tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post8948859395019114339..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Scripture Reverberating through the Gospels: pt. 1Anthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-81020144618152478222016-08-01T08:31:39.848-07:002016-08-01T08:31:39.848-07:00Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Perhaps it would h...Gene Stecher<br />Chambersburg, Pa.<br /><br />Perhaps it would help to be alert to how Mark, for example, "appropriated" the Jewish scriptures: at least six different ways in just his first chapter.<br /><br />I suggest that Mark’s use of the Jewish scriptures is complex across a continuum from mimetic usage to supportive usage. Mimesis would be the practice of using a given source to create a new memory. Supportive citing would be the practice of using a given source to reinforce a known memory. How would the reader apply them to the following:<br /><br /><br />(1) Providing a competing visual: Mark 1:2-3, citing Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 puts worthy "preparer" in competition with "unworthy" forerunner in Mark 1:7. <br />(2) Comparing a present visual to a past visual to stimulate additional comparisons; for example, the description of the Baptist’s clothing in Mark 1:6 recalls the clothing of Elijah in 2 Kings 1:8. (3) Deriving meaning from a symbol: for example, in Mark 1:10 the dove which lands on Jesus shoulder following his baptism recalls Genesis 8:6-12 where the dove Noah sent out is associated with finding renewed life for humanity. (4) Identifying divine truth: for example, Mark 1:11 recalls Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, and presents YHWH’s expression of pleasure in Jesus as the king of His servant Israel. (5) Identifying cultural and life truths: for example, Mark 1:12-14 recalls Exodus 32 and Numbers 14, where we are reminded by Israel’s experience in the wilderness that, as all humans, Jesus was tempted. (6) Providing a basis for community cohesion: for example, in Mark 1:44 Jesus recalls Leviticus 14, ordering the priestly clearance and Mosaic cleansing rules to be observed following the claimed healing of a skin disorder.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-74719655795892172402016-08-01T04:42:24.956-07:002016-08-01T04:42:24.956-07:00Christian,
Jesus' and Paul's exegesis of ...Christian,<br /><br />Jesus' and Paul's exegesis of the OT provide valuable insights to what they believed. And we can, in a certain way, affirm the truth of what their applications of Scripture say about their belief "systems" without affirming their applications of Scripture. (Narrative theologians [like Hays] often have an allergic reaction to the word "system", which is why I put it in quotes.) But a problem arises when someone treats the meaning of a text (like the OT) as something that can be bent--that it once had a certain meaning, but later took on a different meaning. If we use "meaning" as a shorthand for *readerly* meaning, then, of course, such a change happens all the time. But if we use "meaning" to denote meaning *per se*, then there's a big problem.John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-41189411832121620132016-07-30T01:33:59.464-07:002016-07-30T01:33:59.464-07:00John, thank you for the clarification.
If I under...John, thank you for the clarification.<br /><br />If I understand you correctly, you reject the legitimacy of modern exegetes using OT in new creative ways (contrary to the original contextual meaning of a passage) to interpret Jesus, while you do at the same time recognize that Jesus and his the followers did just that?<br />I haven't read Hays book (I do have 'Reading Backwards' on the shelf and Iook forward to follow this review series by Rafael) and I don't know if Hays is engaging in creative historical exegesis beyond the confinements of the testimony of the NT, but it does make a lot of sense to me to try to approximate the hermeneutical perspective of the first generation of Christians, because I am interested in knowing the impression Jesus left - to get to the meaning of Jesus in his context. I think that Jesus himself reread Daniel and combined the 'Son of man' figure with the annointed that was to be 'cut off' - a 'hidden but now revealed' meaning, and that Matt11,3-6 and Luke 7,21-23 also testifies that Jesus himself set the perception/interpretative trajectories in motion before the Passover-events. To me, this means that there is truth to be learned about Jesus in the creative uses of OT on display in the fourfold gospel (and in Paul), that I would miss if I, unlike them, thought of it as misappropriations.<br /><br />Christian MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-18388627246199964032016-07-29T08:19:09.393-07:002016-07-29T08:19:09.393-07:00I guess a "Language of significance" and...I guess a "Language of significance" and negotiation,could be taken three or four ways. As 1) taking the OT as true 2) and easy, transparent to read. And 3) normative. "Significant." And then using it loyally. <br /><br />But also use of it might be seen as merely 4) later figures expropriating it. Citing it as authority, even as they Twist it. Or even? 5) suggesting that religion, being the religion of men, then an authority like Paul can do what he wants with old texts, and that's fine.<br /><br />So the language here is very inexact. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-34479412813405764122016-07-28T09:27:00.203-07:002016-07-28T09:27:00.203-07:00Christian,
I have no problem with Hays's case...Christian,<br /><br />I have no problem with Hays's case for saying that the earliest Christians did such-and-such with the Old Testament. The problem arises with his insistence that, since they did it, such readings must be considered normative. I can forgive the first naivete (that of the earliest Christian readers of the Old Testament), but not the second (that of today's readers who say we can read the same way).John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-84343811787094499592016-07-28T07:29:57.739-07:002016-07-28T07:29:57.739-07:00We might want to look at what other significant di...We might want to look at what other significant discourses Paul was using. To fail to do that, would privilege just one discourse disproportionately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-22891808112679728492016-07-28T06:22:52.239-07:002016-07-28T06:22:52.239-07:00Let's assume that the evangelist and the earli...Let's assume that the evangelist and the earliest Christians in general often did use the Jewish scriptures as a 'language of significance' though which to remember and preach the impact of Jesus of Nazareth. How would that afffect your view of Hays hermeneutical perspective?<br /><br />Christian MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-43456210263379701792016-07-26T04:38:58.221-07:002016-07-26T04:38:58.221-07:00Hays's exegesis is always insightful and often...Hays's exegesis is always insightful and often convincing, but he operates with a strange understanding of what *meaning* is. He's basically a New Critic, no doubt owing to his studies as an English major at Yale. He appears to think of meaning as a *thing* that morphs and develops when texts are put into new contexts, both literary and readerly. Thus, for him, the possibility of the Evangelists misappropriating a verse from the Old Testament is defined out of existence: whatever they do to a verse can always be construed simply as giving it a new context, so there really is (on the terms of his semiotic scheme) no possibility of misappropriation.John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-68042774053377694232016-07-25T17:07:07.205-07:002016-07-25T17:07:07.205-07:00For all of the talk about how Paul's letters s...For all of the talk about how Paul's letters show "evidence of a creative and attentive reader who shaped and was shaped by biblical traditions and texts," or how "All four Gospels bear the marks of Israel's sacred traditions but they bear those marks in various and variant ways," "evoking the OT," I feel like this is mere literary criticism, good literary criticism, but is there a further point? Any writings can have their influences traced and shown in what ways authors were influenced by prior writings and/or altered such writings creatively. <br /><br />But at what point do study studies influence people to become Christians or to leave the fold, or perhaps adopt a tentative Christian belief system lying somewhere in between? Has much been written about that? Perhaps a conference with some of the world's most prominent NT scholars on "The NT and Christian belief, unbelief and tentative belief?" <br /><br />My own curiosity led me to read ever widening ranges of scholarly studies of the NT, but the more I began to appreciate such in-depth studies of discrete questions, the less robust my Christian faith became. It seems to me now that Christianity began as a cult rather than authentic historical truth. Paul displays the same characteristics as an extremist religious fanatic and cult leader: https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-apostle-paul-fanaticus-extremus-all_11.html <br /><br />So many questions https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/search/label/the%20canonical%20GospelsEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-2573266097700579962016-07-25T16:01:29.337-07:002016-07-25T16:01:29.337-07:00Hays concludes that "The Hellenistic (Greco-R...Hays concludes that "The Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) context is also significant, but secondarily so." <br /><br />Or maybe the Hellenistic context is not merely secondary but of primary importance because it was that context that invented the bios, of which the Gospels are examples. And it was the Roman sense of empire/kingdom that the Gospel authors were reacting to by positing an alternative. It was also the rule by foreign powers, Greek and Roman, that led to the development of apocalyptic which catalyzed the development of the Messianic movement that became known as Christianity. And the NT authors also relied primarily on Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible. Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-12814903647606068762016-07-25T09:26:43.485-07:002016-07-25T09:26:43.485-07:00Thanks for this review, Rafael. I am looking forwa...Thanks for this review, Rafael. I am looking forward to the rest of it. Like you, I also found Hays' preface moving. I take Hays' words therein to be exemplary of a very fine tradition of Christian scholarship: critical, thoughtful, and committed to the confession without being polemical or insular. I respect and appreciate that.<br /><br />One question I have for you: If Hays had interacted more with Foley, where do you think it would have led him? Maybe that's a question for later in the review, but I'm curious. dannyyencichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09043010083839503415noreply@blogger.com