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).
Showing posts with label Synoptic Gospels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Synoptic Gospels. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Sunday, September 30, 2012
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).
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).
Thursday, June 28, 2012
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
