Jesus the Liberator

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J.   After reading selections from various scholars, the purpose was to answer the question: "Using Horsley and Sobrino, indicate a plausible historical and theological interpretation of Jesus' death."

Thesis: Jesus’ death needs to be understood historically and interpreted theologically for the benefit of believers. Horsley begins his assessment with some good, and some not-so-good thoughts about the Kingdom.

It seems his treatment on the whole takes seriously the “already,” but neglects the “not-yet” notions of the Kingdom of God. He rightly emphasizes aspects of the realized kingdom, and speaks against vague explications by scholars as simply the “rule of God”[1]. Furthermore, Horsley points out motifs of this realized kingdom in the gospel accounts: healings, “God’s liberating and restorative activity in the people’s personal lives” (181), likewise, the banquets, and exorcisms perform similar functions of kingdom demonstrated. On the other hand, Horsley fails to recognize that the kingdom has future aspects. The kingdom is certainly a liberating enterprise as found in Jesus’ practice and preaching and ministry (178), but could it leave the 1st century under Horsley’s assessment? Additionally, Horsley’s kingdom as liberating socially for people (190), while true, remains androcentric rather than theocentric. This can be seen also in his treatment of Jesus’ death. Historically speaking, Jesus was executed as a rebel (320-321), but this view alone neglects the theological/eschatological purpose of his death.

Sobrino, on the other hand, grounds Jesus’ death in good historical investigation, but shows no fear in moving into the theological realm to discuss its implications for people today, especially Third World Latin America. However, Sobrino is careful not to delve into the mind of Jesus in regards to the interpretation of his own death as expiation or some later theology of his death [2]. Rather he sees Jesus’ understanding of his death as hope in the triumphant kingdom (202). To answer the question why Jesus died, he first acknowledges the non-answer that it is in fact a mystery of God. At this point, however, he is willing to pull meaning from the early Christian understanding: sacrifice, new covenant, fulfilling scripture, etc. (223ff). Sobrino, doing theology in context, brings this discussion into the situation in Latin America labeling them “crucified people” (254-271). Solidarity, can certainly be found in identifying with Christ’s crucifixion (Gal. 2:20) however, caution should be employed to avoid claiming Christ’s work for the people.

[1] Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 167. (In-text citations from this point on).

[2] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993), 201. (In-text citations from this point on).

Miracles and the Kingdom of God

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J.   After reading selections from various scholars, the purpose was to answer the question: "Using hermeneutical theory, what would you say about Jesus' miracles today?"

Thesis: Regardless of one’s hermeneutical theory, the miracles in the New Testament convey the message of the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God.

The point of the New Testament miracles (and also those today) were not merely a display of ability to suspend the laws of nature, they were to show the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. This was certainly the case at the level of the historical Jesus (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20) and the goal of the evangelists communicating this inbreaking to their various communities. As Wright states, “He never performed mighty works simply to impress. He saw them as part of the inauguration of the sovereign and healing rule of…God.”[1] The burning question remains, however, regarding the historicity of such events. The approach taken by both Meier and Vermes, in line with a Hirschian hermeneutic, both want to put off the philosophical/theological question of divine influence, and merely examine these events as historians, trying to assemble some “core” which does go back to the ministry of Jesus.[2] Meier certainly presents a compelling case using the criteria to support the miracle corpus at large, especially multiple attestation (619-623). Both Meier and Vermes rightly recognize that a person’s worldview will ultimately determine his answer to the philosophical/theological question.[3] Vermes presents interesting parallels to Hanina ben Dosa(115-116), however his theological presuppositions preclude him from seeing the purpose of Jesus miracles as demonstrating the inbreaking of the Kingdom. These presuppositions also lead him to conclude that Jesus was “Galilean hasid” who was inept in halakhic matters (118). While Jesus may have been cognizant of this paradigm and while the idea may have been on the minds of the evangelists, to conclude that Jesus was only this, is to misunderstand his self-proclaimed purposes, namely the Kingdom demonstrated.

Schillebeeckx’s approach is one based more on Gadamer. He is not as concerned with the historical level of Jesus so much as what the evangelists want to communicate by the miracle accounts.[4] This also reaches into our day, “…Jesus…healed…what does that mean for humankind” (181). Schillebeeckx may overstress the dualistic nature of the miracles accounts, but his overarching point is clear, they represent the time of salvation, realized eschatology (185), God’s rule visible on earth (189). The in breaking Kingdom is our take-away point just as it was for the first century audience.

[1] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 165.
[2] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York; Doubleday, 1991), 617. (In-text citations from this point on).
[3] Geza Vermes, “Jesus the Jew” in Jesus’ Jewishness: Exploring the place of Jesus in Early Judaism (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 108-109. (In-text citations from this point on). See also Meier, A Marginal Jew, 509, 514.
[4] Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York: Crossroad, 1979), 181. (In-text citations from this point on).

Jesus: Existential and Political

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. The purpose of the paper was to evaluate the interpretive approach used by Jürgen Moltmann based on Rudolph Bultmann's existentialist hermeneutic and Dorothee Soelle's political (read: "social") hermeneutic.

Thesis: Because of Moltmann’s historical-theological interpretation of Jesus, he is faithful both to existentialist and political hermeneutics.

In Bultmann’s chapter on modern interpretation and existentialism, he first reminds us that presuppositions of interpreters always guide exegesis.[1] Bultmann demonstrates his own metacognitive ability by acknowledging that his exegesis is based on a separate philosophical system. While his existentialist hermeneutic may seem subjective, Bultmann recognizes the need to ground interpretation in good historical investigation (52). What makes Bultmann’s hermeneutic especially appealing is that meaning as existence is imparted to the interpreter (53), “my personal relationship with God can be made real by God only, by the acting God who meets me in his word” (59).

Soelle’s criticism of Bultmann certainly has its merit. She rightly questions whether biblical interpretation can be apolitical,[2] and, while she recognizes that salvation through forgiveness of sins concerns the individual (42) she accuses the existentialist hermeneutic as being reduced to only individual (42, 45). She accuses existentialist philosophy of doing exactly what Bultmann first warns against, not recognizing one’s presuppositions (B, 46; S, 45). While Bultmann may miss social aspects of interpretation, Soelle perhaps over-stresses these social aspects.

There is a key within Jürgen Molmann’s work that can reconcile this conundrum. It lies with his historical-theological Christology, especially seen in light of “pneumatological Christology.” For Moltmann, understanding the Spirit as defining Jesus’ person and the agent of his power is most important.[3] The prominence of Spirit in Moltmann’s Christology is seen in Jesus’ birth and baptism (78-94). While acknowledging his a priori position of faith, he makes an excellent point that we are interpreting the history of living person, since Christ is alive today (75). Comparing Jesus and John the Baptist, he says, “[the] special feature of pneumatological Christology is its openness for the activity of the self-same Spirit beyond the person and history of Jesus Christ.” If we allow the comparison to reach into our present day, we can find the connection with Bultmann, as it is the same Spirit who works through the faithful believer to interpret the scriptures. Moltmann also recognizes the social aspects like Soelle and implications of Jesus’ life. This can be seen through Jesus’ association with the outcasts (112-116), “he is the brother of the poor, the comrade of the people, the friend of the forsaken, the sympathizer with the sick…” (149).

[1] Rudolph Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1958), 46,48. (In-text citations from this point on). 
[2] Dorthee Soelle, Political Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 42. (In-text citations from this point on).
[3] Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 74. (In-text citations from this point on).

Evangelicals and Catholics: The Pope and the Bible

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. The purpose of the paper was to analyze the Pope’s hermeneutical stance and his treatment of the various epithets of Jesus found in the gospels.

This post is also included in the Evangelicals and Catholics series as a way to disabuse many of my Protestant brethren of (or at least spawn more conversation regarding) the notion that Catholics are not interested in Scripture or scripturally based theological inquiry.

Thesis: While using the historical method, the Pope feels free to move beyond it to theological interpretation, showing the epithets of Jesus to reveal his oneness with God, which has eschatological implications.

Pope Benedict’s hermeneutical stance is one largely shaped by E.D. Hirsch. He praises the historical-critical method and says that it is an indispensable tool[1]. This method can also be seen by his exegetical process in the discussion of the different titles of Jesus. However, he also departs from a purely historical stance and seems to incorporate Ricoeur-like ideas as well. For example, he emphasizes the position that what we have in the gospels is the “‘historical’ Jesus in the strict sense of the word” (xxii). Therefore, he is not interested in getting behind the text to find the “real” Jesus; he emphasizes that what we have is the text (the real Jesus). In addition, reminiscent of Ricoeur’s idea of distanciation he posits that “we can never go beyond the domain of hypothesis, because we simply cannot bring the past into the present” (xvii). The Pope wants to depart from strict historical investigation and move to theological interpretation which he rightly and poignantly admits requires faith (xxiii).

The three epithets which Pope Benedict explores all serve the function of displaying the oneness between Jesus and the Father (homoousios) (320). His exegesis of these three epithets outline the orthodox position: conveying Jesus divinity be association and identification with the Father. In light of the other reading in this course, these titles also convey an eschatological meaning. By using the term “Son of Man,” Jesus reveals his true identity and conceals it in mystery at the same time, analogous to many of his teachings (324). For those who had ears to hear, the loud allusion to Daniel 7 would have carried with it clear eschatological meaning concerning “the coming kingdom of salvation” (327). Pope Benedict provides a great example of this by exploring the story of the paralytic (331). This works well with Wright’s notion of the “inauguration” of the Kingdom. The designation “Son of God” also performs the function of linking Jesus to Father (344), and also brought with it political implications, albeit yet remaining an apolitical system (339). The “I am” statements also “show the inseparability of Father and Son” (348) by screaming in allusion back to the burning bush episode (349). These three titles have roots in OT texts yet are fulfilled in Jesus “as if they had been waiting for him” (354).

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration (trans. Adrian J. Walker; New York: Doubleday, 2007), xvi. (In-text citations from this point on). 
[2] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 191. (In-text citations from this point on).

Can a Text Mean What it Never Meant?

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. The purpose of the paper was to engage two hermeneutical  theorists: E.D. Hirsch, and Paul Ricoeur to see which approach was more helpful in interpreting Jesus.

Thesis: Hirsch’s interpretive approach is more useful for interpreting Jesus because his methodological emphasis on honest historical investigation into the author’s permanent textual meaning gives a stronger foundation for the hermeneutical process.

Can a text mean what it never meant? For Ricoeur, the answer is in the affirmative. Ricoeur is certainly helpful in the way he describes the pathway of the life of a text. In the first stage he sees the discourse-event as immediately causing distanciation.[1] The crux of Ricoeur’s argument comes when discourse is written down, “what the text signifies no longer coincides with what the author meant; textual meaning and psychological meaning have different destinies” (R, 139). The goal of interpretation for Ricoeur then, is the decontextualization and recontextualization into a new situation (R, 139). This is what he calls appropriation, “to make one’s own what was initially alien” (R, 185). For Ricoeur absolute knowledge is impossible making appropriation over the distanciation of the text the only viable hermeneutic (R, 193).

Hirsch, on the other hand, asserts that there can be permanent meaning found in authorial intent. For Hirsch textual meaning does not change over time, therefore it cannot be used “creatively” to propagate a “specific viewpoint.”[2] He rightly points out that if textual meaning is changing, it does not free readers from historicism but “destroys the basis for agreement…and objective study” Of course the question with holding to a permanent textual meaning is: how does appropriation work? Hirsch deals with this by recognizing that even with a permanent meaning, the authorial mind could not have been privy to specific implications (H, 220). Hirsch’s discussion on verification provides the framework in which this hermeneutic would work. He recognizes that the interpreter can never be certain of a correct reading, but that he can show relative probability (H, 235-236) based on the criteria of legitimacy, correspondence, generic appropriateness, and coherence (H, 236-237). While this seems negative, it allows humility on the part of the interpreter to allow for correction from the greater community of interpreters.

[1]. Paul Ricoeur, “The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation” and “Appropriation” in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (ed. J. B. Thompson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 132-133. (In-text citations from this point on).

[2]. E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 209-212. (In-text citations from this point on).

NT Wright ~ Jesus as Prophet

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. The point was to compare the two different presentations of Jesus as a prophet as set fourth by E.P. Sanders in Jesus and Judaism and by N.T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God.

Thesis: Because of a more comprehensive methodology, Wright more adequately presents Jesus as an eschatological prophet who inaugurated the Kingdom. The presuppositions of both Sanders and Wright certainly show through in each of their presentations of Jesus as a prophet. Sanders’ “historian’s” view seems reductionistic and lifeless,[1] while Wright’s position of faith presents a more orthodox understanding. However, even with their various presuppositions, Wright presents a more methodologically sound picture. Sanders’ fixation on Jesus’ actions in the temple is a cause for concern. While it is certainly very important in the life of Jesus, and John starts with this action (though Sanders only mentions this in passing), should this be the starting and central point for the interpretation of Jesus as prophet, as he says? (S, 61) Wright, on the other hand, evaluates other aspects of Jesus’ ministry (e.g. parables, mighty works, etc.) The merit in Sanders’ position lies in his rejection of Jesus’ action as “cleansing” (S, 66-69), and that Jesus would not have called for doing away with sacrifice (S, 64) though the wholesale jettisoning of “den of robbers” should be questioned. Sanders, rightly sees the symbolic nature of the action as prefiguring the temple’s destruction (S, 70). His ultimate flaw, however, is in advancing his position purely as a historian (S, 327). It seems he wants to psychoanalyze Jesus’ own expectations regarding the new temple to be delivered by God (S, 75) and the rest of the restoration of Israel (S, 226-227). 

Methodologically, Wright seems to draw on more source material (the triple tradition) for his interpretation.[2] What Sanders has low on his list of certainty (S, 326), Wright highlights, namely, Jesus’ words and deeds as displays of the Kingdom. This is seen in Wright’s presentation of Jesus as an “oracular-leadership” prophet. Firstly, Wright rightly discusses the continuation of prophecy in Jesus day and that he modeled his own prophetic ministry after the OT prophets (W, 166-167). Jesus, by combining these two categories of prophets (W, 169), was doing something new. He blended eschatological teachings (parables) with symbolic actions (new exodus, healings, temple, etc.). The parables, for Jesus, were not only teaching tools, but signs of the Kingdom’s inauguration (W, 180-181). The “mighty works” were used by Jesus and seen by his audience as part of the restoration and the inauguration of the Kingdom (W, 191). Ultimately, by “the stories he told and acted out he envisaged his own work as bringing Israel’s history to its fateful climax. He really did believe he was inaugurating the kingdom” (W, 197).

[1]  E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 320. (In-text citations from this point on).
[2]  N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 165. (In-text citations from this point on).

Evangelicals and Catholics: Introduction to a New Series

I have always been interested in the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals; and on the larger scale between the Catholic Church, and the various forms of Protestantism. From a very early age I was very ecumenically minded (developmentally appropriate for what ecumenism means to an 8 year old, of course). I remember one day while playing at friend’s house, one of the kids in our group asked my friend, “What religion are you?” “Protestant.” He responded. I found myself very confused. I had never heard the word “Protestant” before. I knew he occasionally attended our church, and my mother and his were longtime friends. And I knew what religion I was: I was a Christian! I was surprised that he did not answer with “Christian.” I think we spent the next few minutes arguing over whether he as a Protestant or a Christian. This story of course shows both of our youthful theological naiveté, and I think my mom cleared up the confusion when I got home, but from then on I remember being fascinated by all the different brands and flavors of Christianity, and how it is still all Christianity.

One of my sets of grandparents was Catholic. I remember attending mass with them and my mom sometimes when they came to visit us, or when we went to visit them. We still went even though my mom was no longer a practicing Catholic. I remember one particular instance as the congregation was preparing to celebrate the Eucharist my mother gave me a quick 1 minute catechesis crash course. I had never taken communion in Catholic Church before; I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t even know that according to official position of the (Catholic) Church I wasn’t supposed to take communion. So like any good boy, I did what my mom told me to do. She told me to cup my hands and when the priest put the wafer in my hand and said, “the Body of Christ” to say “Amen.” And that is how I took my first communion (in the Catholic Church anyway). The incident set me on a long road comparing and contrasting the two branches of Christianity.

In high school, I became friends with a girl who was a devout Catholic. Throughout those years I continued to consider the differences, similarities, strengths and weaknesses of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Together we started and led an ecumenical morning prayer and bible study group at our high school. In college, I began the long road of my formal theological training, studying church history gave me a historical framework for dealing with these issues. Catholic-Protestant discussions were a common theme at Gordon, inside and outside of the classroom. During this time also, one of my college friends was thinking about “converting” from Protestantism to Catholicism. While in seminary, I had an opportunity to work for a ministry that did many programs in a Catholic parish, including leading their confirmation programs. Imagine an evangelical teaching Youth Alpha to 50 Catholic teens as part of their confirmation requirement! Now, I am pursuing a Master of Theology with a concentration in biblical studies at Boston College, a Catholic institution. To the amazement of many Protestants, Catholics actually do read their bibles!

The relationship between Catholics and Protestants and their respective faith communities has always been am interest of mine. Therefore, I am starting a new series on this blog to think about and dialogue through some of these issues. I look forward to the results!

Is the Quest for the Historical Jesus Historically Possible? Is it Theologically Necessary?

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. Along with answering the above question, interaction was required with selections from Schubert M. Ogden's The Point of Christology, and John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew.

Thesis: Insofar as we have appropriately defined it, the quest for the historical Jesus is both historically possible and theologically necessary.

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). This statement by Paul shows the theological necessity of grounding Christology in history. The need for a historical resurrection goes beyond the existential gleanings from vague “Christian-kerygma.”[1] As Ebeling put it, “if faith in him were shown to be a misunderstanding…the ground would be taken out from under Christian faith" (In Ogden, 50). Defining “historically possible” is important. Meier rightly highlights the distinction between the “real” Jesus, which, as with any historical figure, cannot be fully realized, and the “reasonably complete” Jesus, which is historically achievable.[2] The issue of sources, methodology, and historiography are thus to the fore. Contrary to Ogden’s position (Ogden, 54), the sources, primarily the four canonical gospels, do present an accurate depiction of Jesus, albeit laconic and with various theological emphases. Of course the intent of all of the gospel narratives was theological rather than purely historical, however, theologizing within a gospel account does not categorically discredit its historicity. In regard to the methodology of criteria: because of the extreme diversity of opinion among scholars regarding the use, primacy, and limits of the various criteria, it is safe to conclude that they cannot guarantee a pericope as either authentic or inauthentic; they can serve merely as helpful pointers that increase likelihood of authenticity. When they are used too stringently, however, they are limiting and exclusive. The use of criteria must be “more of an art than a science” (Meier, 184).

The philosophy of our collective historiography needs to be examined. Ogden rightly distinguishes between minimalist/maximalist (Ogden, 115), and a healthy middle ground seems to do a scholar well. However, Bultmann’s wholesale minimalist skepticism is most unhelpful, “we can know almost nothing concerning…Jesus” (In Meier, 28). At some point, there needs to be some level of trust in our documents that while theological are also historical. If this trust does not exist, we should not even bother with history, but the greater loss would be a futile faith.

---

[1] Schubert M. Ogden, The Point of Christology (San Francisco; Harper & Row, 1982), 51. (In-text citations from this point on).

[2] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York; Doubleday, 1991), 24. (In-text citations from this point on).