gregoryjenks

Author: Gregory C. Jenks

  • Second Sunday of Advent (8 December 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Isaiah 11:1-10 and Psalm 72:1-7, 18-19
    • Romans 15:4-13
    • Matthew 3:1-12

    John the Baptist

    On the Second Sunday of Advent the figure of John the Baptizer takes central stage.

    For further information about John elsewhere in these wiki pages, see:

    John in the Jesus Tradition

    The judgments of the Jesus Seminar on various aspects of the John the Baptist tradition may be of interest. For a complete discussion of the Seminar’s views on John the Baptist, see the special report by Barnes Tatum, John the Baptist and Jesus: A report of the Jesus Seminar.

    • JBap baptized with water
    • JBap preached
    • JBap’s characteristic activities took place in the wilderness
    • JBap preached baptism
    • JBap’s baptism was a form of Jewish immersion rite
    • JBap administered baptism himself
    • JBap’s baptism was done in flowing water
    • JBap’s baptism was understood to express repentance
    • JBap’s baptism was understood to mediate God’s forgiveness
    • JBap’s baptism was understood to be a protest against the temple establishment
    • JBap’s baptism was understood to purify from uncleanness
    • JBap’s baptism was understood as an initiation into a Jewish sectarian movement
    • JBap’s baptism was understood to foreshadow an expected figure’s baptism.
    • JBap taught repentance
    • JBap taught repentance apart from baptism
    • Mark 1:4 and Matt 3:2 summarize the message of JBap
    • JBap spoke the words in Mark 1:7, Luke 3:16b and Matt 3:11b
    • JBap spoke the words in Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16a,c and Matt 3:11a,c
    • JBap spoke the words in Luke 3:17 and Matt 3:12
    • JBap spoke the words in Luke 3:7-9 and Matt 3:7-10
    • JBap spoke the words in Luke 3:11
    • JBap spoke the words in Luke 3:13
    • JBap spoke the words in Luke 3:14
    • JBap spoke the words reported in John 1:15
    • JBap spoke the words reported in John 1:23
    • JBap spoke the words reported in John 1:29
    • JBap spoke the words reported in John 1:32-34
    • JBap spoke the words reported in John 3:27-30
    • JBap’s exhortations and activities had a widespread appeal.
    • In response, people repented
    • In response, people were baptized
    • JBap had disciples
    • Pharisees came to hear JBap
    • Sadducees came to hear JBap
    • Toll collectors came to hear JBap
    • Soldiers came to hear JBap
    • JBap was part of a broader baptizing phenomenon or movement
    • JBap was an Essene
    • JBap was a member (or former member) of the Qumran community
    • JBap was a former Essene
    • JBap was a lone Jewish sage or holy man (like Bannus)
    • JBap imitated Elijah
    • JBap acted as a prophet
    • JBap was an apocalyptic preacher
    • JBap was perceived as a hellenistic moralist
    • JBap’s locale overlaps that of Jesus
    • JBap’s time overlaps that of Jesus
    • Jesus began his public ministry at the time JBap was imprisoned

    John the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew

    GMatthew comes from late in the 1C: typically dated somewhere in the 80s and seen as reflecting to some extent the tensions as the followers of Jesus diverged from the Torah-observant Jewish neighbors in the final quarter of the first century. Matthew used Mark as a primary source for his basic narrative, supplementing that storyline with the more extensive traditions of Jesus’ teaching in the Sayings Gospel Q. As there is no reason to think that Matthew used Luke or John, this gospel may preserve a distinctive view of Jewish Christianity and of John the Baptist.

    • Unlike Luke, Matthew makes no reference to John the Baptist or his parents (Zechariah and Elizabeth) in his infancy narrative.
    • Matthew, then, does not treat Jesus and John as cousins.
    • Matthew 3:1-12 introduces John at the commencement of Jesus’ public activity:

    Verses 1-6 reconfigure the material in Mark 1:2-6,14-15. In the process, Matthew corrects Mark’s mistaken attribution of Malachi 3:1 to Isaiah and omits the words not found in Isaiah. There appears to be no significant difference in their view of John.
    Verses 7-10 draw on the Q Gospel for a brief resume of John’s message, with very similar words being found in Luke 3:7-9. Matthew does not present the instructions to special interest groups (including tax-collectors and soldiers) that we find attributed to John in Luke 3:10-14.
    Verses 11-12 portray John as the precursor who was consciously preparing the crowds for the more powerful one coming after him. Matthew supplements the tradition from Mark with a Q saying about the winnowing fork that the Coming One will wield as he separates the wheat from the chaff.

    • Where Luke immediately follows this scene with an expurgated reference to John’s death at the orders of Herod Antipas, Matthew follows the example of Mark and deals with the death of John later in the narrative (Matt 14:3-12).
    • All three Synoptic Gospels then recount the story of Jesus’ baptism by John. Matthew’s significant variation to the Markan story is to add a discourse in which Jesus re-assures John that his baptism is approprirate despite his personal virtue:

    John would have prevented him, saying,
    “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
    But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so for now;
    for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.”
    Then he consented. [Matt 3:14-15]

    • The only other significant Matthean change is to clarify that “the Spirit” that descended like a dove was “the Spirit of God” (3:16).
    • John’s arrest is mentioned in Matt 4:12, closely following the information found in Mark 1:14.
    • The question about fasting (Matt 9:14-17) reflects an awareness that the practices of John’s disciples were similar to those of the Pharisees, while those of Jesus and his followers were distinctively less ascetical. Jesus’ reply implies that he is the bridegroom, while John was a figure of lesser significance.
    • John’s question to Jesus (Matt 11:2-6 = Luke 7:18-23) forms the first part of an extended discussion of the relative significance of these two figures. From his prison, John sends disciples to ask whether Jesus is “the one who is to come” or whether they should wait for another? In response Jesus cites his miracles of deliverance (for the blind, the lame, lepers, the deaf, the dead and the poor) and pronounces a beatuitude on anyone who takes no offence at him.
    • Jesus’ words about John then follow immediately (Matt 11:7-19) just as they do in Luke 7. John’s special significance is developed using the symbol of Elijah, whose return was anticipated by some Jews as a precursor to the arrival of the Messiah. Unlike Matthew, Luke avoided identifying John with Elijah since he was going to apply the motif of Elijah’s ascent to heaven and the outpouring of his spirit on Elisha to empower Elisha for ministry to the ascension of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.
    • Herod fears Jesus is John redivivus in Matt 14:1-2 (=Mark 6:14-16 = Luke 9:7-9), and this provides Matthew with the opportunity to recount the story of John’s execution. Matthew’s version is a simpler form of the more detailed story found in Mark 6:17-29. The only point where Matthew elaborates the version found in Mark is when he adds a setence about Herod’s high regard for John:

    Though Herod wanted to put him to death,
    he feared the crowd,
    because they regarded him as a prophet. [Matt 14:5]

    • Jesus learns of John’s death in a scene that is unique to Matthew:

    Then [the disciples of John] went and told Jesus.
    Now when Jesus heard this,
    he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself. [Matt 14:12b-13a]

    • The confession at Caesrea Philippi (Matt 16:13-23 = Mark 8:27-33 = Luke 9:18-22) includes a mention of the belief that Jesus was in some sense a resurrected John the Baptist:

    [Jesus] asked his disciples,
    “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
    And they said, “Some say John the Baptist,
    but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” [Matt 16:13b-14]

    • The interpretation of John as Elijah (already mentioned above) is the main focus of Matt 17:9-13, which follows Mark 9:9-13 but which Luke was to entirely omit for reasons already cited:

    As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them,
    “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
    And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
    He replied, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things;
    but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him,
    but they did to him whatever they pleased.
    So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.”
    Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

    • John the Baptist makes a final appearance in Matthew when Jesus is questioned over the source of his authority:

    When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet.” So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. [Matt 21:23-27 = Mark 11:27-33 = Luke 20:1-8]

    From this brief review of the way that John the Baptist functions in Matthew’s Gospel, we can see that Matthew follows Mark more closely than Luke was to do. In Matthew, John the Baptist is clearly a figure of lesser significance. While not the subject of his own birth narratives (as in Luke), John has considerable dignity as the Elijah figure who comes to prepare for the arrival of the Coming One. The underlying unity of the Baptist and Jesus communities is reflected in the frequent references to Jesus as a resurrected John, in the assumption that they shared similar prophetic status, and in the questions over their (surprisingly?) differing attitudes to fasting.

    Jesus Database

    • 051 Into the Desert – (1) GThom. 78; (2) 2Q: Luke 7:24-27 = Matt 11:7-10; (3) Mark 1: 2-3 = Matt 3:3 = Luke 3:4-6 =(?) John 1:19-23
    • 115 Johns Message – (1a) 2Q: Luke 3:15-18= Matt 3:11-12; (1b) Acts 13:24-25; (1c) John 1:24-31; (2) Mark 1:7-8
    • 137 Johns Warning – (1) 2Q: Luke 3:7-9a = Matt 3:7-10b
    • 213 John the Baptist – (1a) Mark 1:4-6 = Matt 3:1,4-6 = Luke 3:1-3; (1b) GEbi. 2-3a
    • 214 Kingdom and Repentance – (1a) Mark 1:14-15 = Matt 4:12,17 = Luke 4:14-15 =(?) John 4:1-3; (1b) Matt 3:2

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Salah al-Din coins at Bethsaida

    Some news about the two Islamic coins recovered from Area T at Bethsaida in 2012.

    Yesterday I met with Ariel Berman in Kiryat Tivon. He had identified the two coins found in Area T during the 2012 season at Bethsaida (et-Tel).

    The first of those (IAA 138739, Basket 31013) is a coin from Al-Nasir Yusuf Salah al-Din (aka, Saladin), and dates to 1189 CE – just 12-18 months after his decisive victory over the Crusader forces at the Horns of Hattin. The coin was minted in Damascus.

    The other coin (IAA 138740, Basket 31016) is from just a few years later: 1193 CE. It is also a coin issued by Salah al-Din and minted at Damascus, but this time from the final year of his rule.

    Although Ariel Berman had not yet received the coins from the 2013 season from IAA, I was able to show him high quality photographs of the coins on my iPad. He immediately identified several of the coins from Area T in 2013 as also being from this period and from the subsequent Mamluk period.

    It seems that I now have a new research project to study the period of Salah al-Din in more detail, and then to consider the significance of Ayyubid and Mamluk occupation at et-Tel. We may well have an entirely new level of occupation for the site, from the late 12C through to the 16C, and Berman suggested to me that the site was a base for veterans of the victorious Muslim forces after the Crusaders were defeated in the Galilee.

    It will be very good to have formal identifications of the coins from 2013 once Ariel Berman has had an opportunity to see them.

  • First Sunday of Advent (1 December 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Isaiah 2:1-5 & Psalm 122
    • Romans 13:11-14
    • Matthew 24:36-44

    Beginning the Year of Matthew

    This Sunday marks the transition to Year A of the three year cycle of readings, with Matthew taking the lead role in our liturgical listening to the voice of Jesus as mediated through the Gospels.

    This may be an opportune time to note the major variations in the way Matthew tells the Jesus story, relative to Mark and Luke.

    Matthew is a significantly longer than Mark, and roughly the same length as Luke and John. It is therefore of interest to see how Matthew used the additional space available for his account, as well as noting how the choices made by Matthew differed from those made by Luke and John.

    See the Synoptic Gospels Primer site developed by Mahlon Smith for detailed discussion of some information presented here.

    Separate
    Matt
    Mark
    Luke
    verses
    1068
    661
    1098
    scenes
    117
    95
    120
    sayings
    225
    80
    182

    According to Mahlon Smith, 35 of these scenes and 38 of the sayings are unique to Matthew; while 77 of the sayings are found only in Matthew and Luke (mostly representing the lost Sayings Gospel Q). The core of the Synoptic tradition, of course, is to be observed in the basic narrative structure that they have in common.

    Common Synoptic Outline

    The outline common to all 3 synoptics is:

    • John the Baptist’s appearance & message
    • Jesus baptized
    • Jesus tested
    • Jesus preaches in Galilee
    • Cures & exorcisms
    • Social controversies (meals & sabbath observance)
    • Interpretation of parables
    • 5000 fed
    • Peter identifies Jesus as Messiah
    • Jesus’ death & disciples’ persecution predicted
    • Jesus transformed
    • Exorcism
    • 2nd prediction of Jesus’ fate
    • Jesus goes to Judea
    • Jesus summons children
    • Call to abandon possessions & follow Jesus
    • 3rd prediction of Jesus’ fate.
    • Blind cured
    • Jesus enters Jerusalem
    • Temple purged
    • Jesus questioned by Jerusalem authorities
    • Destruction of temple predicted
    • Judas Iscariot cooperates with temple authorities
    • Jesus celebrates Passover meal
    • Jesus arrested at Gethsemane
    • Trial by Sanhedrin
    • Peter denies Jesus
    • Trial by Pontius Pilate
    • Crucifixion
    • Burial by Joseph of Arimathea
    • Women discover empty tomb (told to report to disciples).

    Materials unique to Matthew

    With such a strong common story line, the points where Matthew differs from Mark and/or Luke become especially significant for gaining an insight into that gospel’s interpretation of Jesus and, by implication, its understanding of Christianity.

    The materials unique to Matthew include the following. (The divisions follow Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels. Material in common with Luke is in plain font, while material without parallels in Luke is in bold.)

    • Infancy Narrative (no parallel in Mark and a different tradition in Luke)

    1:1-17 Genealogy of Jesus
    1:18-25 Birth of Jesus
    2:1-12 Visit of the Wise Men
    2:13-23 Flight into Egypt + Killing of the Babies + Return from Egypt

    • The Sermon on the Mount (mostly paralleled in Luke but rarely in Mark)

    5:1-2 Introduction
    5:3-13 Beatitudes
    5:13-16 Parables of Salt and Light
    5:17-20 Jesus and the Law
    5:21-26 On Anger
    5:27-30 On Adultery
    5:31-32 On Divorce
    5:33-37 On Swearing
    5:38-42 On Retaliation
    5:43-48 On Love of Enemies
    6:1-4 On Almsgiving
    6:5-8 On Prayer
    6:9-15 Lord’s Prayer
    6:13-18 On Fasting
    6:19-21 On Treasures
    6:22-23 The Sound Eye
    6:24 Serving Two Masters
    6:25-34 On Anxiety
    7:1-5 On Judging
    7:6 On Profaning the Holy
    7:7-11 On Answers to Prayer
    7:12 The Golden Rule
    7:13-14 The Narrow Gate
    7:15-20 The Test of a Good Person
    7:21-23 On Self-Deception
    7:24-27 Hearers and Doers of the Word
    7:28-29 Conclusion to the Sermon

    • Controversies and Miracles (many with parallels in Luke)

    8:5-13 The Centurion’s Servant
    10:40-11:1 John’s Questions to Jesus
    11:20-24 Woes to Unrepentant Cities
    11:25-27 Jesus’ Thanksgiving to the Father
    11:28-30 Comfort for the Weary
    12:43-45 Return of the Unclean Spirit
    13:16-17 Blessedness of the Disciples
    13:24-30 Parable of the Weeds
    13:33 Parable of the Yeast
    13:36-43 Interpretation of Parable of Weeds
    13:44-46 Parables of Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl
    13:47-50 Parable of the Net
    13:51-52 Treasures New and Old
    17:24-27 Temple Tax
    18:10-14 Parable of the Lost Sheep
    18:15-20 On Reproving Another Believer
    18:21-22 On Forgiveness
    18:23-25 Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
    20:1-16 Parable of Laborers in Vineyard
    21:28-32 Parable of the Two Sons
    22:1-14 Parable of the Wedding Banquet
    23:1-36 Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees
    23:37-39 Jesus Laments over Jerusalem
    24:26-28 The Day of the Son of Man
    24:37-41 Sudden Appearing of the Son of Man
    24:42-44 The Watchful House Owner
    24:45-51 The Faithful and Wise Slave
    25:31-36 The Last Judgment

    • Passion Narrative

    27:3-10 The Death of Judas
    27:52-53 Dead Patriarchs Raised from their Tombs
    27:62-66 The Guard at the Tomb
    28:11-15 The Bribing of the Soldiers
    28:16-20 The Commissioning of the Disciples

    This list does not account for the many points where Matthew edits the tradition copied from Mark, nor does it pick up the way that Matthew likes to provide a biblical citation for key events or themes. However, it may serve as a useful way to orient ourselves to Matthew’s distinctive interests as we begin Year A. We shall then have many opportunities to note how these tendencies work out in specific passages.

    Despite its interest in the implications of Jesus for the practice of Jewish life, Matthew has a special interest in the place of the Gentiles. Foreigners come from afar to welcome the newborn Jesus, and his final words are to commission his followers to make disciples of all nations. The inclusive and liberating activity of Jesus is overshadowed by violence from birth to death, just as Matthew’s readers were themselves living under the shadow of an aggressive empire and alongside Torah-observant Jews who regarded the Jesus people with suspicion.

    Jesus Database

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    • Hark the glad sound – TiS 269
    • God has spoken through his prophets – TiS 158
    • Mine eyes have seen – TiS 315
    • God gives us a future – TiS 687

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Does the Bible have a future?

    Thursday, 21 November, 0900–1030

    Text for an introductory presentation to a panel at the Ninth International Sabeel Conference, Jerusalem on Thursday,21  November 2013. [video]

    The conference organisers indicated as follows:

    This panel discussion arises out of the following critical awareness:

    Since the Bible has been used to support highly destructive moments of human history such as theft, slavery, murder, assassination, war, genocide, population transfers, forced conversions, and environmental degradation, perhaps the Bible is too dangerous for the masses. Maybe we should take it away from the laity and only allow it to be read and interpreted by professionals? Yet neither political leaders nor the church’s anointed have been free of biblically justified atrocities. Perhaps the Bible should be counter-balanced by other authorities such as scientific findings and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Can the Bible be redeemed and used as a source for human advancement, and if so, how?


    This panel has its theme, “Does the Bible have a future?” This is a very different kind of topic, and it plays into my own research and writing about the “once and future Bible.” It could be a theological diversion from the challenges of justice and peace, but perhaps it is also about asking what kind of ways we might imagine the Bible contributing to justice and peace, rather than promoting and endorsing violence and oppression.

    Let begin by noting a simple but significant error in the title of our panel and of our conference.

    The title refers to “the Bible,” but there is not ONE BIBLE. Rather there are many Bibles, as Yohanna reminded us yesterday morning.

    There is more than one form of the Bible and one expects there always will be, just as there is more than one expression of church. That diversity of Bible extends beyond the formal differences of content between Anglican, Armenian, Catholic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Jewish, Orthodox, Protestant and Syriac Bibles, since — even when we have the same set of books in our Bible — we may choose to read some parts while ignoring other parts.

    So much of the power talk around the Christian Scriptures speaks as if the Bible was a single thing, that exists in one agreed form and through which God speaks with one voice. I suggest that is simply not so. The Bible is diverse and God speaks through the Bible in many different voices.

    Yet so often our language about the Bible reflects an assumption that we all mean the Protestant Bible, as it emerged in NW Europe at the time of the Reformation. That particular form of the Bible is the Bible most of us know, but it is not the Bible of the Catholic Church nor of the Eastern rite churches. It is the Bible of the North Atlantic Theological Organisation, but it is not the only Bible. It is not the ancient Bible. And it is not the best Bible.

    I suggest, with as much humility and grace as I can muster, that the first thing about the future of the Bible that we need to embrace is that the Bible has always existed in multiple forms and that it will continue to do so. Our desire for certainty seduces us into thinking of the Bible as a single thing that speaks with one voice, and that plays into theological power games that — as we see in this land, but also in other lands — can have unjust outcomes for the people of the land, the am-haaretz, the little ones of God.

    So I have no doubt that Bible has a future, even if I find it hard to predict just what those futures of the Bible may be like.

    A further preliminary response to this topic would to ask why are we discussing this theological topic rather than a real topic? My own response to that comment is that, in my view, an authentic Christian response to occupation, dispossession and violence must be derived from our understanding of Jesus, and for that I need the Bible. Not because I will ever take the Bible literally, but because I must always take it seriously.

    So let me clear at the outset that I have no doubt that the Bible has a future. Indeed, I am sure that the Bible does have a future, but I do wonder whether it will be a future that serves the powers that be or a future in which the Bible functions as a prophetic text, calling us all to repentance, renewal and action?

    Let me also say that how this is future takes shape rests with the communities of faith for which the Bible serves as sacred text. Academics will not determine the future of the Bible. That will be determined by the people of God, in all their diversity.

    While I am sure that that the Bible has a future, I am not sure whether the future of the Bible will be toxic for humanity or a good thing for us all.

    For sure, I suggest, the toxicity of the Bible rises in direct correlation to its integration with the powers that be — whether those powers be inside the church or outside the church.

    Not every reading of the Bible is healthy and good for us. I wish I could promise that the future of the Bible is one characterised by life-affirming readings, but I fear that will not be the case. People of power will always find it expedient to co-opt and exploit the Bible for their own ends, while evading its prophetic claim upon our lives. In this respect, I have found the contributions by Nancy Cordoso Pereira to be challenging and transformative for me.

    As we reflect on this further, I would affirm that the Bible — in its diverse forms and with its diverse voices — is a key text for both victims and perpetrators, and will continue to be so unless we can change the ways in which people read the Bible. This suggests at least two different futures for the Bible: one that assists victims to use it more effectively, and another that disarms the Bible so that it cannot be used as a weapon of fear and hate.

    The trick is not to change or domesticate the Bible, but to change and empower the readers.

    So I invite you to think about the two sides of the coin for the future of the Bible: How to make it work better for the little people, and how to make it work not so well for (and even against) the powerful people.

    Some of the strategies will have both outcomes, so they are high value options.

    These would include:

    • Improving biblical literacy within the churches and in the wider community
    • Accessing contemporary critical biblical scholarship
    • Recognizing diversity within the Bible and attending to the minority voices
    • Acknowledging the dark side of the Bible
    • Celebrating the positive side of the Bible

    One key element will be reading the Bible contextually:

    • In its ancient historical contexts
    • Through its history of interpretation across the centuries
    • In our own contexts now
    • In the context of scientific insights and human rights values
    • In our multi faith context (as one religion among many, not as THE only true religion)

    If we can make progress across these issues, then for sure the Bible will not only have a future but it will be a future that brings healing and hope to all people

  • Last Sunday after Pentecost (Reign of Christ) (24 November 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Jeremiah 23:1-6 & Luke 1:68-79
    • Colossians 1:11-20
    • Luke 23:33-43

    Jesus Crucified

    There were almost 100 Seminar ballots on issues relating to the crucifixion tradition, including the historicity of the Passion Narrative and many of its component elements. For complete voting details see “The Jesus Seminar Voting Records: Passion Narrative” Forum (new series) 1.1 (Spring 1998) 227-233.

    Some of the key elements were assessed as follows:

    • Jesus was crucified
    • Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate
    • Jesus was crucified with the participation of the highest Jewish authorities
    • Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem
    • Jesus was crucified in some conjunction with Passover
    • Jesus was crucified at Golgotha

    The Seminar’s views on some of the elements found in this week’s Gospel were:

    • There was an inscription attached to the cross with the words, “King of the Jews.”
    • The two thieves came originally from Ps 21:17 (LXX) supported by Isa 53:12.
    • Casting lots for clothes is based on Ps 22:18.
    • Gall and vinegar to drink derives from Ps 69:21.
    • The episode in Luke 23:39-43 in which one of the criminals crucified beside Jesus believes in him is a report of an actual historical event.

    Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46

    The close literary relationship between the three synoptic Gospels can be seen in a horizontal line synopsis. It is clear that Luke has essentially followed Mark, except for his creative elaboration of the scene with the two thieves.

    There are three distinctive sayings attributed to Jesus in Luke’s version of the passion legend, and they were most likely not in the pre-Luke tradition:

    • The prayer for his tormentors to be forgiven as they did not know what they were doing is not found in some important MSS. It may have been added by a later scribe impressed with the similarities to Stephen’s death in Acts 7. The effect is to enhance the portrayal of Jesus as a Greek hero who goes to his death with courage and grace.
    • The promise of immediate participation in paradise for the penitent thief is found only in Luke.
    • Jesus’ prayerful commendation of his spirit to God’s care closely parallels the words of Stephen in Acts 7:59. Both Jesus and Stephen die as innocent heroes, and with their faith in God undiminished.

    On the festival of Christ the King, this passage highlights the character of Christ as a crucified king; and one meeting the needs of those around him even in his final moments. However, the promise of immediate participation in paradise is a strange promise to find on the lips of Jesus. The word “paradise” [Greek: paradeisos] occurs nowhere else in the Gospel tradition, and was originally a loan word adopted from Persian. It is found in just two other places in the NT:

    • 2 Cor 12:4 where Paul speaks obliquely of his own mystical experiences:

    It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven–whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person–whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows–was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.

    • RevJn 2:7 where those who are faithful are promised a share of the tree of life in the paradise of God:

    Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.
    To everyone who conquers, I will give permission to eat from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God.

    Luke’s account of the death of the noble King

    Luke’s description of Jesus as the quintessential Greek hero contrasts with the way Jesus is portrayed in the other Passion accounts. We catch a glimpse of these differences if we focus just on the final words of Jesus in each Gospel:

    Mark 15
    Matthew 27
    John 19
    Luke 23
    34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 46 And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 26–27 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”
        28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
    37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. 50 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 44–47 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, … Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last.

    While Matthew has stuck quite close to the account created by Mark, John and Luke each take considerable liberties as they develop the story’s potential as a classic scene in the final moment’s of their hero’s life:

    The Johannine Jesus has no sense of desolation, but rather sets about making the arrangements for his mother’s care. Knowing that Scripture must be fulfilled, John’s Jesus feigns thirst in order to prompt the mere mortals in the script to offer him a drink. Finally, in John 19 Jesus expires with a victory shout.

    Luke’s Jesus is even more the classical Greek hero. Jesus seeks divine forgiveness for those acting as executioners. He converts one of his fellow victims and offers him a place in heaven that very day. In stark contrast with the Jesus who feels himself abandoned by God, this Jesus deliberately commends his spirit into the Father’s hands and then breathes his last.

    Clearly we are not dealing with historical recollection, but with literary artistry.

    Jesus Database

    • 005 Crucifixion of Jesus – (1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) GPet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost (17 November 2013)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Isaiah 65:17-25 & Isaiah 12
    • 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13
    • Luke 21:5-19

    Good news for this side of death

    The oracles in the final few chapters of Isaiah are commonly thought to come from an anonymous prophet dealing with the disappointment of life in Jerusalem after the return from exile in Babylon. The hopes and promises of the central chapters of the Isaiah Scroll were not fulfilled. Yet the promise of “a new thing” is reclaimed and recycled in the lacklustre realities of Jerusalem ca 500 BCE.

    What catches my spiritual breath as I encounter these ancient texts again this year is not the hope for divine intervention. That is little more than whistling in the dark, but if it helps us to cope with the shadows and does not drive us to harm others, it serves a positive purpose. Rather, what engages my attention is the confidence that poverty and social disadvantage are entirely incompatible with the reign of God. Note these amazing words in verses 20-22 of this week’s OT reading:

    No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days,
    or an old person who does not live out a lifetime;
    for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth,
    and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed.
    They shall build houses and inhabit them;
    they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
    They shall not build and another inhabit;
    they shall not plant and another eat;
    for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
    and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. (Isaiah 65:20–22 NRSV)

    Here is a bold vision of the good life, the blessed life. While ever social disadvantage exists among us we have not yet attained the final intention of God for humanity.

    So much religious effort is directed to assuaging our fear of death, yet the prophets would have us work for justice on this side of death. Now that would be good news for our world, if only the religious communities would embrace this radical social agenda. Imagine what an impact we could have on our politicians and our neighbours if we practised a religion that was more concerned about enjoying God’s blessings on this side of death, rather than securing fire insurance for the other side of death.

    Gospel: Jesus and the Temple

    At the heart of this week’s Gospel lies an ancient oracle of Jesus about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

    The following photographs show excavations down to a first-century street adjacent to the temple in Jerusalem.

    FIRST PHOTO (looking south): part of the Herodian structure on which the temple itself was located (to the left), the remains of some shops (to the right, about half way up) and broken blocks of limestone resulting from the conflagration when the temple was razed. The post-Crusader city walls are visible in the background.

    Fallen Stones.jpg

    SECOND PHOTO (looking north): the Herodian structure is now on the right, while the remains of ancient shops are more visible on the left, and the broken blocks of limestone are in the distance.

    WesternWallFromSouth.jpg

    The temple and its related activities had a profound economic and social impact in 1C Jerusalem, and its destruction by the Romans was a major setback for the city and for the Jewish community in the Roman world. For extracts from Josephus concerning Herod and the significance of the Temple project, see Mahlon H. Smith: Into His Own.

    The traditional material dealing with Jesus’ words about the temple’s fate is particularly complex. That, in itself, may be an indicator of the sensitivity of the core question for Jesus’ earliest followers and especially so after the Jewish War of 66/73CE ended with the temple in ruins. There seem to be four intertwined traditions that have an explicit reference to the fate of the temple:

    • A saying of Jesus threatening to destroy the temple
    • A saying where Jesus foretells the siege of the city and its destruction
    • A saying of Jesus predicting total destruction of the imposing structures (not one stone upon another)
    • An incident where Jesus threatened or symbolically enacted the destruction of the temple

    Marcus Borg devotes chapter 7 of his Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus to a discussion of Jesus and the Temple, with an extended treatment of the texts found in this cluster.

    He begins with a brief study of temple ideology in the Second Temple period, citing the interesting parallel from Paul in 1 Cor 3:16-17 which retains that traditional ideology even when reinterpreting “temple” as reference to the physical body of the Christian:

    Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
    If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person.
    For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

    Like Crossan (see below), Borg understands the “disruption in the Temple” as a prophetic or symbolic act (p. 182) that would never have been without some prophetic pronouncement to clarify its significance (p. 184).

    Borg then directs his attention to the prophetic saying as attested by the complex set of sayings relating to the fate of Jerusalem and its temple that are placed on the lips of Jesus in our sources. He identifies 8 texts as example of “words against the Temple” and works his way through them carefully. Four of these sayings (Mark 14:58; 15:29-30; John 2:19; Acts 6:14) speak of Jesus as the agent of the temple’s destruction and promise its replacement. They are also typically attributed to the enemies of Jesus. Another set of 4 sayings (Mark 13:2; Luke 19:42-44; 21:20-24; 13:34-35) are more likely to have originated from the prophetic oracle of Jesus that must have accompanied his symbolic act in the temple. Borg also associates the enigmatic “desolating sacrilege” saying with this group.

    … if Jesus did not prophesy about Jerusalem, then who was the insightful prophet in that generation [after him] who was responsible for both this concern and this use of the Hebrew Bible? Of course, the rhetorical question does not imply that the oracles contain the ipsissima verba Jesus, but it does imply that they reflect the ipsissima vox Jesus. Quite probably the Jesus movement and perhaps the evangelist reworked the language of the threats, but without an initial impulse from Jesus, it is difficult to account for their presence in the primitive tradition. (p. 203)

    Then Borg draws upon the sayings of Jesus that speak of a threat of war coming on the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Luke 13:1-5; 23:27-31; 17:31 (= Mark 13:14b-16); Matt 26:52b.

    Unlike Crossan, Borg observes that Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s destruction was not because Jesus opposed the temple:

    … the destruction was not threatened because of an in-principled objection to Temple worship … Indeed, about the role of the Temple in Jewish worship (including sacrifice), Jesus did not say much. There is only the vague notion of “another Temple” coming from the mouths of accusers and mockers. Though the early Christian movement rapidly spiritualized the understanding of the Temple … there is little evidence for this in the synoptics. They never report that Jesus opposed the Temple on the grounds that it was obsolete, or that he objected to sacrifice in principle. Indeed, about the Temple as cult there is silence. (p. 211)

    John Dominic Crossan [Historical Jesus, 354-60] begins by noting the work of Jonathan Z. Smith (“The Temple and the Magician,” 1977) who established that a deep tension between traditional sacred places and the emerging role of the sacred person was typical of hellenistic societies in the last two centuries before the Common Era. Crossan goes on to outline the structural conflict between Jesus and the temple as follows:

    Not only John the Baptist but, even more, Jesus, fit within that wider and profounder antinomy. John offered an alternative to the Temple but from another fixed location, from desert and Jordan rather than from Zion and Jerusalem. Jesus was, as we have seen, atopic, moving from place to place, he coming to the people rather than they to him. This is an even more radical challenge to the localized univocity of Jerusalem’s Temple, and its itinerancy mirrored and symbolized the egalitarian challenge of its protagonist. No matter, therefore, what Jesus thought, said, or did about the Temple, he was its functional opponent, alternative, and substitute; his relationship with it does not depend, at its deepest level, on this or that saying, this or that action. (p. 355)

    In seeking to unravel the complexities represented in this cluster of sayings, Crossan notes the “intensive damage control” to be observed in Mark 13, 14 and 15. Mark is at pains to argue that Jesus did not threaten to destroy the temple himself; only his enemies make that assertion in Mark’s Gospel while Jesus (in ch 13) pointedly schedules the destruction of Jerusalem some time prior to the parousia of the Son of Adam. Still, as Crossan observes, that Markan spin only seeks to underline the fact that in certain Christian circles prior to and contemporary with Mark, there had been a belief that Jesus had said or done something to threaten destruction of the temple and also that the destruction of the temple was understood to be associated with the parousia.

    Behind the confused set of sayings about the fate of the temple there lies the incident in which Jesus is described as taking some action to disrupt the functioning of the temple. We seem to have two independent versions of this tradition: Mark (with Matt and Luke parallels) and John (where it occurs near the start of Jesus’ ministry). Mark’s version makes it clear that this event was a prophetic condemnation of the temple, as the events in the temple are bracketed by the story of Jesus cursing a useless fig tree and then returning to find it withered and dead.

    Crossan proposes that there was some historical action by Jesus that symbolically destroyed the temple (at least to the extent of some disruption to its functioning), and that this action was accompanied by a prophetic saying by Jesus in which he foretold the complete and utter destruction of the site.

    Subsequently, according to Crossan, the story of the action in the temple developed with various biblical texts being drawn into service to explain and justify Jesus’ actions. Meanwhile the saying came to be reinterpreted as either a reference to the resurrection or to the parousia.

    Jesus Database

    • 049 Temple and Jesus – (1) Thom 71; (2a) Mark 13:1-2 = Matt 24:1-2 = Luke 21:5-6; (2b) Luke 19:41-44 (2c) Mark 14:55-59 = Matt 26:59-61; (2d) Mark 15:29-32a = Matt 27:39-43= (!)Luke 23:35-37; (2e) Acts 6:11-14; (2f) Mark 11:15-17 = Matt 21:12-13 = Luke 19:45-46; (2g) Luke 13:34-35; (2h) Mark 13:14a = Matt 24.15a = Luke 21:20*; (3a) John 2:13-17; (3b) John 2:18-22
      [NOTE: Items marked with an asterix are not in Crossan’s inventory of early Jesus traditions, but they are included in his Sayings Parallels: 191 Jerusalem Indicted; 449 Temples Symbolic Destruction; 456 Temples Actual Destruction; 457 Jerusalem Destroyed; 466 Temple and Jesus. Please also note that the item numbers in that collection do not match with numbers used in his later inventory that forms the basis of this database.]
    • 062 Spirit under Trial – (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt 10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26
    • 064 The Last Days – (1) Did. 16:3-5; (2) Matt 24:10-12; (3a) Mark 13:3-10,12-20 = Matt 24:3-22 = Luke 21:7-13,16-24; (3b) Matt 10:17-18; (3c) Luke 17:31-32.

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

    • Joyful, joyful we adore you – TiS 152
    • Seek ye first – TiS 745
    • Feed us now, bread of life – TiS 538
    • Community of Christ – TiS 473

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.