Re: [XTalk] Essay: Orthodox Death Tradition Misrepresents Jesus
- Ted Weeden wrote:
Orthodoxy's preoccupation with its
Death Tradition, with its emphasis on the salvific efficacy of Jesus' death,
has misdirected Jesus' kerygmatic focus from the celebration of life and the
transformation of this world, via Jesus' vision of the realm of God, to
salvation from life in this world and the divine reward of eternal life in a
heavenly world. The effect has been to place almost singular, even at
times inordinate, emphasis upon personal salvation to the neglect of human
transformation for the efficacious betterment and just social welfare of all
in this life, as well as to the neglect of loving environmental care and the
treasuring of our natural habitat as a sacred gift of God.
I confess I haven't had time to download and read the essay itself, but this conclusion kept on niggling at me until I came back to it and read it again. I suspect I'm seeing here the usual "either ... or" fallacy which pops up in various places. Crossan makes a great deal of the Life Tradition as opposed to the Death Tradition, IIRC. I don't especially want to address the faithfulness of either Tradition to HJ at this point, simply 'cos I don't have time, but I hope that conversation will develop in response to Ted's essay. However, ISTM that Orthodoxy in fact preserves both Traditions simply by dint of preserving the scriptures. Thus the "either ... or" fallacy" should be replaced by a better "both ... and" description. Orthodox teaching does emphasise the death of Christ and thus salvation and participation in new life/Kingdom of God, etc. It is in the context that adherence to the teachings of Jesus become important, and those teachings are the very materials which Crossan and co use to demonstrate the Life Tradition. Where personal salvation has become an inordinate emphasis to the detriment of environmental care, etc, I suspect that is more to do with the Greek dualism of the later church than the content of the tradition itself. Salvation of one's soul in an excessively individual sense could even be described as an abuse of the Death Tradition, at least as you suggest it is expounded by Paul.
So while there is certainly a historical point to be made about failures of certain generations of Christians to properly interpret their traditions, I'm not sure that it arises quite so directly from the NT traditions themselves.
Rev Tony Buglass
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Bob Schacht wrote on September 2, 2005
> At 07:50 AM 9/2/2005, Ernest Pennells wrote:Actually, Bob, I was trained as a form critic by my mentor James M.
>> >I would wonder if you would not, after reading my thesis, agree with me
>>that Mark is close to being a literary genius.<
>>The strongest component of your argument is the parallel motifs in the
>>stories. The explanation you have explored is that Mark worked from
>>Josephus. There are other explanations. Unfortunately we have little
>>information on sources used by Mark or Josephus. It is generally accepted
>>that literacy was limited - particularly among the peasant community from
>>which HJ drew his first adherents. Storytellers played a major role in
>>preserving and shaping tradition. The extent to which the Evangelists
>>directly upon that oral tradition is not known but is surely the earliest
>>source. Verbal similarities often suggest copying, but we simply don't
>>know when that process commenced.
>>You portray Mark as a literary genius, and your frame of thought is
>>reflected in this quote: "When Mark sought material to fashion his passion
>>narrative, he turned to two primary sources which he may well have had at
>>hand, the Septuagint and, I suspect, Book VI of Josephus' Jewish War."
>>That grants no acknowledgement to oral tradition. I don't think I am
>>unfair in plucking this sentence from your essay because, on my reading,
>>it captures the flavour of your line of thought, focusing upon the
> Actually, I had been meaning to add something along these lines to my 8/17
> post to Ted, and that is basically this: Ted was trained in the arts of
> literary criticism, and he does a most excellent job within that paradigm.
> As I understand it, they are basically trained to look for prior *written*
> sources-- and as we see in the case of Q, reconstruction of written
> is included. In the literary paradigm, as I understand it, operates with
> the idea that if you can't find a prior written source, then the author of
> your earliest known source created it. There is usually some wave of the
> hand to oral tradition, but their scholarly apparatus (again, as I
> understand it) does not include much on how to deal with it.
Robinson, and fully immersed in Bultmann and Dibelius, first courses Jim
taught in seminary at Candler School of Theology in 1955-56 (when I was his
student), and then as his Ph.D. student at Claremont Graduate School (now
Claremont Graduate University) from 1960 to 1964, when I received my degree.
Robinson introduced me to redaction criticism, particularly
redaction-critical analysis of Mark, via Willi Marxsen's _Der Evangelist
Markus_, and with that as a foundation I moved in my own direction with Mark
as I wrote my dissertation, "The Heresy That Necessitated the Gospel of
Mark" (1964). In the dissertation and more clearly so in my 1971 book,
_Mark-Traditions in Conflict_, I imaged Mark more as exercising the freedom
of an author, which without me knowing it, was, if I may say so, was
something of a precursor to the literary-critical study of Mark, though I
self-consciously wrote from the vantage point of redaction criticism. In
1966, I presented my redaction-critical thesis on Mark as a paper, "The
Heresy That Necessitated the Gospel of Mark," (subsequently published in
revised form in 1968 by _Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft_) at the SBL annual meeting to the entire New Testament section
of SBL (in those days the SBL was much, much smaller and all New Testament
papers were read at the New Testament session). Norman Perrin was present
in the New Testament session that day (along with Dieter Georgi and others
whose work I had drawn upon in my dissertaation) and read his own paper on
the Son of Man to the session following my paper. Following his reading of
his paper, there was a break, and he rushed down to me and asked me, having
heard my paper, where he could get my work. At the time, he was writing
his little volume for Fortress Press, "What Is Redaction?" Perrin
subsequently wrote me and asked if he could have a copy of my paper in order
to present my argument as an example of redaction criticism of Mark, and he
did so on pp. 54-56 of _What is Redaction Criticism. Perrin, thereafter,
encouraged me to produce a book based upon my dissertation thesis and went
to bat for me with the editors of Fortress Press who were initially
reluctant to publish my controversial thesis. But under the urging of
Perrin, _Mark-Traditions in Conflict_ so the light of day. I am very
indebted to Norman for his advocacy of my work in the guild.
So I was trained as a form critic, basically following Bultmann's
perspective on the oral tradition, and became a redaction critic. It has
only been in the last 20 years or so that I have become interested in
literary criticism as a methodology. And I do tend to begin with
literary-critical methodology now in the investigation of biblical texts.
With respect to oral tradition, I still tend to be more Bultmannian in my
view of the evolution of the oral tradition. My reading of Werner Kelber,
James C. Scott and Jan Vansina has only served to enforce that Bultmannian
orientation, though, unlike Bultmann, I do think that one can recover
evidence of the oral tradition prior to the Gospels (including Q and Thomas)
preserving authentic Jesus tradition. And I have posted as much in XTalk
Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
Ph.D., Claremont Graduate University