [5]
The point is that we can usually read Jesus' parables in more than one way. Originally, they had much to say to the Galilean Jews who came to hear him from the surrounding villages. Yet the gospel writers also "translated" them in ways that spoke to increasingly Gentile audiences in the late first century. And the way the gospels have sometimes generalized them has also helped us to hear truths that apply directly to us even today...
_____
Given the fact that these parables have traveled from Jesus through decades of Jesus-followers to the individual gospel writers, it is not surprising sometimes to find a "layered-ness" to them. For example, it is no coincidence that parables involving money and women stand out in Luke, because these are some of its emphases. It is not surprising to find more pronounced parables about judgment in Matthew, because Matthew specializes among the gospels in weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
Similarly, it is not surprising that we do not always pick up on the "political" overtones Jesus' parables probably had originally in terms of Israel as a "nation." In the next volume, I will argue that all four of the gospels in their current form likely date to after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, so it is no surprise if we have to dig a little to hear them as the Galilean peasants on the countryside would have. The gospels were written to present Jesus to their audiences and so understandably focus on Jesus' ministry in terms that apply most to their communities of faith in the late first century.
For Luke, this was the "times of the Gentiles" (cf. Luke 21:24). For Matthew, this was the time when the mission had shifted to all the nations (cf. Matt. 28:19). By contrast, Jesus' primary focus on earth was surely on Israel and the Jews (cf. Matt. 10:5-6), and even then only on a subset of Israel. [1] The last chapter showed how likely it was that the restoration of Israel politically was part of John the Baptist's message, and it is not hard to find hints of this dynamic in the gospels even as they now stand (e.g., Matt. 19:28).
Originally, Jesus' audiences would not have distinguished the kingdom of God from the kingdom of re-established Israel, and it would have been understood undoubtedly as a kingdom to come on earth. In the period after Easter, it no doubt was clear to Jesus-followers that only those who accepted Jesus as the messiah would be part of this kingdom. Nevertheless, even Paul argues that the vast majority of Israel would eventually come to have this faith (cf. Rom. 11:25-32).
These observations remind us of how differently we read the Bible than its first audiences would have heard them. We tend to think of the church as something completely separate from Israel as a nation. Similarly, over the centuries Christians have tended to think more in terms of heaven and hell than in terms of a coming kingdom on earth. Recent days have seen a movement to recognize that the Bible primarily teaches about eternity on a restored earth after a resurrection of our bodies. [2]
And there is an increasing recognition that Christianity did not become a separate religion from Judaism perhaps until after all the books of the New Testament were written, [3] with some arguing they were not completely distinct even in the early 300s. [4] In the thinking of the New Testament, Gentiles were added to the kingdom of (true) Israel. Christianity was not some new religion, and Gentiles who converted to Christianity saw themselves converting to a form of Judaism. It was not until around AD200 that the Gentile Christian Tertullian made his famous comments about Christianity being a "third race," neither Jewish or Gentile. [5]
The point is that we can usually read Jesus' parables in more than one way. Originally, they had much to say to the Galilean Jews who came to hear him from the surrounding villages. Yet the gospel writers also "translated" them in ways that spoke to increasingly Gentile audiences in the late first century. And the way the gospels have sometimes generalized them has also helped us to hear truths that apply directly to us even today...
[1] The "lost sheep" of Israel, and even then, primarily the lost sheep in Galilee.
[2] E.g., N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008) and Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Wright and Green may at times overstate their case, but their fundamental argument seems beyond reasonable doubt.
[3] Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 2011).
[4] Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007); also Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006).
[5] To the Gentiles 1.8.
[2] E.g., N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008) and Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Wright and Green may at times overstate their case, but their fundamental argument seems beyond reasonable doubt.
[3] Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 2011).
[4] Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007); also Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006).
[5] To the Gentiles 1.8.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Jesus Tradition 2: Mark came first
Yesterday I started a brief series to fill in some of the common understanding of gospel experts that may or may not have trickled down to pulpit and pew. If we are to do an archaeological dig on Jesus Tradition, the earliest material at our disposal is found in Paul. That does not, of course, mean that later material might not give as good or even a better window on Jesus. But earlier is prima facie more likely to give us that window.
Today I want to speak of another majority opinion of gospel experts--one that is now going on 150 years old. If you step back and think about it, it is rather impressive for a group of experts to agree solidly on something like this for such a long period of time. I am referring here to "Markan priority," the conclusion first reached in the late 1800s that the Gospel of Mark is most likely the earliest of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used it (or some edition of it) as a primary source.
The reason for this conclusion goes something like this:
1. All about about 31 verses of Mark can be found in almost identical form in Matthew and Luke. This begins to suggest that Mark was either a source for the other two or that he summarized by drawing from both of them. Very rarely do Matthew and Luke have the same wording in disagreement with Mark. Far more often, either Matthew and Mark agree in wording and Luke is different or Mark and Luke agree and Matthew is different.
2. Important to recognize is that the wording is too similar to be a matter of oral tradition. The overwhelming majority of experts consider it definitive that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
Consider the following:
Mark
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and the James and the John and brings them up into a hill high privately alone (9:2)...
And a cloud came overshadowing them and a voice came from the cloud, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], hear him" (9:7)
Matthew
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and James and John the brother of him and brings them up into a hill high privately (17:1)...
... a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice from the cloud speaking, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], in whom I am pleased, hear him" (17:5).
Luke
About eight days taking Peter and John and James he went up into the mountain to pray... (9:28)
A cloud came and was overshadowing them... and a voice came from the cloud saying, "This is my Son, who has been chosen, him hear" (9:34-35).
As is often the case, the verbal similarity between Matthew and Mark is very close, with only some minor variations. Notice, however, that in the case of the second verse, Mark and Luke are closer at some points. The virtually unanimous sense of those who have gone through all three gospels with a fine tooth comb of comparison is thus that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
As a side note, God could have dictated such strong similarities in the midst of minor differences, but why would he? The minor variations are meaningless--they would serve no purpose for God to dictate in such a way. And these gospels never claim to be dictated word for word from God and in fact Luke tells us he used sources. It is overwhelmingly likely that inspiration worked through a normal process of using sources and writing in a way that worked together and through the minds and categories of the authors.
A second realization is that Mark was almost certainly not an eyewitness to anything but perhaps some of the final events in Jerusalem. The earliest witness to him points this out (Papias). He was not a disciple. People often get this confused. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and Luke may not even have been a Jew.
3. The order of the gospels is also quite interesting. Matthew and Mark are very close. Luke often is the same but also is different in order at some points. This is quite remarkable when we consider that Jesus did many things that aren't in the gospels. That Matthew-Mark-and Luke would narrate the same basic events in the same basic order also points to a literary relationship.
4. Among these three, Mark's grammar is the least polished (the most Semitic, in my opinion) and least theologically developed. This points to Mark being the first rather than the last. For example, in Mark Jesus is simply baptized by John. By contrast, Matthew deems it important to clarify that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John--he is doing it because it is part of the plan. Mark has Aramaic words like "Talitha cumi," "Ephatha," and "Abba" that Matthew and Luke do not have. Mark 1 starts numerous verses with "and," "and," "and," "and," a fact that most translations have altered because it is bad English style. That same material is somewhat spread out and smoothed out in Matthew.
Here's just a small example of the kind of dynamics we find repeatedly:
Mark
"And whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing where it is not supposed to (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hills" (13:14).
Matthew
"Therefore, whenever you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in the Holy Place (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hill" (24:15-16).
This is an even better illustration of how close the Synoptic gospels (Matthew-Mark-Luke) can be at times. Notice that they even have a parenthetical comment in common ("let the reader understand"). If we ask which is more likely to be original, we see that one of Matthew's characteristic themes--the fulfillment of Scripture. In general, things tend to expand rather than condense, although this is not an absolute. Mark's style is a little rougher, though not much.
Let's then look at Luke:
"And whenever you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those in Judea flee to the hills.
I have put the verbal similarities in bold. You can once again see a word-for-word layer in Luke, but it has also tweaked the prophecy to make it correspond more closely to the way the prophesy actually played out. Rather that the temple being desecrated by some object placed in it (as in Daniel), the temple was destroyed by the Roman armies. This modification Luke has made makes it virtually certain that Luke-Acts were both written after the temple's destruction in AD70. Notice also that Luke follows Mark's "and" rather than Matthew's "therefore."
Conclusion
What we find is that the assumption that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a primary source has incredible explanatory power. Time after time, this assumption yields a plausible explanation for the various similarities and modifications we find between the Synoptics.
Two closing examples:
1. In Matthew we are a little puzzled by the way Jesus curses a fig tree that immediately withers (21:18-22). Matthew uses the event as an illustration of what a person with faith can do.
Mark has the story different. In Mark, Jesus does not curse the fig tree after he has overturned the tables in the temple but right before. Then the next day they find that the tree has withered. This is a "sandwich." Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple with the incident with the fig tree.
If we assume Markan priority, we can see what happened. In the original version of Mark, the fig tree story was very relevant to the passion story. Matthew's modifications, by contrast, have left us with a story that seems oddly placed. Luke then doesn't copy the story at all.
2. In Luke 23:25, Pilate has been talking to the chief priests, the rulers, and the people (23:13). In 23:25-26, it seems like Pilate delivers Jesus over to these people. When we look at Matthew 27:27-31 and Mark 15:16-20, we realize that Luke has abbreviated the account. He has omitted material in which soldiers take Jesus away and beat him.
So, like any hypothesis, the repeated and detailed comparison of the Synoptics has resulted in a very strong consensus among gospel experts that Mark was very likely the first of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke used it as the starting point for their own gospels.
Today I want to speak of another majority opinion of gospel experts--one that is now going on 150 years old. If you step back and think about it, it is rather impressive for a group of experts to agree solidly on something like this for such a long period of time. I am referring here to "Markan priority," the conclusion first reached in the late 1800s that the Gospel of Mark is most likely the earliest of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used it (or some edition of it) as a primary source.
The reason for this conclusion goes something like this:
1. All about about 31 verses of Mark can be found in almost identical form in Matthew and Luke. This begins to suggest that Mark was either a source for the other two or that he summarized by drawing from both of them. Very rarely do Matthew and Luke have the same wording in disagreement with Mark. Far more often, either Matthew and Mark agree in wording and Luke is different or Mark and Luke agree and Matthew is different.
2. Important to recognize is that the wording is too similar to be a matter of oral tradition. The overwhelming majority of experts consider it definitive that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
Consider the following:
Mark
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and the James and the John and brings them up into a hill high privately alone (9:2)...
And a cloud came overshadowing them and a voice came from the cloud, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], hear him" (9:7)
Matthew
And after six days takes Jesus the Peter and James and John the brother of him and brings them up into a hill high privately (17:1)...
... a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice from the cloud speaking, "This is my Son, my beloved [Son], in whom I am pleased, hear him" (17:5).
Luke
About eight days taking Peter and John and James he went up into the mountain to pray... (9:28)
A cloud came and was overshadowing them... and a voice came from the cloud saying, "This is my Son, who has been chosen, him hear" (9:34-35).
As is often the case, the verbal similarity between Matthew and Mark is very close, with only some minor variations. Notice, however, that in the case of the second verse, Mark and Luke are closer at some points. The virtually unanimous sense of those who have gone through all three gospels with a fine tooth comb of comparison is thus that these three gospels stand in some literary relationship to each other.
As a side note, God could have dictated such strong similarities in the midst of minor differences, but why would he? The minor variations are meaningless--they would serve no purpose for God to dictate in such a way. And these gospels never claim to be dictated word for word from God and in fact Luke tells us he used sources. It is overwhelmingly likely that inspiration worked through a normal process of using sources and writing in a way that worked together and through the minds and categories of the authors.
A second realization is that Mark was almost certainly not an eyewitness to anything but perhaps some of the final events in Jerusalem. The earliest witness to him points this out (Papias). He was not a disciple. People often get this confused. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and Luke may not even have been a Jew.
3. The order of the gospels is also quite interesting. Matthew and Mark are very close. Luke often is the same but also is different in order at some points. This is quite remarkable when we consider that Jesus did many things that aren't in the gospels. That Matthew-Mark-and Luke would narrate the same basic events in the same basic order also points to a literary relationship.
4. Among these three, Mark's grammar is the least polished (the most Semitic, in my opinion) and least theologically developed. This points to Mark being the first rather than the last. For example, in Mark Jesus is simply baptized by John. By contrast, Matthew deems it important to clarify that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John--he is doing it because it is part of the plan. Mark has Aramaic words like "Talitha cumi," "Ephatha," and "Abba" that Matthew and Luke do not have. Mark 1 starts numerous verses with "and," "and," "and," "and," a fact that most translations have altered because it is bad English style. That same material is somewhat spread out and smoothed out in Matthew.
Here's just a small example of the kind of dynamics we find repeatedly:
Mark
"And whenever you see the abomination of desolation standing where it is not supposed to (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hills" (13:14).
Matthew
"Therefore, whenever you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in the Holy Place (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the hill" (24:15-16).
This is an even better illustration of how close the Synoptic gospels (Matthew-Mark-Luke) can be at times. Notice that they even have a parenthetical comment in common ("let the reader understand"). If we ask which is more likely to be original, we see that one of Matthew's characteristic themes--the fulfillment of Scripture. In general, things tend to expand rather than condense, although this is not an absolute. Mark's style is a little rougher, though not much.
Let's then look at Luke:
"And whenever you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those in Judea flee to the hills.
I have put the verbal similarities in bold. You can once again see a word-for-word layer in Luke, but it has also tweaked the prophecy to make it correspond more closely to the way the prophesy actually played out. Rather that the temple being desecrated by some object placed in it (as in Daniel), the temple was destroyed by the Roman armies. This modification Luke has made makes it virtually certain that Luke-Acts were both written after the temple's destruction in AD70. Notice also that Luke follows Mark's "and" rather than Matthew's "therefore."
Conclusion
What we find is that the assumption that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a primary source has incredible explanatory power. Time after time, this assumption yields a plausible explanation for the various similarities and modifications we find between the Synoptics.
Two closing examples:
1. In Matthew we are a little puzzled by the way Jesus curses a fig tree that immediately withers (21:18-22). Matthew uses the event as an illustration of what a person with faith can do.
Mark has the story different. In Mark, Jesus does not curse the fig tree after he has overturned the tables in the temple but right before. Then the next day they find that the tree has withered. This is a "sandwich." Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple with the incident with the fig tree.
If we assume Markan priority, we can see what happened. In the original version of Mark, the fig tree story was very relevant to the passion story. Matthew's modifications, by contrast, have left us with a story that seems oddly placed. Luke then doesn't copy the story at all.
2. In Luke 23:25, Pilate has been talking to the chief priests, the rulers, and the people (23:13). In 23:25-26, it seems like Pilate delivers Jesus over to these people. When we look at Matthew 27:27-31 and Mark 15:16-20, we realize that Luke has abbreviated the account. He has omitted material in which soldiers take Jesus away and beat him.
So, like any hypothesis, the repeated and detailed comparison of the Synoptics has resulted in a very strong consensus among gospel experts that Mark was very likely the first of the gospels and that Matthew and Luke used it as the starting point for their own gospels.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
I like the gospels...
I've been working on the nuances of the word "gospel" in Matthew, Mark, and Luke recently, and I was just thinking today how much I like the gospels. I've taught Acts through Jude in my teaching life and only presented sparingly on the Gospels. I hope maybe Wesleyan Publishing House will let me follow up my three popular level Paul books with a couple books on Jesus and the gospels.
There is so much depth (of course, it could be in scholars' heads rather than real ;-) when you dig down and begin comparing gospels. It also can get very sensitive since most simply take the gospels as video recordings. But I find it fascinating to see how each gospel writer seems to have tweaked sayings and the presentation of events and their order to bring out particular themes. And I find it invigorating to see as it were layers of the early church from Jesus to John, somewhat like an archaeological dig.
Again, speculation on reconstructions require great caution, since it is so easy to let one's imagination go wild. But I think a popular Christian audience (not to mention pastors) would find a journey through some of this territory fascinating, indeed that it would make Jesus and the gospels come alive in 3 dimensions.
There is so much depth (of course, it could be in scholars' heads rather than real ;-) when you dig down and begin comparing gospels. It also can get very sensitive since most simply take the gospels as video recordings. But I find it fascinating to see how each gospel writer seems to have tweaked sayings and the presentation of events and their order to bring out particular themes. And I find it invigorating to see as it were layers of the early church from Jesus to John, somewhat like an archaeological dig.
Again, speculation on reconstructions require great caution, since it is so easy to let one's imagination go wild. But I think a popular Christian audience (not to mention pastors) would find a journey through some of this territory fascinating, indeed that it would make Jesus and the gospels come alive in 3 dimensions.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Gospels as Scripture
More material for a class. Feedback welcome.
____________
The central part of the Scriptural story, the central part of the Christian story, is when the problem of the story is overcome. The problem of our story is the alienation of the creation from God, including humanity. The goal of the story is the reconciliation of humanity and the creation to God. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus are the means by which God brings this reconciliation about.
The Gospels thus stand as the heart of the Bible read as Scripture. Think of the central part of the Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, dead, and buried. The third day he arose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, the Father, Almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.” When we read the Gospels as Scripture, we read them with all these things in mind. The New Testament letters and Acts may unpack them in terms of doctrine, but the story of the Gospels is the starting point.
It is right for us to read them in this way as Christian Scripture, even though we may also know how to read the Gospels in terms of their original historical-cultural context. For example, the incarnation—Jesus as God becoming flesh—is only a feature of John’s Gospel. Only Matthew and Luke tell of Jesus’ virginal conception. Mark and John do not mention the virgin birth. From a historical/contextual perspective, we lack sufficient evidence to say whether they knew about it or believed it.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not speak of Jesus as God becoming flesh, as John does. From a historical/contextual perspective, we lack sufficient evidence to say whether they knew about it or believed it. Indeed, many Christians prior to the 300s did not read John to say that Jesus was fully God in the same way that God the Father was God. We find contemporary Jews who used language similar to that of John 1 in relation to the “word” of God (logos), which was above all the rest of the creation as the “firstborn” of all creation, but was still created. Further, the word for worship in Matthew could be used of human kings (proskyneō).
What the last two paragraphs say is that to read the Gospels as Christian Scripture is to see more in them than they may have originally meant or than we can prove that they meant. The tools of inductive Bible study require us to read an individual book in its own right, not to see more meaning in the text than is required or justified by what that text actually says, following its own clues. Inductive Bible study thus can never conclude that Mark or John believed in the virgin birth, for they do not mention it, and we lack sufficient historical evidence to say that Christians at the time commonly did. But when we read Mark and John as Scripture, we are free to read them with the assumption of the virgin birth.
As Christians, we read the Gospels also with the assumption that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed (AD381) says that Jesus was “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; Light from Light; true God from true God; begotten, not made; of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made.” These distinctions all reflect debates that took place in the centuries after the New Testament, but Christians ever since have believed them. For example, at the Council of Nicaea (AD325), they debated whether Christ was of similar substance to God the Father or of the same substance, one substance with the Father. We have believed as Christians that Christ was fully God like God the Father ever since.
It would be anachronistic to read these positions into the original meaning of John or any other New Testament text. Christians carried out these debates on the playing field of Scripture, but they were discussing issues that went well beyond anything the historical context of the New Testament books addressed. No inductive reading of the New Testament books in context will surrender clear answers on these issues. Indeed, it is possible to argue that we must believe in a Spirit-inspired, unfolding development and progress of understanding in the church in order to arrive at the Nicene Creed.
But it is perfectly legitimate for us to read the Gospels in the light of these later Christian beliefs. After all, this is the way that we understand the Christian story. So this is the way we bring the stories of the gospels into our Christian story. We incorporate the stories of the gospels into the overarching story of Scripture, a unified story we believe the Spirit has inspired the church to see in the words of Scripture. The Spirit working through the church has provided the glue of a story we experience as seamless and unified.
However, we can also see the historical writing of each Gospel as a moment in salvation history. Most experts would say that Mark was the first gospel, written perhaps in the late 60s or early 70s. Historical scholars have hypothesized any number of possibilities—many impossible either to prove or disprove—about how Mark’s material came together. It currently seems beyond question that we find in Mark what were originally oral traditions, many of which must have circulated widely.
Most experts believe that Matthew and Luke, perhaps in the 70s or 80s, then used Mark as the starting point for their Gospels, both incorporating almost all of Mark into their presentation.[1] A majority—although this issue is more subject to debate—continue to believe that Matthew and Luke also had another common source, mostly a collection of Jesus’ sayings. It is then thought that the Gospel of John reached its current form last, perhaps some time in the 90s. Even here, though, some argue that John may have been written in stages.
Many scholarly theories, such as those presumed in the last two paragraphs, can neither be definitely proved or disproved. There is a sociology to such theories. Experts “get used to” certain ideas, ideas they may never have fully explored on their own. They will know the basic case, evidence most people will not know, but they may never have struggled with other possibilities to the level of those who first came up with an idea. New evidence can also arise. The point is that scholarly agreements can change, just as scientific theories or historical reconstructions can.
The reading of the Gospels as Scripture is not contingent either on historical reconstruction, nor is it dependent on historical accuracy. Both the modernist drive to get back to the historical Jesus and the fundamentalist drive to harmonize the content of the Gospels are both equally out of focus. Certainly there are features of the story that must be historical for the Christian story to be true in its normal, orthodox, historical sense. Jesus must really have existed. He must have truly risen from the dead in history. But even such minimal historicity is enough to support faith in the incarnation. [2] Our point is not to dispute the historicity of the Gospels, only to point out that Christian faith does not clearly stand or fall on the historicity of the bulk of the Gospels.
The fundamentalist reading of the Gospels is also not necessarily the same as a Christian reading of the Gospels as Scripture. The fundamentalist reading insists that we be able to fit all the details of the Gospels together as history, while reading the Gospels as Scripture only requires that we read the Gospels in relation to the one story. It is not that we have any interest in saying that Jesus did not do something in the Gospels or did not say something. It is only to say that we can read the Gospels as Christian Scripture regardless of these decisions—many of which can neither be proved or disproved from a historical standpoint.
We derive immense truth from the parables without even considering their historicity. In the same way, reading the Gospels as Scripture is not dependent on historicity. The problem with the fundamentalist drive to harmonize is that it often requires us to disregard what the Gospels actually say. We create a “fifth gospel” that differs more from any of the four gospels than any of them actually differ from each other, and all this effort in the name of an idea we have, rather than in the interest of listening to what each individual gospel itself has to say.
Reading the Gospels as Scripture is not dependent on such things. It need not ignore the kinds of things those who truly are experts have hypothesized or discovered. But it also must not think that a unified reading of the four Gospels is bound by an inductive reading of each individual text. We are free to see more in the Gospel texts than they themselves say, while recognizing the writing of each individual Gospel as a moment in God’s never-ending walk with his people, a moment in salvation history.
We believe that the second person of the Trinity came to earth and was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary. He walked the earth as one of us. He experienced what we experience. He was tempted in every way as we are but did not sin. He did miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit, just as we can. He healed; he cast out demons. He went to Jerusalem and died to reconcile humanity and the creation to God. He rose from the dead, and God enthroned him as king of the universe. He will come again to reconcile all things to God. When we read the Gospels as Christian Scripture, we read them with this faith in mind.
[1] A minority argues that Matthew was first, with Mark then abridging it and Luke reordering it.
[2] For example, even the virginal conception does not seem essential to Jesus' divinity. No one miracle, no one healing or exorcism, no one event or saying of Jesus seems essential for Jesus to be divine. Certainly the Christian story would be anemic without these elements, but we could still believe the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed even if most of the stories of the Gospels were not historical.
____________
The central part of the Scriptural story, the central part of the Christian story, is when the problem of the story is overcome. The problem of our story is the alienation of the creation from God, including humanity. The goal of the story is the reconciliation of humanity and the creation to God. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus are the means by which God brings this reconciliation about.
The Gospels thus stand as the heart of the Bible read as Scripture. Think of the central part of the Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, dead, and buried. The third day he arose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, the Father, Almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.” When we read the Gospels as Scripture, we read them with all these things in mind. The New Testament letters and Acts may unpack them in terms of doctrine, but the story of the Gospels is the starting point.
It is right for us to read them in this way as Christian Scripture, even though we may also know how to read the Gospels in terms of their original historical-cultural context. For example, the incarnation—Jesus as God becoming flesh—is only a feature of John’s Gospel. Only Matthew and Luke tell of Jesus’ virginal conception. Mark and John do not mention the virgin birth. From a historical/contextual perspective, we lack sufficient evidence to say whether they knew about it or believed it.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not speak of Jesus as God becoming flesh, as John does. From a historical/contextual perspective, we lack sufficient evidence to say whether they knew about it or believed it. Indeed, many Christians prior to the 300s did not read John to say that Jesus was fully God in the same way that God the Father was God. We find contemporary Jews who used language similar to that of John 1 in relation to the “word” of God (logos), which was above all the rest of the creation as the “firstborn” of all creation, but was still created. Further, the word for worship in Matthew could be used of human kings (proskyneō).
What the last two paragraphs say is that to read the Gospels as Christian Scripture is to see more in them than they may have originally meant or than we can prove that they meant. The tools of inductive Bible study require us to read an individual book in its own right, not to see more meaning in the text than is required or justified by what that text actually says, following its own clues. Inductive Bible study thus can never conclude that Mark or John believed in the virgin birth, for they do not mention it, and we lack sufficient historical evidence to say that Christians at the time commonly did. But when we read Mark and John as Scripture, we are free to read them with the assumption of the virgin birth.
As Christians, we read the Gospels also with the assumption that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed (AD381) says that Jesus was “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; Light from Light; true God from true God; begotten, not made; of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made.” These distinctions all reflect debates that took place in the centuries after the New Testament, but Christians ever since have believed them. For example, at the Council of Nicaea (AD325), they debated whether Christ was of similar substance to God the Father or of the same substance, one substance with the Father. We have believed as Christians that Christ was fully God like God the Father ever since.
It would be anachronistic to read these positions into the original meaning of John or any other New Testament text. Christians carried out these debates on the playing field of Scripture, but they were discussing issues that went well beyond anything the historical context of the New Testament books addressed. No inductive reading of the New Testament books in context will surrender clear answers on these issues. Indeed, it is possible to argue that we must believe in a Spirit-inspired, unfolding development and progress of understanding in the church in order to arrive at the Nicene Creed.
But it is perfectly legitimate for us to read the Gospels in the light of these later Christian beliefs. After all, this is the way that we understand the Christian story. So this is the way we bring the stories of the gospels into our Christian story. We incorporate the stories of the gospels into the overarching story of Scripture, a unified story we believe the Spirit has inspired the church to see in the words of Scripture. The Spirit working through the church has provided the glue of a story we experience as seamless and unified.
However, we can also see the historical writing of each Gospel as a moment in salvation history. Most experts would say that Mark was the first gospel, written perhaps in the late 60s or early 70s. Historical scholars have hypothesized any number of possibilities—many impossible either to prove or disprove—about how Mark’s material came together. It currently seems beyond question that we find in Mark what were originally oral traditions, many of which must have circulated widely.
Most experts believe that Matthew and Luke, perhaps in the 70s or 80s, then used Mark as the starting point for their Gospels, both incorporating almost all of Mark into their presentation.[1] A majority—although this issue is more subject to debate—continue to believe that Matthew and Luke also had another common source, mostly a collection of Jesus’ sayings. It is then thought that the Gospel of John reached its current form last, perhaps some time in the 90s. Even here, though, some argue that John may have been written in stages.
Many scholarly theories, such as those presumed in the last two paragraphs, can neither be definitely proved or disproved. There is a sociology to such theories. Experts “get used to” certain ideas, ideas they may never have fully explored on their own. They will know the basic case, evidence most people will not know, but they may never have struggled with other possibilities to the level of those who first came up with an idea. New evidence can also arise. The point is that scholarly agreements can change, just as scientific theories or historical reconstructions can.
The reading of the Gospels as Scripture is not contingent either on historical reconstruction, nor is it dependent on historical accuracy. Both the modernist drive to get back to the historical Jesus and the fundamentalist drive to harmonize the content of the Gospels are both equally out of focus. Certainly there are features of the story that must be historical for the Christian story to be true in its normal, orthodox, historical sense. Jesus must really have existed. He must have truly risen from the dead in history. But even such minimal historicity is enough to support faith in the incarnation. [2] Our point is not to dispute the historicity of the Gospels, only to point out that Christian faith does not clearly stand or fall on the historicity of the bulk of the Gospels.
The fundamentalist reading of the Gospels is also not necessarily the same as a Christian reading of the Gospels as Scripture. The fundamentalist reading insists that we be able to fit all the details of the Gospels together as history, while reading the Gospels as Scripture only requires that we read the Gospels in relation to the one story. It is not that we have any interest in saying that Jesus did not do something in the Gospels or did not say something. It is only to say that we can read the Gospels as Christian Scripture regardless of these decisions—many of which can neither be proved or disproved from a historical standpoint.
We derive immense truth from the parables without even considering their historicity. In the same way, reading the Gospels as Scripture is not dependent on historicity. The problem with the fundamentalist drive to harmonize is that it often requires us to disregard what the Gospels actually say. We create a “fifth gospel” that differs more from any of the four gospels than any of them actually differ from each other, and all this effort in the name of an idea we have, rather than in the interest of listening to what each individual gospel itself has to say.
Reading the Gospels as Scripture is not dependent on such things. It need not ignore the kinds of things those who truly are experts have hypothesized or discovered. But it also must not think that a unified reading of the four Gospels is bound by an inductive reading of each individual text. We are free to see more in the Gospel texts than they themselves say, while recognizing the writing of each individual Gospel as a moment in God’s never-ending walk with his people, a moment in salvation history.
We believe that the second person of the Trinity came to earth and was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary. He walked the earth as one of us. He experienced what we experience. He was tempted in every way as we are but did not sin. He did miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit, just as we can. He healed; he cast out demons. He went to Jerusalem and died to reconcile humanity and the creation to God. He rose from the dead, and God enthroned him as king of the universe. He will come again to reconcile all things to God. When we read the Gospels as Christian Scripture, we read them with this faith in mind.
[1] A minority argues that Matthew was first, with Mark then abridging it and Luke reordering it.
[2] For example, even the virginal conception does not seem essential to Jesus' divinity. No one miracle, no one healing or exorcism, no one event or saying of Jesus seems essential for Jesus to be divine. Certainly the Christian story would be anemic without these elements, but we could still believe the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed even if most of the stories of the Gospels were not historical.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Gospel
I'm trying to crank out something due a long time ago. For whatever reason, things flow out of me better when I at least think someone is listening. So here goes cranking:
_______
The word gospel has meant different things in different contexts, most of which relate broadly to the idea of "good news." The gospels of Matthew and Mark both make the "gospel of the kingdom" the essence of Jesus' earthly teaching (e.g. Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:15). This fact suggests that Isaiah 52:7 provides key background to how Jesus saw his ministry. In particular, Jesus likely saw his ministry as part of the restoration of God's reign within Israel and the world, including the defeat of the evil powers that currently rule the earth.
The original context of Isaiah 52:7 was of course the return of Israel from captivity in Babylon around the year 538BC. The statement in that verse, "our God reigns," seems to connect directly to Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God, the rule of God returning to earth as it is in heaven. Early Christians like Paul primarily read this verse in its Greek translation, where they found the verb "to proclaim the good news" (euangelizomai). It is thus quite possible that the early Christian use of the word gospel started among Greek-speaking Christians who connected Jesus' preaching of the rule of God to the Greek sense of a gospel as the announcement of good news of a momentous sort. For example, a famous inscription from 9BC about the Roman emperor Augustus of him as a savior whose enthronement was good news (euangelion) for humanity.
A major focus of the gospel in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is Jesus' ministry to the poor. The verb "to proclaim the good news" also appears in the Greek of Isaiah 61:1, which Luke pictures Jesus quoting as the very inaugural address of his ministry (Luke 4:18): "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor." Matthew 4:13 also connects Jesus ministry of healing to his proclamation of the good news. Matthew, Mark, and Luke thus understood the gospel not only in terms of the coming reign of God over the earth but also in terms of the liberating ministry of Jesus to those who were oppressed and disempowered on earth.
In Jesus' ministry, the good news was about God's reign. When we get to Paul's writings, the gospel is about Jesus Christ himself as king. Romans 1:3-4 give us a good sense of what Paul means by the word. The gospel is about Jesus being king. He is descended from king David in his humanity and enthroned as "Son of God" as part of his resurrection. It is important to recognize that the title "Son of God" has everything to do with Jesus being king, being the Messiah, the Christ. The background for this phrase is firmly in Old Testament passages like 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2, both of which were originally about kings of Judah. Other New Testament books also picture Jesus' exaltation to God's right hand as a kind of enthronement as Son of God (e.g. Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5).
Paul's sense of the gospel of Jesus is thus much like the inscription about Augustus. The good news is that Jesus has been enthroned as king. As king he will bring justice and salvation to the earth. The gospel thus extends beyond the fact that Jesus is king to the benefits and blessings that have come in consequence.
Mark 1:1 probably has a similar sense of the word gospel as Paul. The beginning of Mark narrates the beginning of the good news that Jesus Christ is king. Perhaps it is then a coincidence of history that the word gospel came to refer not just to the good news of Jesus as king but to the genre of books like Mark that present the good news about Jesus. Thus we now refer to books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as gospels, whereas originally their audience would have thought of them as biographies (Matthew, Mark, John) and a history (Luke-Acts).
_______
The word gospel has meant different things in different contexts, most of which relate broadly to the idea of "good news." The gospels of Matthew and Mark both make the "gospel of the kingdom" the essence of Jesus' earthly teaching (e.g. Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:15). This fact suggests that Isaiah 52:7 provides key background to how Jesus saw his ministry. In particular, Jesus likely saw his ministry as part of the restoration of God's reign within Israel and the world, including the defeat of the evil powers that currently rule the earth.
The original context of Isaiah 52:7 was of course the return of Israel from captivity in Babylon around the year 538BC. The statement in that verse, "our God reigns," seems to connect directly to Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God, the rule of God returning to earth as it is in heaven. Early Christians like Paul primarily read this verse in its Greek translation, where they found the verb "to proclaim the good news" (euangelizomai). It is thus quite possible that the early Christian use of the word gospel started among Greek-speaking Christians who connected Jesus' preaching of the rule of God to the Greek sense of a gospel as the announcement of good news of a momentous sort. For example, a famous inscription from 9BC about the Roman emperor Augustus of him as a savior whose enthronement was good news (euangelion) for humanity.
A major focus of the gospel in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is Jesus' ministry to the poor. The verb "to proclaim the good news" also appears in the Greek of Isaiah 61:1, which Luke pictures Jesus quoting as the very inaugural address of his ministry (Luke 4:18): "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor." Matthew 4:13 also connects Jesus ministry of healing to his proclamation of the good news. Matthew, Mark, and Luke thus understood the gospel not only in terms of the coming reign of God over the earth but also in terms of the liberating ministry of Jesus to those who were oppressed and disempowered on earth.
In Jesus' ministry, the good news was about God's reign. When we get to Paul's writings, the gospel is about Jesus Christ himself as king. Romans 1:3-4 give us a good sense of what Paul means by the word. The gospel is about Jesus being king. He is descended from king David in his humanity and enthroned as "Son of God" as part of his resurrection. It is important to recognize that the title "Son of God" has everything to do with Jesus being king, being the Messiah, the Christ. The background for this phrase is firmly in Old Testament passages like 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2, both of which were originally about kings of Judah. Other New Testament books also picture Jesus' exaltation to God's right hand as a kind of enthronement as Son of God (e.g. Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5).
Paul's sense of the gospel of Jesus is thus much like the inscription about Augustus. The good news is that Jesus has been enthroned as king. As king he will bring justice and salvation to the earth. The gospel thus extends beyond the fact that Jesus is king to the benefits and blessings that have come in consequence.
Mark 1:1 probably has a similar sense of the word gospel as Paul. The beginning of Mark narrates the beginning of the good news that Jesus Christ is king. Perhaps it is then a coincidence of history that the word gospel came to refer not just to the good news of Jesus as king but to the genre of books like Mark that present the good news about Jesus. Thus we now refer to books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as gospels, whereas originally their audience would have thought of them as biographies (Matthew, Mark, John) and a history (Luke-Acts).
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Gospel
I believe my life as a blogger will resume on Saturday. Until then, here's more starter material to help me get stuff going...
Gospel:
1. gospel in Mark/Jesus--good news of the kingdom's arrival, background in Isaiah 52.
2. gospel in Paul--the enthronement of Jesus as cosmic king, background in Roman world (Res gestae divi Augusti)
3. Gospel as genre--begins with Mark, becomes genre in early Christianity, although originally bioi and apologetic history
4. gospel is not "plan of salvation" (cf. Wright)
Gospel:
1. gospel in Mark/Jesus--good news of the kingdom's arrival, background in Isaiah 52.
2. gospel in Paul--the enthronement of Jesus as cosmic king, background in Roman world (Res gestae divi Augusti)
3. Gospel as genre--begins with Mark, becomes genre in early Christianity, although originally bioi and apologetic history
4. gospel is not "plan of salvation" (cf. Wright)
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Luke-Synoptic Question-Gospels
Interviews for new IWU seminary today have knocked me from my May term class. Here is a peek into the life of an IWU New Testament Survey class:
True and false thoughts on Luke and the synoptic question...
Quick summary of synoptic question...
True and false thoughts on Luke and the synoptic question...
Quick summary of synoptic question...
Friday, August 22, 2008
Friday Review: Hurtado 9, Chapter 5, Part 2
I've been procrastinating the rest of this chapter... sorry.
The remainder of chapter 5 deals with "Synoptic Renditions of Jesus" and it goes one by one through Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
Mark
Hurtado proceeds on the assumption that Mark was written first, used by Matthew and Luke, and that the text did in fact end at 16:8. I thought a couple times in this chapter of IWU's own David Smith's dissertation at Durham. I think Bauckham was his external examiner. Otherwise, I'd be suspicious that H had "caught the spirit" of Dr. Smith's dissertation.
"Several allied themes combine further to make the Markan Jesus a figure of power and transcendent significance" (283). "Jesus has shown godlike superiority over the elements" (286) as he walks on water and so forth. Or when Jesus calms the sea and pronounces on different occasions, "I am he," Joel Marcus suggests that "although Mark does not explicitly claim divinity for Jesus, 'he comes very close to doing so here' and Marcus rightly judges that 'the overwhelming impact made by our narrative is an impression of Jesus' divinity" (286).
Mark redefines what royal messiahship is. He does not reject it (289). He does not pit a "Son of Man" Christology against a Son of God one. Once again, Hurtado does not think that Son of Man was ever a confessional title (293). It was a way that Jesus referred to himself that never caused controversy. I am mostly with H here, although I do think some of the more Danielic uses of the phrase may have.
H goes through this debate again. He presents three basic positions on the issue among scholars:
1. The older perspective--it was an established title in pre-Christian Jewish tradition.
2. Not a title before Christianity but a title in the gospels.
3. It comes from an Aramaic expression that simply referred to "a man." No reference to Daniel 7:13 was implied.
H's position is:
1. The original readers of "the Son of the Man" would have recognized that it was not an ordinary Greek idiom but was similar to expressions in the Greek OT. It had a "scriptural ring" to it (304).
2. Jesus is the only one who uses it. It is his special way of referring to himself.
3. "Son of man" is not a christological title but in the gospels does take on a fixed, formulaic nature with an exclusive referent. "It functioned, thus, more in the way a name functions, to identify and distinguish a person, in this case Jesus" (305).
H thinks it would have been heard as a parallel to Son of God, the one expressing his divinity and the other his humanity. This was of course how second century Christians heard these titles apparently. I think there may be more to it in the gospels, however.
H thinks Mark 1:1 refers to the entire gospel. He sees a key to Mark's presentation in the idea of Jesus as an example for the disciples to follow and the emphasis on the disciples' failure as an encouragement to his readers.
Matthew
In one of the sections here, H looks at the two birth narratives. He points to the differences between the two stories as an indication that the story had been around in different verses at least a decade before they were written (the 60s). Further, he takes Mark 6:3's reference to Mary as his mother as a hint that slurs about Jesus may have been around even earlier.
Basically, H finds it ludicrous that someone would think it honored Jesus to depict him like a pagan "god impregnates woman" story. Further, he argues that any slurs against Mary probably came from claims about Jesus' birth rather than claims about Jesus' birth coming from the slurs.
"All this means that the most likely provenance for the idea that Jesus was conceived miraculously by God's Spirit is in circles of Jewish Christians and/or mixed Gentile and Jewish Christian circles that preferred to articulate their faith in Jesus in the idioms and conceptual categories of Jewish tradition" (328).
In another section, H treats Matthew's postresurrection narrative. He notes Jesus' cosmic authority in 28:18 (331). "The promise of continued presence 'till the close of the age' demands that Jesus be regarded as having divine power" (332). He then treats Matthew's 5 discourses. Jesus' lament over Jerusalem "reflects a view of him acting in capacities that are divine" (336).
The section of most interest to me, however, is his consideration of proskynein in Matthew, "to worship." "The verb designates a reverential posture that one adopts toward a social superior ... but it can also mean the worship one gives to a god" (337).
Luke
The section on Luke is shorter than the others, since much of the material of Luke is already in Mark and Matthew. Only about a paragraph on devotion to Jesus in this section. H notes that Luke uses "Lord" more than the other gospels. And the post resurrection use of proskyneo in Luke 24:52 "is certainly intended by the author as the full reverence given to a figure of divine status/significance" (345).
I found this chapter interesting, but full of extraneous discussions given what this book is supposed to be about. I even wondered if Hurtado had written it for another setting and then modified it for this book. It is a huge chapter (88 pages or so) with little pay off with regard to the topic of the book.
The remainder of chapter 5 deals with "Synoptic Renditions of Jesus" and it goes one by one through Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
Mark
Hurtado proceeds on the assumption that Mark was written first, used by Matthew and Luke, and that the text did in fact end at 16:8. I thought a couple times in this chapter of IWU's own David Smith's dissertation at Durham. I think Bauckham was his external examiner. Otherwise, I'd be suspicious that H had "caught the spirit" of Dr. Smith's dissertation.
"Several allied themes combine further to make the Markan Jesus a figure of power and transcendent significance" (283). "Jesus has shown godlike superiority over the elements" (286) as he walks on water and so forth. Or when Jesus calms the sea and pronounces on different occasions, "I am he," Joel Marcus suggests that "although Mark does not explicitly claim divinity for Jesus, 'he comes very close to doing so here' and Marcus rightly judges that 'the overwhelming impact made by our narrative is an impression of Jesus' divinity" (286).
Mark redefines what royal messiahship is. He does not reject it (289). He does not pit a "Son of Man" Christology against a Son of God one. Once again, Hurtado does not think that Son of Man was ever a confessional title (293). It was a way that Jesus referred to himself that never caused controversy. I am mostly with H here, although I do think some of the more Danielic uses of the phrase may have.
H goes through this debate again. He presents three basic positions on the issue among scholars:
1. The older perspective--it was an established title in pre-Christian Jewish tradition.
2. Not a title before Christianity but a title in the gospels.
3. It comes from an Aramaic expression that simply referred to "a man." No reference to Daniel 7:13 was implied.
H's position is:
1. The original readers of "the Son of the Man" would have recognized that it was not an ordinary Greek idiom but was similar to expressions in the Greek OT. It had a "scriptural ring" to it (304).
2. Jesus is the only one who uses it. It is his special way of referring to himself.
3. "Son of man" is not a christological title but in the gospels does take on a fixed, formulaic nature with an exclusive referent. "It functioned, thus, more in the way a name functions, to identify and distinguish a person, in this case Jesus" (305).
H thinks it would have been heard as a parallel to Son of God, the one expressing his divinity and the other his humanity. This was of course how second century Christians heard these titles apparently. I think there may be more to it in the gospels, however.
H thinks Mark 1:1 refers to the entire gospel. He sees a key to Mark's presentation in the idea of Jesus as an example for the disciples to follow and the emphasis on the disciples' failure as an encouragement to his readers.
Matthew
In one of the sections here, H looks at the two birth narratives. He points to the differences between the two stories as an indication that the story had been around in different verses at least a decade before they were written (the 60s). Further, he takes Mark 6:3's reference to Mary as his mother as a hint that slurs about Jesus may have been around even earlier.
Basically, H finds it ludicrous that someone would think it honored Jesus to depict him like a pagan "god impregnates woman" story. Further, he argues that any slurs against Mary probably came from claims about Jesus' birth rather than claims about Jesus' birth coming from the slurs.
"All this means that the most likely provenance for the idea that Jesus was conceived miraculously by God's Spirit is in circles of Jewish Christians and/or mixed Gentile and Jewish Christian circles that preferred to articulate their faith in Jesus in the idioms and conceptual categories of Jewish tradition" (328).
In another section, H treats Matthew's postresurrection narrative. He notes Jesus' cosmic authority in 28:18 (331). "The promise of continued presence 'till the close of the age' demands that Jesus be regarded as having divine power" (332). He then treats Matthew's 5 discourses. Jesus' lament over Jerusalem "reflects a view of him acting in capacities that are divine" (336).
The section of most interest to me, however, is his consideration of proskynein in Matthew, "to worship." "The verb designates a reverential posture that one adopts toward a social superior ... but it can also mean the worship one gives to a god" (337).
Luke
The section on Luke is shorter than the others, since much of the material of Luke is already in Mark and Matthew. Only about a paragraph on devotion to Jesus in this section. H notes that Luke uses "Lord" more than the other gospels. And the post resurrection use of proskyneo in Luke 24:52 "is certainly intended by the author as the full reverence given to a figure of divine status/significance" (345).
I found this chapter interesting, but full of extraneous discussions given what this book is supposed to be about. I even wondered if Hurtado had written it for another setting and then modified it for this book. It is a huge chapter (88 pages or so) with little pay off with regard to the topic of the book.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Friday Review: Hurtado 8, Chapter 5, Part 1
Chapter 5 of Larry Hurtado's, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, is a monster 88 pages. It is called "Jesus Books" and principally deals with the Synoptic gospels. I wonder if the chapter on Q started out as part of this chapter. And I wonder if this chapter was written before some material we've already read.
Anyway, the first part of the chapter that I will briefly review today (259-82) deals mainly with the shared features of the Synoptics and their likely genre.
Introduction
Hurtado begins with a general discussion of "Jesus books," a term he uses so that he does not presume any conclusions from the start on exactly what a gospel might be, for example. H prefers to call Q a "sayings collection" rather than a gospel. Further, he notes that the Gospel of Thomas lacks even the narrative structure of Q. He will cover second century non-canonical works like the Protoevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Peter in a later chapter, as he will John.
Shared Features of Canonical Gospels
The second part of the chapter then looks at shared features of the canonical gospels, which he considers to be earlier than any of the non-canonical gospels mentioned above. They all share a recognizably similar narrative framework. In all of them (as in Q), Jesus is "paradigmatic and uniquely authoritative in his teachings and actions" (263). Jesus is the key issue of the gospels and the polarizing force. All four gospels agree in the basic honorific terms they use of him.
One of H's strong contributions in this part of the chapter is to point out the extent to which the four gospels locate Jesus in specific historical, cultural, and geographical settings, something Hurtado refers to as "local color" (265-66). "He is not some timeless symbol, not a mythical figure of a 'once upon a time,' but instead very specifically a Jew whose life and activities are geographically and chronologically located in a particular place and period of Jewish history in Roman Judea" (266). By contrast, "From Thomas we would not even know that Jesus was Jewish and that his activities were in Roman Judea!" (267).
Finally, all the canonical gospels point to a larger narrative world that reaches back to the Old Testament and look forward to eschatological events. It is this aspect that might be considered "mythic," although in the nuanced sense of scholarship, not the popular but uninformed "it didn't happened and isn't true" sense (that's my targum on n. 20, p. 269).
Literary Genre
The final part of the chapter I want to summarize today examines the question of the gospels' genres in concentric circles--first as early Christian literature, then in relation to Jewish literature, and finally in relation to Greco-Roman literature.
H thinks the gospels reflect in some sense the form of early Christian proclamation. He is thus not surprised that Q had a narrative structure too. I want to say again that the claim that Q had a narrative structure is plausible but somewhat suspicious. After all, Q is an abstraction largely from a Lukan order of material, and Luke has a narrative structure. I'm sure this has all been addressed, but how do we know that the supposed narrative structure of Q is not to a large extent a function of Luke's narrative structure?
Nevertheless, Hurtado considers Mark "a significant development in literary genre" (272). It and the other gospels represent "the 'literaturization' of prior oral discourse and written expressions about Jesus" (here building on David Aune's work). Meanwhile, each gospel is a dstinctive literary work with its own emphases. They were a new kind of Christian writing (274).
Secondly, there is nothing comparable in rabbinic literature, a fact that seems christologically significant. A rabbinic work like Pirke Aboth includes the sayings of many different rabbis. But none of them are treated as inerrant or uniquely authoritative, and this collection does not center on one rabbi in particular. "[T]he composition of the canonical Gospels, which he [Richard Burridge] properly fits within the genre of ancient biographical writings ..., represented 'an enormous christological and theological claim'" (275).
Hurtado does mention Philo's biographies of Abraham, Moses, and Joseph, as well as Josephus' autobiography. But these biographies follow the "Greek notion of biography as the presentation of characters who are exemplary of the qualities prized by those for whom one writes" (276). The Gospels, however, do not treat Jesus as "a paragon of general virtues" (277). Jesus is rather "the unique envoy of God who announces and brings the kingdom of God in his own person and actions in an unparalleled way" (277).
Finally, Hurtado considers the Roman-Era literary environment. While he respects those who have argued that the gospels are a unique genre ultimately incomparable to the Greco-Roman bios (e.g., Fitzmeyer), H thinks it is still the best way to categorize them. "To associate a writing with this or that genre does not mean that it is the same in all respects as other examples of that genre" (279). The question is whether a reader would come to the gospels with certain expectations because they would categorize it, roughly speaking, in that way.
Hurtado's placement of the gospels in the biography category comes because he believes they demonstrate certain expectations of the genre, particularly Luke. He does not at this point, at least to me, seem to give many specific examples. For Mark, for example, he mentions a disposition on Mark's part to present Jesus in heroic terms (281).
I have no reason to question the current consensus that places at least Matthew, Mark, and John in the biography category (Luke-Acts it seems to me, is more like history). But I am not sure at this point that it affects my interpretation. In general I think ancient history writers or biographers were more interested in advancing particular truths than in historical certitude, despite frequently strong protests to giving the real scoop (I find Josephus' bombastic claims comical). Thucydides actually apologizes for not being more sensational like other historians. And yet he doesn't bat an eye to tell us that he has made up some of the speeches in his account.
This pattern could impact how we took the gospels and Acts, if we concluded that it applied.
More tomorrow, hopefully...
Anyway, the first part of the chapter that I will briefly review today (259-82) deals mainly with the shared features of the Synoptics and their likely genre.
Introduction
Hurtado begins with a general discussion of "Jesus books," a term he uses so that he does not presume any conclusions from the start on exactly what a gospel might be, for example. H prefers to call Q a "sayings collection" rather than a gospel. Further, he notes that the Gospel of Thomas lacks even the narrative structure of Q. He will cover second century non-canonical works like the Protoevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Peter in a later chapter, as he will John.
Shared Features of Canonical Gospels
The second part of the chapter then looks at shared features of the canonical gospels, which he considers to be earlier than any of the non-canonical gospels mentioned above. They all share a recognizably similar narrative framework. In all of them (as in Q), Jesus is "paradigmatic and uniquely authoritative in his teachings and actions" (263). Jesus is the key issue of the gospels and the polarizing force. All four gospels agree in the basic honorific terms they use of him.
One of H's strong contributions in this part of the chapter is to point out the extent to which the four gospels locate Jesus in specific historical, cultural, and geographical settings, something Hurtado refers to as "local color" (265-66). "He is not some timeless symbol, not a mythical figure of a 'once upon a time,' but instead very specifically a Jew whose life and activities are geographically and chronologically located in a particular place and period of Jewish history in Roman Judea" (266). By contrast, "From Thomas we would not even know that Jesus was Jewish and that his activities were in Roman Judea!" (267).
Finally, all the canonical gospels point to a larger narrative world that reaches back to the Old Testament and look forward to eschatological events. It is this aspect that might be considered "mythic," although in the nuanced sense of scholarship, not the popular but uninformed "it didn't happened and isn't true" sense (that's my targum on n. 20, p. 269).
Literary Genre
The final part of the chapter I want to summarize today examines the question of the gospels' genres in concentric circles--first as early Christian literature, then in relation to Jewish literature, and finally in relation to Greco-Roman literature.
H thinks the gospels reflect in some sense the form of early Christian proclamation. He is thus not surprised that Q had a narrative structure too. I want to say again that the claim that Q had a narrative structure is plausible but somewhat suspicious. After all, Q is an abstraction largely from a Lukan order of material, and Luke has a narrative structure. I'm sure this has all been addressed, but how do we know that the supposed narrative structure of Q is not to a large extent a function of Luke's narrative structure?
Nevertheless, Hurtado considers Mark "a significant development in literary genre" (272). It and the other gospels represent "the 'literaturization' of prior oral discourse and written expressions about Jesus" (here building on David Aune's work). Meanwhile, each gospel is a dstinctive literary work with its own emphases. They were a new kind of Christian writing (274).
Secondly, there is nothing comparable in rabbinic literature, a fact that seems christologically significant. A rabbinic work like Pirke Aboth includes the sayings of many different rabbis. But none of them are treated as inerrant or uniquely authoritative, and this collection does not center on one rabbi in particular. "[T]he composition of the canonical Gospels, which he [Richard Burridge] properly fits within the genre of ancient biographical writings ..., represented 'an enormous christological and theological claim'" (275).
Hurtado does mention Philo's biographies of Abraham, Moses, and Joseph, as well as Josephus' autobiography. But these biographies follow the "Greek notion of biography as the presentation of characters who are exemplary of the qualities prized by those for whom one writes" (276). The Gospels, however, do not treat Jesus as "a paragon of general virtues" (277). Jesus is rather "the unique envoy of God who announces and brings the kingdom of God in his own person and actions in an unparalleled way" (277).
Finally, Hurtado considers the Roman-Era literary environment. While he respects those who have argued that the gospels are a unique genre ultimately incomparable to the Greco-Roman bios (e.g., Fitzmeyer), H thinks it is still the best way to categorize them. "To associate a writing with this or that genre does not mean that it is the same in all respects as other examples of that genre" (279). The question is whether a reader would come to the gospels with certain expectations because they would categorize it, roughly speaking, in that way.
Hurtado's placement of the gospels in the biography category comes because he believes they demonstrate certain expectations of the genre, particularly Luke. He does not at this point, at least to me, seem to give many specific examples. For Mark, for example, he mentions a disposition on Mark's part to present Jesus in heroic terms (281).
I have no reason to question the current consensus that places at least Matthew, Mark, and John in the biography category (Luke-Acts it seems to me, is more like history). But I am not sure at this point that it affects my interpretation. In general I think ancient history writers or biographers were more interested in advancing particular truths than in historical certitude, despite frequently strong protests to giving the real scoop (I find Josephus' bombastic claims comical). Thucydides actually apologizes for not being more sensational like other historians. And yet he doesn't bat an eye to tell us that he has made up some of the speeches in his account.
This pattern could impact how we took the gospels and Acts, if we concluded that it applied.
More tomorrow, hopefully...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
