I don't have a sturdy review today, but I have been reading a little in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Lawrence Schiffman says of the book, "These studies cover all of the important issues." It's thus the place to start your scholarly level exploration of the parables. Chris Tilling did a review of this book recently as well.
Thus far I've only dipped in the book with "targeted hits." Loren Stuckenbruck's summary of chapters by Nickelsburg and Knibb seemed a good place to start. He tends toward Knibbs dating in the first century, which is where I am currently as well from a much more novice perspective. Stuckenbruck, with usual attention to detail, also suggests that the Parables are slightly more likely to be based on a Greek translation of the Book of the Watchers than on the Aramaic version.
I dipped also into a chapter on the cosmology of the Parables. Here Jonathan Ben-Dov concludes that the Parables is not dependent on the Astronomical Book for its cosmology.
The next dip that I thought would give me a cross-section of the book was John Collins' response to two other chapters that deal with the Parables in the history of the Son of Man expression. I'm in the middle of this piece now. Since Collins expressed on the side agreement with Sabino Chialà's view of the relationship between the Parables and Matthew, I dipped back into his chapter.
There he believes that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent on the Parables for its imagery of the Son of Man. The influence of the Parables on Matthew, he believes shows up particularly in the image of Son of Man as judge, a Son of Man theme that is sparse in Mark and Luke but significant in Matthew.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If one begins with Scripture as the authority, then what is written in cultural form is appropriately sanctioned for today? That is, ancient ways of living are affirmed...group mentality...
What happens when one identifies with a group, is an inevitable hierachy, unless there is a structure that maintains a balance of power such as our government's form.
On the other hand, but "on its heels", is the understanding that Scripture is man's attempt to understand God, then, we struggle with ascertaining what cultural form is the best, because we affirm other religious texts as attempts to ascertain God, and on what basis do we assess "the best" cultural form....of course, pragmatism.
Then, whether we agree that there is something special about Scripture or not, we are in the same dilemma, man's attempt to civilize and bring order out of chaos, like God did. Both are based on groundless faith.
The view calls for a responsible people, who find, seek out, problems and seek to find answers within a framework of faith. Faith is faith is not a reasoned framework, so there must be some sort of integration with reason.
If one begins with the natural order, then we reduce man to the material realm and take away any difference in man from the animal kindgom. Wasn't it Schopenhaur that believed that it took, reason, will and passion to represent man's total being?
I really need to study with all of this in mind, so that I can come up with a framework for my faith that makes sense to me...
Your entry here, begins with the asumption that one believes that the Scripture is a special text, which must be interpreted within context of other texts, that defends, Jesus as "King". Within this framework, Jesus is understood by Jewish texts, that may or may not apply to him. Again, it is only based on faith, just as the evangelists, apostles and the early Church attempted to do in their time, re-interpret the Scirptures and apply them to Jesus. But, our attempt to apply texts of Scripture to Jesus is not a present day attempt, to apply the text to a person within history. But, an attempt to use his life as an illustration for the purposes of the Church...The early Church did not re-interpret Scirptue during Christ's life, but after he died and they sought to understand what they had experienced....Therefore, attempts to apply the Scriptures to a human life today would not be in accordance with what happened historically in the Church...Unless, one takes the "conditioning" of Hebrews as a tool to "train" people in the tradition...which would be in line with the book itself. Wouldn't it?
Angie, I am often befuddled when you respond to posts like this one with comments like "Your entry here, begins with the assumption that one believes that the Scripture is a special text, which must be interpreted within context of other texts, that defends, Jesus as "King."
This post, and those like it, are generally posts in which I attempt to approach various texts, especially background texts, from a faith neutral scholarly perspective. For example, many scholars rail at the suggestion that Matthew might be dependent on the Parables of Enoch because the implication is that such passages would not actually go back to the historical Jesus. I've not drawn any conclusion like that in this post, but you can see that the post is an attempt at a neutral post.
You often respond to my most "neutral" posts (like those on inductive Bible study) with references to my faith approach and it is absolutely frustrating to me because it completely misreads the adopted perspectives of these posts...
I'll be looking forward to more of these posts on this book, since this is a book that is sitting on my shelf and I just don't have the time to read it for myself...I do like how the chapters in the Boccaccini volumes are so short.
I'm sorry I'm befuddling,as I'm befuddled myself, and this obviously comes across in my writing.I am struggling to orient my faith according to a naturalisitc understanding.
I was hoping that my thinking processes would help clarify in your mind where my thinking was going, so that you could help clarify my questions...
As you understand, I too, would ask why you would use Jewish texts to interpret Jesus' life. Other than understanding how the Jews could have understood Jesus life, I don't understand why you bring up Enoch and the Messiah of Son of Man...It is the Jewish context of the context of Christian Scripture, I understand. So, is it an attempt to understand how the early Church understood Jesus' life in their interpretaion of his life as "King of the Jews". Obviously, Jesus, as Messiah, was not their experience of him in historical time, but was how they interpreted his life after his death...his life as moral example was in line wiht their religious texts and traditions taught...
This would help missiologists, in giving a rationale for their ministry, as only in understanding Jesus life, within the understanding of that day (with its religious texts) can one understand how they came to understand...I hope that makes sense.
On the other hand, the Tradition's conditioning to its purposes are politically driven, as tradition grew up in the climate of the powerless and was then developed within the governing powers itself, when the Church was "in power". The early Church had no power and this was the assessment of many of Paul's writings in bringing order out of chaos and hope wihtin a hopeless situation. But, American Christians understand a freedom of expression that the early Church did not have, as Judiasm had the power connections with the Roman government. This was what brought about Jesus' death. Understanding how our government works in the natural order and structure would mean that there would be an open assessment of the purposes and vision of the Church. The ideal form would be portrayed in our form of governing and must maintain a free and open discourse for all faiths to be represented. That means that there is no exclusivity in an open and honest view according to natural order and structure.
I am sorry that my entries have been frustrating. I have not meant them to be. I agree that I have "reacted" to the Inductive method as I have understood that to be too confining in understanding one's faith. But, understanding the texts that have impacted the Scripture is helpful, I find that we still have to ascertain what it is that the early Church understood as the frame of their faith. What was the background. This is what I think you are rightfully doing in presenting this material.
But, I think people like Crossan, et al, are important in assessing the historical, as well as viewing the texts from the disciplines that affect the understanding of the text. One's faith cannot be baseless. It has to be based somewhere on reason.
Post a Comment