Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] The kingdom of God: Did Jesus get it wrong?

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    ... Hi Steve and Loren, Well:)! a. I don t think that incident is historical, but a lovely midrashic creation of Mark. b. In any event, contra my good sparring
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >If we take the temple cleansing as "authentic" - this is not a
      >saptiential act but a prophetic one. This of course isn't a "speech",
      >but I think it indicates a "script" being followed - in this case a
      >prophetic script.

      Hi Steve and Loren,

      Well:)!
      a. I don't think that incident is historical, but a lovely midrashic
      creation of Mark.
      b. In any event, contra my good sparring buddy Loren... all prophetic acts
      are not "apocalyptic"/ all eschatology not "apocalyptic." Demonstrating
      that God's justice has a rather predictable way of overcoming those and that
      which stands against it doesn't simply equate to "apocalyptic theology" nor
      "apocalyptic deeds."
      c. Regarding Loren's contention that Jesus' parabolic speech is prophetic
      and decidely apocalyptic (and his favored sources for this) doesn't let the
      speech function in its own integrity, tradition and modus operandi.
      Parables simply are not prophetic utterances. To go to the old sources...
      Proverbs isn't an apocalyptic or prophetic work. And Ecclesiastes has a
      different notion of God's rule, the present and the future from Daniel...
      fer instance. Wisdom speech, communication has it's own integrity. Wisdom
      theology (inclusive of wisdom eschatology) has its own integrity.
      Historically we know from the writings of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon
      that this voice/ theological tradition continued on just as did the
      decidedly Priestly understanding of the meaning of the Covenant in the
      Temple operators/ operations... as did Royal and Apocalyptic voices (the
      Israelites had a way of saving all the best stuff!). So despite Loren's
      favored interpreters I'll continue to insist that the theology/ ideology of
      the given speech (parables and aphorisms) be looked at first and foremost in
      its own native integrity and in relation to this native tradition in
      Israel's intellectual past. After all... being "wise stuff"... folks of
      other theological orientations could surely meld it, frame it and mold it in
      their favored theological paradigms. "Wise stuff" has a way of being
      capable of being used like that. And, of course, it was capable of being
      framed in terms of "gnostic" theology/ideology... as we know from Thomas,
      etc. (and "gnostic eschatology" ain't the same as "apocalyptic", either!)
      d. Again... I like apocalyptic literature. In modern times it makes for
      some of the best movies and TV shows! Just as an end note... as a genre it
      may be used not to foment folks to taking up apocalyptic theological
      affirmations that would point to a kind of literalism about some supposed
      "dramatic act of God"... but hey... for some fun... can inspire school girl
      Buffy Summers to regularly go route out vampires and save the day for poor
      troubled Sunnydale:)! And to the past... folks on this list would do well
      to read some of such as Thomas Thompson's "They Mythic Past." I'm not
      suggesting this to buy all of Thompson's historical claims, but rather to
      see another way to understand the use of that very creative genre called
      "apocalyptic."

      so back to you Steve... what speech of the materials we have that you think
      HJ said that points you to thinking that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet?
      For just a dandy example of the view I hold is summed in "You won't be able
      to observe the coming of God's imperial rule. People are not going to say,
      'Look here it is!" or 'Over there!' On the contrary, God's imperial rule is
      right there in your presence." (Scholars Version... used quite on
      purpose:)!)

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    • Gordon Raynal
      ... Jeffrey, Has Dale discovered a new historical source since SBL? I heard him there and not surprisingly was not much moved by he and Horsely on this
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >You may get your wish -- or at least the opportunity to discuss whether
        >there is any fresh evidence -- sooner than you thing. For one of the
        >foremost proponents of an apocalyptic (and apocalyptically disappointed)
        >Jesus, Dale Allison, will be joining us in a few weeks for another of
        >our continuing online Seminars with HJ scholars.
        >
        >The dates of the Seminar will be Monday, March 24th through Saturday
        >April 5th.
        >
        >More on this in the next day or so. I'm in the process of (a) uploading
        >material from Dale that will provide the initial basis of discussion and
        >(b) drafting the announcement of, and the protocols for, the Seminar.
        >
        >Watch this space!
        Jeffrey,

        Has Dale discovered a new historical source since SBL? I heard him there
        and not surprisingly was not much moved by he and Horsely on this matter;)!
        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
      • Steve Black
        ... You might be right - this is one of the prob s with HJ studies -first we need to figure out what counts as evidence - and it seems like we might never get
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > >
          >>If we take the temple cleansing as "authentic" - this is not a
          >>saptiential act but a prophetic one. This of course isn't a "speech",
          >>but I think it indicates a "script" being followed - in this case a
          >>prophetic script.
          >
          >Hi Steve and Loren,
          >
          >Well:)!
          >a. I don't think that incident is historical, but a lovely midrashic
          >creation of Mark.

          You might be right - this is one of the prob's with HJ studies -first
          we need to figure out what counts as evidence - and it seems like we
          might never get past that initial preliminary step together. Bultmann
          agnostic conclusions might end up ruling the day. In any event - the
          best I can do is to venture tentatively out on a limb and pretend for
          a moment that that we can say that something might be historical - in
          this case the temple cleansing. Then I can tentatively crawl further
          out on the limb and go to step 2 - which is deciding how to
          understand step 1.

          >b. In any event, contra my good sparring buddy Loren... all prophetic acts
          >are not "apocalyptic"/ all eschatology not "apocalyptic." Demonstrating
          >that God's justice has a rather predictable way of overcoming those and that
          >which stands against it doesn't simply equate to "apocalyptic theology" nor
          >"apocalyptic deeds."

          I wasn't arguing that prophetic=apocalyptic. I was simply suggesting
          that we have some reason to think that Jesus did not restrict himself
          to the wisdom "script" but also adopted the prophetic "script". If we
          can agree on this then we have established that the HJ mixed styles
          and did not restrict himself to one genre. Thus we might not be
          surprised to see the parables (normally a wisdom style) doing things
          that they "are supposed to do". Come to think of it - Isaiah used
          parables - so who's saying that they are even dominantly a wisdom
          thing?

          --
          Steve Black
          Vancouver School of Theology
          Vancouver, BC
          ---

          The lion and the calf shall lie down together
          but the calf won't get much sleep.
          -Woody Allen
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... You ll just have to wait and see! In any event, you will at least have an opportunity to say why he has left you unmoved and to garner a response from him
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Gordon Raynal wrote:

            > Has Dale discovered a new historical source since SBL? I heard him
            > there
            > and not surprisingly was not much moved by he and Horsely on this
            > matter;)!

            You'll just have to wait and see!

            In any event, you will at least have an opportunity to say why he has
            left you unmoved and to garner a response from him on the matter.

            Yours,

            Jeffrey
            --

            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

            1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
            Chicago, IL 60626

            jgibson000@...



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Steve Black
            Sorry for the careless typing... ... This should read... ...thus we might not be surprised to see the parables doing things that they *NOT* are supposed to
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry for the careless typing...

              >thus we might not be
              >surprised to see the parables (normally a wisdom style) doing things
              >that they "are supposed to do".

              This should read...

              ...thus we might not be surprised to see the parables doing things
              that they *NOT* "are supposed to do".
              --
              Steve Black
              Vancouver School of Theology
              Vancouver, BC
              ---

              The lion and the calf shall lie down together
              but the calf won't get much sleep.
              -Woody Allen
            • Gordon Raynal
              Hi again Steve, ... Will stay away from this huge subject for the time being... but simply say that this part of the PN fits hand in glove with haggadic
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi again Steve,

                >>Well:)!
                >>a. I don't think that incident is historical, but a lovely midrashic
                >>creation of Mark.
                >
                >You might be right - this is one of the prob's with HJ studies -first
                >we need to figure out what counts as evidence - and it seems like we
                >might never get past that initial preliminary step together. Bultmann
                >agnostic conclusions might end up ruling the day. In any event - the
                >best I can do is to venture tentatively out on a limb and pretend for
                >a moment that that we can say that something might be historical - in
                >this case the temple cleansing. Then I can tentatively crawl further
                >out on the limb and go to step 2 - which is deciding how to
                >understand step 1.

                Will stay away from this huge subject for the time being... but simply say
                that this part of the PN fits hand in glove with haggadic midrashic creation
                in the plotting Mark is after. Having no other sources... not Paul... no
                from James or Thomas... then this is a single attestation that looks exactly
                like plotted midrashim for plotting purposes.
                >
                >>b. In any event, contra my good sparring buddy Loren... all prophetic acts
                >>are not "apocalyptic"/ all eschatology not "apocalyptic." Demonstrating
                >>that God's justice has a rather predictable way of overcoming those and that
                >>which stands against it doesn't simply equate to "apocalyptic theology" nor
                >>"apocalyptic deeds."
                >
                >I wasn't arguing that prophetic=apocalyptic. I was simply suggesting
                >that we have some reason to think that Jesus did not restrict himself
                >to the wisdom "script" but also adopted the prophetic "script". If we
                >can agree on this then we have established that the HJ mixed styles
                >and did not restrict himself to one genre. Thus we might not be
                >surprised to see the parables (normally a wisdom style) doing things
                >that they "are supposed to do". Come to think of it - Isaiah used
                >parables - so who's saying that they are even dominantly a wisdom
                >thing?

                Regarding the first sentence... that part was to Loren... my good sparring
                partner on this (and we have had the rounds on this off list... with much
                good spirited fun!)

                as for the latter section...

                Well... me and some other folks are saying this about Jesus' parables and
                aphorisms:)! Brandon Scott, for one, is just great on this... as are
                Crossan and Borg, of course. But as to "why me?"... the Wisdom theological/
                ethical heritage, of course, has its own integrity in Israel's past. It was
                a quite living tradition across the post TANAK canonical times. And Jesus'
                parables and aphorisms are stellar examples of this heritage and tradition.
                Therein there is clear connection and interpretation of the ancient Covenant
                ideas on God, justice and mercy. Therein there is a clear understanding
                about past, present and future. Just for descriptive purposes... Israel had
                it's writers of such as Daniel and writers of such as Jonah, Ruth and
                Ecclesiastes. Jesus' authentic speech lines up rather nicely not only with
                genre, but with essential theological, ethical AND eschatological thought of
                such as old Koheleth's and Jonah's writing.

                >
                >The lion and the calf shall lie down together
                >but the calf won't get much sleep.
                >-Woody Allen

                BTW... love the quote. As Brandon Scott nicely says... Jesus stands in the
                tradition of terrific Jewish ethical humorists. With such as this Woody
                aphorism... and with a whole lot that good old Groucho Marx would come up
                with... that's where I place Jesus and his speech... as Brandon nicely
                says... one of the great resources for such as Allen and Marx in this
                marvelous, distinctively Jewish heritages.

                Gordon

                p.s. just for that lovely "eschatology of the ancient wisdom"... Eccl. 3:15
                will do nicely (from the NRSV) "That which is, already has been; that which
                is to be, already is; and God seeks out what has gone by." This, ***too***
                is a distinctively Hebraic, Jewish voice. And my suggestion is that
                understanding Jesus' own thoughts about God's rule and the future is
                grounded in such as this.
                >
                >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                >
                >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Bob Schacht
                ... Those with long memories or good records may recall that David Kaylor was an early member of CrossTalk back in the old days when it was hosted by
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:05 PM 3/2/2003 -0800, Loren Rosson wrote:
                  >...To this end I have found much helpful in the works of R. David Kaylor and
                  >Bill Herozg, though even they resist apocalyptic ideas
                  >and reduce the parables almost entirely to "social justice" stories....

                  Those with long memories or good records may recall that David Kaylor was
                  an early member of CrossTalk back in the old days when it was hosted by
                  HarperCollins. He was one of the scholars on the list who gently coached me
                  in matters of NT scholarship.

                  Bob Schacht



                  Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                  Northern Arizona University
                  Flagstaff, AZ

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Loren Rosson
                  ... Gordon, I have actually never equated prophetic with apocalyptic, nor eschatological with apocalyptic (the latter being a subset of the former). Clerical
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Gordon wrote:

                    >In any event, contra my good sparring buddy Loren...
                    >all prophetic acts are not "apocalyptic"/ all
                    >eschatology not "apocalyptic."

                    Gordon,

                    I have actually never equated prophetic with
                    apocalyptic, nor eschatological with apocalyptic (the
                    latter being a subset of the former). Clerical
                    prophets like John Hyrcanus I and sappiential prophets
                    coming from the ranks of the Pharisees (like Samaias)
                    or Essenes (like Judas) do not seem to have been
                    eschatologically driven. But most of the oracular
                    prophets and popular prophets were, and some even
                    apocalyptically so. It just so happens that Jesus fits
                    the description (so I believe) of "apocalyptic
                    prophet".

                    >Regarding Loren's contention that Jesus' parabolic
                    >speech is prophetic and decidely apocalyptic...

                    I am saying that Jesus' parabolic speech is
                    fundamentally prophetic, with shades of the
                    apocalyptic creeping in here and there.

                    >...doesn't let the speech function in its own
                    integrity,
                    >tradition and modus operandi.
                    >Parables simply are not prophetic utterances. To go
                    to
                    >the old sources...Proverbs isn't an apocalyptic or
                    >prophetic work. And Ecclesiastes has a
                    >different notion of God's rule, the present and the
                    >future from Daniel...fer instance. Wisdom speech,
                    >communication has it's own integrity.

                    My friend, you are simply assuming that parables must
                    follow exclusively in the Wisdom tradition of the OT.
                    You are wrong. Consider:

                    1. OT prophets were certainly known for using
                    parables. II Sam 12:1-6 shows Nathan doing so with
                    David. Isa 5:1-6 presents a parable in the form of a
                    love-song, which provides a segue into the prophet's
                    diatribes against the aristocracy for alienating
                    peasants from the land (5:7-8). Ekez 17:1-10 is an
                    allegorical parable. So on.

                    2. Hosea 12:10 has God promising that "through the
                    prophets I will bring parables".

                    3. Moving into the NT, Mt 13:35 speaks of the
                    "fulfillment of what had been spoken through the
                    prophet", followed by a citation of Ps 78:2: "I will
                    open my mouth in a parable and proclaim what has been
                    hidden..." (In this case, the "prophet" is David.)

                    There is simply no justification for pigeon-holing the
                    parable genre into the wisdom tradition at the expense
                    of the prophetic.

                    >Brandon Scott, for one, is just great on this...
                    >as are Crossan and Borg, of course.

                    As you know too well, I believe they are among the
                    worst parable interpreters. Will we never agree on
                    anything? :(

                    Loren Rosson III
                    Nashua NH
                    rossoiii@...

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
                    http://taxes.yahoo.com/
                  • Loren Rosson
                    ... Bob, I was unaware of this; thanks for mentioning. I ll have to look into the archives. Loren Rosson III Nashua NH rossoiii@yahoo.com
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bob wrote:

                      > Those with long memories or good records may recall
                      > that David Kaylor was
                      > an early member of CrossTalk back in the old days
                      > when it was hosted by
                      > HarperCollins. He was one of the scholars on the
                      > list who gently coached me
                      > in matters of NT scholarship.

                      Bob,

                      I was unaware of this; thanks for mentioning. I'll
                      have to look into the archives.

                      Loren Rosson III
                      Nashua NH
                      rossoiii@...

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
                      http://taxes.yahoo.com/
                    • Rbsads@aol.com
                      In a message dated 3/2/03 2:07:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, sdblack@telus.net ... Is it possible that Jesus, fully human, might have grown during His ministry,
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 3, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 3/2/03 2:07:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, sdblack@...
                        writes:

                        > I guess I would simply want to ask if we have any reason to believe
                        > that the HJ would not have "mixed styles"?

                        Is it possible that Jesus, fully human, might have grown during His ministry,
                        in His theology, His understanding of God's purpose, and in His understanding
                        of His mission?

                        It seems to me that, especially in Mark, there is evidence of such personal
                        growth.

                        Perhaps rather than following a minimalist approach with the Jesus Seminar,
                        rejecting all sayings but whatever aphorisms do not seem to be
                        "christianized,"
                        and perhaps rather than thinking that His apocalyptic vision was
                        disappointed, there is the possibility that Jesus grew during the ministry in
                        the years from baptism to resurrection, and that this mixture of style and of
                        proclamation can be partially attributed to this personal growth.

                        Taking Mark 1:15 as a starting point, there are at least 2 questions that
                        come to me with regard to Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom - the
                        apocalyptic view of the kingdom of God and the call to repentance.

                        Perhaps Jesus began with a message that actually followed closely with the
                        teaching of the one who "among those born of women there is no one greater." 
                        And perhaps Jesus grew in understanding, and saw a greater proclamation and
                        mission than calling people to repentance, and an understanding of the
                        kingdom beyond the soon to come world apocalypse.

                        This growth perhaps changed His teaching so much from that which He received
                        from
                        John, that the mentor actually had to question whether there was to be
                        another.

                        Richard Smith
                        Chattanooga, TN



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Gordon Raynal
                        Hi Loren, ... Thanks for the clarification here and sorry for the mischaraterization. (others, as you know, do tend to schmooze prophetic and apocalyptic
                        Message 11 of 18 , Mar 3, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Loren,
                          >I have actually never equated prophetic with
                          >apocalyptic, nor eschatological with apocalyptic (the
                          >latter being a subset of the former). Clerical
                          >prophets like John Hyrcanus I and sappiential prophets
                          >coming from the ranks of the Pharisees (like Samaias)
                          >or Essenes (like Judas) do not seem to have been
                          >eschatologically driven. But most of the oracular
                          >prophets and popular prophets were, and some even
                          >apocalyptically so. It just so happens that Jesus fits
                          >the description (so I believe) of "apocalyptic
                          >prophet".

                          Thanks for the clarification here and sorry for the mischaraterization.
                          (others, as you know, do tend to schmooze prophetic and apocalyptic
                          together). The key here remains that we disagree about this last
                          sentence... and the reason as we've long ago discussed... has to do with
                          what we see as historical evidence versus storied imagination. To be sure
                          Jesus is cast as a prophet in the stories and, of course, in the formal
                          theology comes to be later affirmed as "Prophet, Priest and King." But as
                          my historical evidentiary base is not as large as yours, the question comes
                          up as to where Jesus' speech best fits in its modus operandi and
                          interpretive schema, and I will continue to maintain that that base fits not
                          only according to genre, but also in terms of content with voices from the
                          wisdom heritage in Israel (Jonah... who though cast as a prophet as a
                          character... is a wisdom work, Koheleth and such as the wisdom materials in
                          Torah (Deut. 4:5-8) and from the Psalms such as Psalm 90. I've read and
                          heard such as Saunder's take, Allison's take, Wright's take on what to do
                          with Q/Th/Luke passage and about the "Our Father." No doubt the "kingdom is
                          now" (to paraphrase) saying could be and was interpreted in apocalyptic
                          frames and in gnostic frames. Nothing wrong with those later interpretative
                          moves. Each has its own value. In the developing lines of kerygma and in
                          later historical circumstances they are faithful reflections and extensions
                          by various voices in the communities who anchored themselves around Jesus
                          and friends. The clearest takes of apocalyptacism as being central for
                          communities comes in the likes of the Thessalonian correspondence and
                          Revelation, of course (both, in my view, from the Domitian era). But we'd
                          need to get into a theological discussion of the works to assess how the
                          reliance on apocalyptic resources from the past fit with other theological
                          voices to get at the aims and intentions of each work and that's beyond the
                          purpose of this group. So this takes us back to HJ... and yes, we'll just
                          have to disagree because of how we assess what is historical... actually
                          from Jesus and friends in the late 20's and what is midrash, imagination,
                          creation, reflection in later times and in other places.

                          >
                          >>Regarding Loren's contention that Jesus' parabolic
                          >>speech is prophetic and decidely apocalyptic...
                          >
                          >I am saying that Jesus' parabolic speech is
                          >fundamentally prophetic, with shades of the
                          >apocalyptic creeping in here and there

                          My only comment here is that belief that God is going to do something
                          dramatic and soon which will alter the course of history and restore
                          Israel... is more than "a shade" apocalyptic. If Jesus believed this, then
                          the historian can quite simply say he was wrong. That doesn't end
                          discussion about what apocalyptic means, its value and what to do with being
                          wrong. If HJ was this way and was wrong, I have no problem saying so. Like
                          the host of folks before and after him... well, they just keep being
                          wrong;)! I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, if I'm wrong. But...
                          again... I don't see the historical evidentiary base regarding HJ that this
                          is the case at all. More in a moment.
                          >
                          >>...doesn't let the speech function in its own
                          >integrity,
                          >>tradition and modus operandi.
                          >>Parables simply are not prophetic utterances. To go
                          >to
                          >>the old sources...Proverbs isn't an apocalyptic or
                          >>prophetic work. And Ecclesiastes has a
                          >>different notion of God's rule, the present and the
                          >>future from Daniel...fer instance. Wisdom speech,
                          >>communication has it's own integrity.
                          >
                          >My friend, you are simply assuming that parables must
                          >follow exclusively in the Wisdom tradition of the OT

                          No, this isn't my view. Regarding the literature... from Torah onwards in
                          the many redactions we see the inclusion of the many voices in Israel's long
                          history. For descriptive purposes (although there are combinations and
                          permutations in the writings) one can delineate 5 major theological voices
                          in TANAK... priestly, royal, prophetic, apocalyptic and wisdom. If folks
                          want to get into TANAK in this regard we can go into that, but for brevity
                          sake here... there are **real** arguments in Israel's past and the editors
                          wisely let those voices be kept. On some matters there were fundamental
                          disagreements... and about the future and God's work therein... there are
                          just some whopping disagreements and to pick this one... Daniel and
                          Ecclesiastes **obviously** disagree about that future. If one accepts such
                          as the "coming Son of Man" speech and such as Mark 13 is from Jesus... then,
                          yes... of course... Jesus was an apocalyptic thinker. Correct... and
                          again... if that's the case... fine and he was wrong. But I don't think
                          those sayings are from HJ. And as regards their later inclusion they are
                          quite understandable as relates to dealing with the loss of the Temple and
                          the later traumas from dealing with those friendly Romans Nero... before the
                          War... all the way through those lovely figures of Vespasion, Titus and oh
                          so friendly Domitian... and the likes of voices that were aroused as such in
                          Josephus who came to the merry conclusion that God had passed his favor to
                          the Romans. Great interpretative moves to face this and other issues as
                          well. But back to this point... the wisdom voices in Israel's past have an
                          integrity all their own. Regarding "God's presence/ rule/ action" there is
                          quite clear affirmation in this regard. And yes... some kings, prophets and
                          mama's are shown to say one or more things that reflect God's wisdom. But
                          ***there are also, to use the outside terms... sages*** in this heritage who
                          majored in this theo-ethical voice, paradigm and genre. I take it that that
                          core of sayings so important in Q, in the Didache, in the production of the
                          Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain... clearly behind Ep. James
                          little wisdom summary in James 3... clearly behind Paul's preferred
                          vocabulary about the ways of the Spirit in his little summaries... ***is
                          rooted*** in the integrity of wisdom sage speech from Jesus and friends.
                          This is not my attempt to box HJ at the outset and make him fit some
                          pre-existing pattern. It comes from the assessment of what I believe is
                          from Jesus and friends... and from the reality of what we see across the
                          resources we have. Thing is... when it comes to getting to the core... from
                          Mark to Paul to Thomas to James to the Didache all agree about this core.
                          And these sayings **are not** prophetic utterances and the speech is
                          **certainly not** apocalyptic. And the thing is, of course, neither is the
                          action direction that Jesus asks of the two by twos. Hence... until we find
                          some new resources... I think there's every reason to say that this is where
                          Jesus as an individual contributor fits and this is the intellectual/
                          theological heritage that he worked out of.



                          .
                          >You are wrong. Consider:
                          >
                          >1. OT prophets were certainly known for using
                          >parables. II Sam 12:1-6 shows Nathan doing so with
                          >David. Isa 5:1-6 presents a parable in the form of a
                          >love-song, which provides a segue into the prophet's
                          >diatribes against the aristocracy for alienating
                          >peasants from the land (5:7-8). Ekez 17:1-10 is an
                          >allegorical parable. So on.
                          >
                          >2. Hosea 12:10 has God promising that "through the
                          >prophets I will bring parables".
                          >
                          >3. Moving into the NT, Mt 13:35 speaks of the
                          >"fulfillment of what had been spoken through the
                          >prophet", followed by a citation of Ps 78:2: "I will
                          >open my mouth in a parable and proclaim what has been
                          >hidden..." (In this case, the "prophet" is David.)
                          >
                          >There is simply no justification for pigeon-holing the
                          >parable genre into the wisdom tradition at the expense
                          >of the prophetic.

                          See the above... but one more note here. You and I tried to get a
                          conversation going... and I checked a note I made... in November of 2001...
                          about the base data that people start with to construct their ideas about
                          HJ. Thanks for putting your short list back to Andrew. So... let's give
                          this a whirl again, shall we. To all... for beginning descriptive
                          purposes.... let folks put out there in simple straight forward terms the
                          "Top Ten" things Jesus said and the ten that Jesus did/ happened to him. As
                          I happened to jot down my list... I'll put them down again:
                          Actions:
                          1. Baptism... Mark 1:9
                          2. Jesus to Galilee Mk. 1:14
                          3. Capernaum meal as paradigm for table fellowship Mk. 2:15-17c
                          4.Lake side Parabling Mk. 4:1-9, 21-32
                          5.Nazareth rejection Mark 6:1-4
                          6. Two by two Mission Q/Luke 10:3-9
                          7. Last days in Galilee Mark 9:33-37, 50
                          8. Parabling in Jerusalem Mark 12:1-9a, 12
                          9. Crucifixion Mark 15:25
                          10. Women witness death Mark 15:40-41

                          Voice:
                          1. Mark 4:9 Two Good Ears
                          2.Th. 47 Mount Two Horses
                          3. Q/Matthew 5:44 Sunrise/Rain Fall
                          4. Mark 4:30-32 Mustard
                          5. Q/Luke 12:6 Sparrows worth
                          6. Q/Luke 6:27 Love of enemies
                          7. Luke 11:5-7 Friend at MN
                          8. Q/Luke 17:33 Save/Lose
                          9. Q/Matthew 28-29 Consider the lilies
                          10. Mark 9:50 Salt/peace

                          (I did this from the notes... sorry if any verses are wrong).
                          At any rate... maybe folks will actually just lay out what they see as core
                          and key... and we might actually find in this group where there is any
                          beginning agreement. We'll see. But for now... unless Dale Allison or
                          anyone else has dug up something new... we're all working from the same
                          resources... and... again... as long as there are just base disagreements
                          about what is historically rooted and what comes from the wondrous
                          imaginations of these early folks... then we're mostly going to disagree.
                          I'd just like to see where *** any *** agreements might be found. So...
                          let's try this again.
                          >
                          >>Brandon Scott, for one, is just great on this...
                          >>as are Crossan and Borg, of course.
                          >
                          >As you know too well, I believe they are among the
                          >worst parable interpreters

                          I know... and no point in belaboring this... my suggestion nevertheless
                          remains for folks to consider the integrity of the wisdom heritage past, in
                          Jesus and earliest Christianity and afterwards. Whatever else folks want to
                          add to that... and there's lots of valuable insights to be had... that
                          heritage deserves careful consideration in its own right and in its own
                          integrity. These writers work at that and therefore deserve consideration
                          for that even if there are other disagreements. I have my own with each of
                          them.... but this issue because it gets bowled over or so quickly ignored or
                          transmuted into something else deserves its own careful study and these are
                          guys who see that.




                          . Will we never agree on
                          >anything? :(

                          Well... the new Dune mini-series is coming out mid-month and we'll probably
                          agree on what we think of that;)!

                          take care,
                          Gordon
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.