NT Final Exam

LOGOS (SECOND ENTRY)

= word Real important because explains Jesus in the rest of JOHN What do you do when person enters Church with weapon: "Father and I are ONE!" • WHAT IS THE WORD? • Logos made flesh • Word was GOD! • Father and I are ONE • PROLOGUE of JOHN • "In the beginning was the WORD" • Unique beginning/ different Start of GOSPEL • No birth narrative • Elevates you because of word arrangement • Put into the world • Can you recognize CHRIST? • Framing of the Gospel of John akin to that of Genesis • "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth... • LOGOS • MAMRE • SOPHIA • WORD - WISDOM __PROVERBS • LOGIC • COUNT • RATIONALITY---HOKMAH • REASON • ****NOT Trinitarian yet---BUT WORD is unified with GOD • Not out of SYNC with GOD

H. S. REIMARUS

German deist (1694 - 1768) - wasn't the first to dispute Jesus' miracles and resurrection. --was the first to imagine who Jesus could have been if he wasn't the risen Savior that Christians had mistaken him for --Remarus Jesus was fully human and only human --He thought Jesus was a Jew who could only be understood within the context of Judaism. --Remarus believed that Jesus' message of repentance, the coming kingdom of God, and the end of this world proved to be wrong. In his eyes, Christian doctrine had completely misunderstood Jesus by making him a divine Savior of the world. Reimarus traced this apparent deception to the deception to the disciples themselves. He said that they had expected that Jesus would establish God's kingdom and that they would be his right-hand men. When Jesus was executed instead, the disciples invented the claim that he had risen and would soon return. --According to Reimarus, Christianity is based on two failed ends: the one that Jesus predicted and the one the disciples expected. The disciples, reimarus believed, perpetrated a fraud in their preaching and in the gospels, and Christians bought it. Reimarus decided not to publish his thoughts while he was still alive (gee, can you guess why?). His student Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, published some of them in Germany just after Reimarus' death (1774-1778). But to protect Reimarus' reputation, Lessing wouldn't reveal his teacher's name. In fact, nobody knew who the author of the fragments was for another 40 years. ---Many late 18th and early 19th century scholars were troubled by Reimarus' ideas. They couldn't imagine that the disciples' claims were really fraudulent and that they were using the good news as a cover for Jesus' failed political mission. But if the disciples weren't trying to deceive people, what in the world were they trying to communicate through their miracle stories? Some scholars thought that they were telling the literal truth, that divine agency was at work in Jesus (these folks were called "supernaturalists"). On the other side were scholars who thought that the gospels were reporting something amazing that was nevertheless completely natural (thses folks were called "naturalists") for example, in the story of Jesus feeding a huge crowd (Mark 6:34-52), the supernaturalist said that God multiplied the few loaves of bread, while the naturalists said that Jesus prompted everyone to share what they'd brought

(2) In Matthew Jesus says he has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Likewise, in John, Jesus tells his opponents that if they believed Moses (i.e. Scripture), they would believe in him, since Moses "wrote about me" (5:46). How do the Gospels present Jesus' relationship to Scripture (the "Old Testament")? Why do the Gospels quote and allude to the Old Testament so much in their presentations of Jesus? What is the theological significance of the connection between Jesus and the Old Testament? Include specific references to readings, Gospel passages, and class discussions to support your argument.

In Matthew Jesus says he has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it—Matthew uses the Law within the context of the overall book in which "the Law" seemingly refers to the entirety of what would have been considered Scripture during his time period. He references the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Likewise, in John, Jesus tells his opponents that if they believed Moses (i.e. Scripture), they would believe in him, since Moses "wrote about me" (5:46).—This is the key to this question. Myers makes clears in her parentheses that Jesus' reference to Moses is to all of Scripture. If Jesus explains that all Scripture to this point is speaking about Him, John is also providing an explanation for the role of Scripture in his use of it throughout the book. Note that John refers to all of what Moses wrote about Him, not to merely the parts that fit Matthew's point best. Therefore, it would appear that when John quotes Scripture, he is not merely proof-texting but is instead using the context of those quotes to make his points. Look at Warren Carter P.34-39 on Jesus-Lenses— -Remember, Jesus-Followers primarily used the Greek translations of Scripture. -Mt. 1:23 reference to Isaiah 7:14; the Hebrews reads "young woman" while the Greek reads "virgin" in describing Mary (p. 35) -Isaiah 7-9 does not refer to Joseph and Mary at all, instead to a Judah's national crisis, being under military threat from Syria. The idea of a young woman conceiving may reference either King Ahaz's son, Hezekiah or the prophet's son. Regardless, the son would represent a sign of the continued existence of the nation. However, a person with Jesus-glass would read it as Mary having a son, "protecting against imperial power and pointing to a good future" (p. 36-37) -The Gospel writers view the OT through Jesus-Glasses. In other words, when they read the Old Testament, they view it in light of all of their experiences, Greek translation, understanding, and identity in their belief in Jesus' resurrection. -Not proof-texting, but "The key was wearing Jesus-glasses and seeing references to Jesus in Septuagint passages that no one else saw." (p. 36) -Mark 15:34 "'Eloi, Eloi, lema, sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" references Psalm 22:1, a lament Psalm. (p. 37) -Lament Psalms carry 3 elements: the Psalmist (the righteous person suffering unjustly), God (initially seems distant but becomes active and a deliverer), and the enemy (the ones causing harm). (p. 37-38) -When Mark references this text, seeing the Lament Psalm element sheds more light on a "pattern of the righteous sufferer vindicated by God." (p. 38) -"Daniel 7:13-14 presents either a coming heavenly figure or a symbol of God's people, "one like a son of man" (RSV), to whom God will delegate rule over all people...Mark, Matthew, and Luke identify Jesus as this figure (Mark 8:38...Matthew 24:30) (p. 39) -Luke starts with Jesus reading "from Isaiah 58:6 and 61:1-2, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me...' (Luke 4:18-19)" Isaiah typically concerns the "Sabbath and Jubilee years" but also "presents Jesus' ministry as one of release and societal transformation." (p. 39) -Moses gives the law on Mt. Sinai/Horeb. "The opening chapters of Matthew link Jesus and Moses through the attack of Herod (think Pharaoh), Jesus' journey to Egypt, his testing in the wilderness, and his teaching on a mountain (Matt. 5:1)." (p. 39) -"Both Luke 7:22 and Matthew 11:5 echo material from Isaiah 26:19 and 35:5-6 to interpret Jesus' miracles. They are not merely acts of power, but also actions that anticipate and enact the abundant fertility and physical wholeness that will accompany the future full establishment of God's life-giving purposes on earth." (p. 40) -Matthew makes clear that there is only one way to see Jesus in Matthew 16:13-17 which reads, "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he 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." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." -Luke 4:18-19 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." -Isaiah 61:1-2 (LXX) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord," Scripture Quoted in Matthew and OT References: Mt. 12:18-21--Isaiah 42; this focuses on Jesus, the servant who will not tear down the leaders (bruised reed) "until he brings justice to victory."—in Isaiah, this pertains to Babylon having taken over and that God will give comfort through a servant, with idols being uselss. Matthew 13--Isaiah 6; this focuses on listening but never understanding—in Isaiah, this deals with the issue of not ending until cities are destroyed and was in a vision given to Isaiah in the temple. Childhood Stories (Mt. 2:1-23)--More Similarities with Moses (Ex. 1:8-22)

Prophecy (and fulfillment)

Jesus came to fulfill prophecy; Jesus was coming to fulfill the prophecy that Moses started, continuing to deliver the lost (YOU MUST LOOK AT THE HANDOUT TITLED "Notes on Matthew's Use of the Old Testament")--the prophecies about Jesus were not simply proof-texted, but instead, you must look at the full context as a means of better understanding Jesus

6. Mary (Mother of Jesus)

Mary is told by the angel Gabriel that she would conceive a child, but Mary questions the angel because she is a virgin. Mary is married to Joseph the carpenter. Mary was in the lineage of Jesus in Matthew. She is compared to Elizabeth.(Luke 1:26-38Look up differences in Gospels -Jesus born 6 months after Jesus in Galilee -Engaged Virgin -Engaged to a man of the house of David (royal house) -Favored one -Receives a prophetic greeting from an angel which she is perplexed by and ponders over -Implied to be afraid of the angel ("Do not be afraid") -Going to give birth to a king -Faith -Going to be impregnated as a virgin -Chosen by God and impregnated with His Son -Compared to Elizabeth, Mary's old barren cousin who is 6 weeks pregnant -Humble, calls herself servant of God -Questions but accepts -Zechariah may be good, but Mary is seen as better -Unusual because Mary is a young unmarried woman where Zechariah is a priest -She believes but Zechariah questions

5. Genealogies (Matt/Luke)

Matthew started more formal and then did some culturally awkward stuff like "uncommon" references--women, disreputable etc.; "14" was the # of David...A, B, C references (14 generations) -Matthew Birth and lineage (Mt. 1:1-25) -Starts with a genealogical list A. Intro Jesus (v.1) a. Messiah b. Son of David c. Son of Abraham B. Son of Abraham (v. 2-6) C. Son of David (v. 6b-11) D. Babylon Messiah (v. 12-16) E. Summary (V. 17) a. Abe-Dav.=14 b. Dav.-Bab=14 c. Bab-Messiah=14 -Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, "Wife of Uriah," and Mary are all in the lineage -Luke's Genealogy (3:23-38)

PETER

Peter (also known as Simon) was one of the original 12 apostles. He became the leader of the apostles, after Jesus' ascension. Peter was originally from Bethsaida on the northern shore of the sea of Galilee.He was a fisherman with his brother Andrew. His home was in Capernaum. When Jesus called him to be an apostle, he was given the added name Cephas (Aramaic: "stone," Greek: "Petros," which in English is rendered as Peter).Peter was one of the three main apostles, along with James and John, who were chosen by Jesus to be present during certain important moments of His ministry. According to Matthew he confessed that Christ was the Son of the Living God. In Mark he is just called Peter. In Matthew, he is called Simon Peter. There are questions about whether Mark the author of the book of Mark was the disciple of Peter. In the book of Mark Peter's confession is the pivot point between "Jesus the Christ" and "Jesus the Son of God" Look up differences in Gospels

ROBERT FUNK

The purpose of this web page is to explain and explore some of the theories offered up by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus and the origins of the Christian religion. Issues include the nature of the historical Jesus, the nature of the early Christian documents, and the origins of the Christian faith in a risen Jesus Christ. Robert Funk • The Gospel of Jesus : According to the Jesus Seminar (Polebridge Press 1999) • The Acts of Jesus : The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (Harper San Francisco 1998) • The Five Gospels : The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (Harper San Francisco 1997) • Honest to Jesus : Jesus for a New Millennium (Harper Collins 1997) • The Jesus Seminar Description Website (online) • Premises and Rules of Evidence (online) • The Jesus Seminar: Decisions of Authenticity (online) Robert Funk is founder of the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars whose purpose was to examine the historicity of the sayings and deeds of Jesus. The reports of their deliberations are available in The Five Gospels and in The Acts of Jesus. The premises and rules of evidence are available in the link above, and some of the deliberations in favor of authenticity are also linked above. One claim of the Jesus Seminar is that the historical Jesus was not apocalyptic: "The views of John the Baptist and Paul are apocalyptically oriented. The early church aside from Paul shares Paul's view. The only question is whether the set of texts that represent God's rule as present were obfuscated by the pessimistic apocalyptic notions of Jesus' immediate predecessors, contemporaries, and successors. If Jesus merely adopted the popular views, how did sayings such as Luke 17:20-21 and Luke 11:20 arise? The best explanation is that they originated with Jesus, since they go against the dominant trend of the unfolding tradition. Fellows of the Jesus Seminar are convinced that the subtlety of Jesus' sense of time - the simultaneity of present and future - was almost lost on his followers, many of whom, after all, started as disciples of John the Baptist, and are represented, in the gospels, as understanding Jesus poorly." (The Five Gospels, p. 137) The Fellows also note that most of the parables do not evince an apocalyptic view of the kingdom. Although Robert Funk does so in Honest to Jesus, the Jesus Seminar did not attempt to make a sketch of the historical Jesus on the basis of their decisions on individual sayings. Yet a distinctive portrait does emerge from the data, as indicated for example in the comments on Lk 12:22-31: "In these sayings, Jesus depicts the providence of God who cares for all creatures - birds, lilies, grass, and human beings. Fretting about food and clothing does not produce food and clothing. Serene confidence that God will provide undergirds Jesus' lifestyle as an itinerant, without home or bed, without knowing where the next meal will come from. This is the same sage who advocates giving both of one's everyday garments to someone who sues for one; who advises his followers to give to every beggar and to lend to those who cannot repay; who humorously suggests that a rich person can no more get into God's domain than a camel can squeeze through the eye of a needle; who sends his disciples out on the road without money, food, change of clothes, or bag to carry them in; who claims that God observes every sparrow and counts the hairs on every head. This bundle of sayings, all of which commanded red or pink designations by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar, indicate why they also believe the heart of this collection on anxieties originated with Jesus, although not precisely in the words preserved for us in Q. When these sayings are taken together, a portrait of the historical Jesus begins to emerge." (op. cit., p. 340) Please enjoy exploring the varied Historical Jesus Theories offered by these authors through the links below.

Ending of Mark

The shorter ending of Mark ends at chapter 16 verse 8, "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." a. No resurrection stories. Page 53 in Carter & Levine states, "There are significant textual problems with the ending of Mark's Gospel. The earliest manuscripts indicate that the gospel originally ended with 16:8, the woman's fear and silence. In terms of a narrative technique, this ending maximizes reader engagement with the story." b. Readers are called to continue the story.

E. P. SANDERS

Worked at same time as Jesus Seminar. Presented a quite different version of the historical Jesus. Jesus is an eschatological prophet who envisioned the restoration of Israel. In the spirit of the age, he expected God to invade human history definitely and imminently. He saw himself as a key figure in that scenario. Jesus' outlook, however wasn't just future directed: "Jesus envisioned a new set of power relations in the eschatological kingdom and this view inherently included social dimensions—a vision of how this new society will function—which has immediate and clear demands for the present. SIX CATEGORIES OF PROBABILITIES VIRTUALLY CERTAIN: • Jesus shared the worldview of Jewish restoration eschatology • He preached the kingdom of God • He promised the kingdom to the wicked • He did not explicitly oppose the law (i.e. Sabbath and food) • Neither he nor his disciples though that the kingdom would be established by the force of arms. They looked for an eschatological miracle INCREDIBLE • He was one of the rare Jews of his day who believed in love, mercy, grace, repentance and forgiveness of sins • Jews in general and Pharisees in particular would kill people who believed in such things Because of his work, Jewish confidence in election was "shaken to pieces," and Judaism as a religion was destroyed -(Jesus and Judaism, 1985) -Significant study into Second Temple Judaism -Variety of expressions of Judaism in 1st Century Palestine -Covenantal Nomism -Jesus is profoundly Jewish and Eschatological -Not the dominant view of Judaism -THIRD QUEST

JEWS IN JOHN

a. See dualism b. Jews (aka Ioudaioi) always in conflict with Jesus c. John depicts the Iourdaioi as resisting Jesus' teaching and intimidating his followers. d. Jesus accused them of not hearing God's words, not believing, not knowing how to handle Scripture, etc. e. Pre-Holocaust, the Jews are made to look really bad

ASCENSION

a. The resurrected Jesus was taken up to heaven in his resurrected body in presence of eleven of his apostles b. Occurred 40 days after resurrection c. -Luke is the only gospel with an ascension account and a slightly different ascension account in Acts; Mark 16:19 does sort of but is a later addition, so assume no?! d. -Luke is trying to make the point that you can't kill Jesus—while Mark puts more focus on going out into the world to minister

Jesus' Crucifixion (ca. AD 30)

did not fit his crime; lestes (revolutionaries) get crucified; non Roman slaves get crucified; where does Jesus fit? Barabbas means "son of the Father" sharp contrast -Conflict, Crucifixion, and 'Confession' (Mark11:1-15:47) -Jesus' death [and Resurrection] -curtain of the temple was torn in two (Mark 15:38) -breathed His last (Mark 15:37) -Centurion: Truly this man was God's Son (Mark 15:39)

Crucifixion in the Roman World

performed for heinous crimes as a measure to dissuade followers; execution and humiliation

MATTHEW - literature

● Symbol- Angel/ Person ● Tagline: Jesus as the Jewish. Messiah. ● Authorship is anonymous but church tradition attributes to Matthew, Son of Levi, Tax Collector ● "According to Matthew "comes later. ● Provenance-Palestine/Syria (Antioch) ● Matthew 's Jesus is the most Jewish. . ● Mark serves a source for Matthew. ● Early church like it best so they put it first. Most complete gospel in their opinion. ● 28 chapters ● Additional traditions ● Matthew's own take on redaction criticism. Emphasizes somewhat differing opinions of Jesus. ● Matthew 16:13-20 : Peter viewed positively:"rock on which I will build my church. ● There is an awareness of Jewish tradition and Scripture. ● Jesus fulfills, continues God's interaction with creation. ● Prophecy fulfillment in Matthew 12 9 (inclusio) ● Gentiles are not a priority as of yet. ● Matthew says just because Jesus fulfills the prophecies doesn't make him the Messiah. ● Matthew says that Jesus acts how God acts. Cites OT : Isaiah 42. Also compares Moses and Jesus. Gives law and is God's representative. ● Matthew's language:"Jesus is God's Son." ● 6 sections of narrative. ● 5 major discourses. Allusion to Torah- first 5 books of OT. ● Matt 11,12, 27 "bruised reed" theme throughout Matthew. ● Kingly language: Jesus will be king one day. Son of God vs. Son of Man (more exalted). ● Genealogy: Shows Jesus has roots, ● Numbers are important. (14 generations). Ch.1 ● Imitates Jewish scripture: Genesis, ● Includes women in genealogy:Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, wife of Uriah-Bathsheba, Mary. ● Sermon on the Mount-collection of sayings. ● Resurrection is authentication of him being Messiah, ● No ascension.

MATTHEW

● Symbol- Angel/ Person ● Tagline: Jesus as the Jewish. Messiah. ● Authorship is anonymous but church tradition attributes to Matthew, Son of Levi. ● "According to Matthew "comes later. ● Prevencence-Palestine/Syria (Antioch) ● Matthew 's Jesus is the most Jewish. . ● Mark serves a source for Matthew. ● Early church like it best so they put it first. Most complete gospel in their opinion. ● 28 chapters ● Additional traditions ● Matthew's own take on redaction criticism. Emphasizes somewhat differing opinions of Jesus. ● Matthew 16:13-20 : Peter viewed positively:"rock on which I will build my church. ● There is an awareness of Jewish tradition and Scripture. ● Jesus fulfills, continues God's interaction with creation. ● Prophecy fulfillment in Matthew 12 9 (inclusio) ● Gentiles are not a priority as of yet. ● Matthew says just because Jesus fulfills the prophecies doesn't make him the Messiah. ● Matthew says that Jesus acts how God acts. Cites OT : Isaiah 42. Also compares Moses and Jesus. Gives law and is God's representative. ● Matthew's language:"Jesus is God's Son." ● 6 sections of narrative. ● 5 major discourses. Allusion to Torah- first 5 books of OT. ● Matt 11,12, 27 "bruised reed" theme throughout Matthew. ● Kingly language: Jesus will be king one day. Son of God vs. Son of Man (more exalted). ● Genealogy: Shows Jesus has roots, ● Numbers are important. (14 generations). Ch.1 ● Imitates Jewish scripture: Genesis, ● Includes women in genealogy:Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, wife of Uriah-Bathsheba, Mary. ● Sermon on the Mount-collection of sayings. ● Resurrection is authentication of him being Messiah, ● No ascension.

LUKE - literature

● Symbol-cow ● Tagline: Good News for the Poor. ● Authorship is anonymous. Author is member of well educated class. He speaks better Greek. ● Good news for everyone, especially the marginalized. ● Date of composition: 80's to 100 C.E. ● Foundational document. ● Biography of Jesus. ● Prequel to Acts. paving the way for Acts. ● Preface/Dedication to Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4) ● Birth narrative /Childhood narrative/Baptism. ● Ministry around Galilee. ● Passion prediction/ Journey to Jerusalem ● Passion narrative ● Post resurrection teaching/ Ascension. ● Good/better comparisons:Zechariah to Mary. What is better is not what you expect. ● More Greco-Roman than other Gospels. ● Account of 12 year old Jesus teaching in the Temple. ● Genealogy after baptism/ temptation of Jesus like in Matthew. Appear in opposite order. ● Genealogy takes Jesus all the way back to God. ● Noted for impressive prologue. ● More universal gospel. Son of God, not Joseph's son. ● Good news for the Gentile/humankind. ● Most friendly to women. ● Unique childhood anecdotes. ● Hospitality and table fellowship. Jesus is always eating. ● Impressive pedigree. ● Physiognomy-your physical state is related to your moral state. ● Different emphasis on why Jesus died for us. Jesus dies as an innocent martyr in Luke. Vindication as proof of innocence. ● Not as concerned with Parousia

LUKE

● Symbol-cow ● Tagline: Good News for the Poor. ● Authorship is anonymous. Author is member of well educated class. He speaks better Greek. ● Good news for everyone, especially the marginalized. ● Date of composition: 80's to 100 C.E. ● Foundational document. ● Biography of Jesus. ● Prequel to Acts. paving the way for Acts. ● Preface/Dedication to Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4) ● Birth narrative /Childhood narrative/Baptism. ● Ministry around Galilee. ● Passion prediction/ Journey to Jerusalem ● Passion narrative ● Post resurrection teaching/ Ascension. ● Good/better comparisons:Zechariah to Mary. What is better is not what you expect. ● More Greco-Roman than other Gospels. ● Account of 12 year old Jesus teaching in the Temple. ● Genealogy after baptism/ no temptation of Jesus like in Matthew. Appear in opposite order. ● Genealogy takes Jesus all the way back to God. ● Noted for impressive prologue. ● More universal gospel. Son of God, not Joseph's son. ● Good news for the Gentile/humankind. ● Most friendly to women. ● Unique childhood anecdotes. ● Hospitality and table fellowship. Jesus is always eating. ● Impressive pedigree. ● Physiogromony-your physical state is related to your moral state. ● Different emphasis on why Jesus died for us. Jesus dies as an innocent martyr in Luke. Vindication as proof of innocence.

JOHN - literature

● Symbol-eagle ● Tagline: Can you recognize the Christ? The Incarnate Word ● Authorship is anonymous. Possible authors: John the Baptist, John, Son of Zebedee, John of Patmos, John Mark. ● Thought to be written c. 125 or later. ● Maverick Gospel. ● Most spiritual Gospel. ● Jesus does not care who He makes mad. ● John is so different from the other Gospels. ● Speech is an indication of character. ● We get full discourses. We can trace the pattern of argument. Each speech has a beginning, middle, and end. ● Contains no parables. ● Jesus meets: Samaritan woman, lame man in Ch. 5, blind man in Ch.9, woman caught in adultery, official: Nicodemus. ● Unique prologue: not seen in any of the other Gospels. ● Elevates God: other Gospels just talk about kings. ● Echoes back to Genesis 1:1. ● Jews reject Jesus. ● Dualism ● Without framing of prologue, John's Jesus is crazy.

MARK - literature

● Symbol-lion ● Tagline: Jesus as the Christ Son of God. ● Authorship is anonymous-church tradition attributes to John Mark. ● Provenance: Rome/Syria ● Shortest gospel- power of deeds. ● Direct authority to the point. ● No birth narrative. ● Fastest pace: Jesus never rests. "Immediately" ● Least flattering portrayal of the 12. ● Most human version of Jesus. He is called Son of God first time at his baptism. ● No resurrection story. ● "Don't tell that Jesus is alive." ● Longest ending is legendary. ● Lots of inclusios. ● Allegory. ● Hyperbole. ● Temple curtain parallel to sky being ripped open at baptism. ● Mark asks what are you going to do? ● Offers invitation to take up cross and follow me, ● No victorious ending like Matthew. ● Longer ending added by scribe. ● Always on the way ● 2nd Exodus

(3) Instead of one Gospel, the Christian faith decided very early on to include four Gospels to learn about Jesus as the Christ. Compare and contrast the presentations of Jesus in one Synoptic Gospel and the Gospel of John. Identify key similarities and differences in manner, content, and order of presentation with specific examples. What are the theological (Christological, pneumatological, etc) implications of these two presentations of Jesus and his ministry?

(3) Instead of one Gospel, the Christian faith decided very early on to include four Gospels to learn about Jesus as the Christ. Compare and contrast the presentations of Jesus in one Synoptic Gospel and the Gospel of John. Identify key similarities and differences in manner, content, and order of presentation with specific examples. What are the theological (Christological, pneumatological, etc) implications of these two presentations of Jesus and his ministry?

NERO

(Class Powerpoint--Historical Background--Provenance and Date--Rome: Connection with Peter; Nero's Persecution?) -Roman Emperor -His mother was the great-granddaughter of Emperor Augusta -His father died and she married his uncle and persuaded him to allow Nero to become his successor and offer his daughter as Octavia as a wife for him -Had his wife killed -In 64 AD, most of Rome was destroyed in the Great Fire of Rome, which many Romans believed NEro himself in order to clear land for his planned palatial complex, the Domus Aurea. -He committed suicide. -P. 37 in Carter & Levine states, "Nero persecuted followers of Jesus in Rome after the fire of 64 for a short period of time."

PONTIUS PILATE

- was a Roman governor under the emperor of Tiberius in the 1st century. He is best known as the judge of Jesus's trial.--Look up differences in each Gospel (Mark--Wife Leave this guy alone, Luke--He's innocent...)

Eschatology

--prophecy of things to come (death, judgment, heaven, hell) -Apocalyptic, apocalypse, apocalypticism, and other long words... "Whether we like it or not, the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic Jesus" (91).

(1) After watching the latest History Channel special on "The Historical Jesus," a person in your church asks you for your take on all this historical Jesus stuff. Briefly trace the "quests" for the Historical Jesus in scholarship before offering your answer to the question of the relationship between Jesus as a person of "history" and as the Christ for believers.

-Original Quest -"The main contribution of the early Questers was to force Christians to take history and reason seriously." (Clark-Soles p. 106) -H.S. Reimarus (1694-1768) German deist (1694 - 1768) - wasn't the first to dispute Jesus' miracles and resurrection. --was the first to imagine who Jesus could have been if he wasn't the risen Savior that Christians had mistaken him for --Reimarus Jesus was fully human and only human --He thought Jesus was a Jew who could only be understood within the context of Judaism. --Reimarus believed that Jesus' message of repentance, the coming kingdom of God, and the end of this world proved to be wrong. In his eyes, Christian doctrine had completely misunderstood Jesus by making him a divine Savior of the world. Reimarus traced this apparent deception to the deception to the disciples themselves. He said that they had expected that Jesus would establish God's kingdom and that they would be his right-hand men. When Jesus was executed instead, the disciples invented the claim that he had risen and would soon return. --According to Reimarus, Christianity is based on two failed ends: the one that Jesus predicted and the one the disciples expected. The disciples, reimarus believed, perpetrated a fraud in their preaching and in the gospels, and Christians bought it. Reimarus decided not to publish his thoughts while he was still alive (gee, can you guess why?). His student Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, published some of them in Germany just after Reimarus' death (1774-1778). But to protect Reimarus' reputation, Lessing wouldn't reveal his teacher's name. In fact, nobody knew who the author of the fragments was for another 40 years. ---Many late 18th and early 19th century scholars were troubled by Reimarus' ideas. They couldn't imagine that the disciples' claims were really fraudulent and that they were using the good news as a cover for Jesus' failed political mission. But if the disciples weren't trying to deceive people, what in the world were they trying to communicate through their miracle stories? Some scholars thought that they were telling the literal truth, that divine agency was at work in Jesus (these folks were called "supernaturalists"). On the other side were scholars who thought that the gospels were reporting something amazing that was nevertheless completely natural (thses folks were called "naturalists") for example, in the story of Jesus feeding a huge crowd (Mark 6:34-52), the supernaturalist said that God multiplied the few loaves of bread, while the naturalists said that Jesus prompted everyone to share what they'd brought. -Clark-Soles says of Reimarus "composed 4,000 pages addressing the historical Jesus issue. He didn't publish them in his own lifetime since to do so would have meant social and professional suicide." (p. 105) -Clark-Soles says of Reimarus, "first to draw a distinction between the message of Jesus and that of his disciples." (p. 106) -Clark-Soles says of Reimarus that Reimarus believed, "After Jesus was crucified by Rome, which continued to rule mightily, the disciples, rather than admit failure and defeat, "likely stole Jesus' body from the tomb...and invented the message of his atoning death and return in glory."(p. 106) -D.F. Strausss (1841-1860) -Clark-Soles says of Strauss, "First published in 1835-36...cost him...personally and professionally...fired from his academic post and became a social pariah." (p. 106) -Clark-Soles says of Strauss, "Strauss taught that we need not be prisoners of literal, historical categories but instead we can explore the mythological aspects of the faith,..see the gospels as stories that convey deep truths and draw upon the imagination...of human language." (p. 106) -Clark-Soles says of Strauss, "He critiqued the 'rationalist' approach, which tried to subject all the data to scientific, rationalistic categories...the loaves and the fishes not as a supernatural event...where Jesus inspired people to share with one another." (p. 106) -Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) -Clark-Soles says of Schweitzer's opinion, "Whereas the previous Questers has painted a (German)...Jesus...Schweitzer placed Jesus...(as) an apocalyptic thinker who determined that God would act immediately...Jesus was wrong. The end did not come..." (p. 107) -Clark-Soles quotes Schweitzer, "Jesus...Instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions, He has destroyed them." (p. 107) -Clark-Soles says of Schweitzer's contributions that "he reminds us...Jesus was not an Enlightenment German philosopher...He was a Jew...If he was an urgent apocalyptic thinker,...he's on the weirder side for most modern Americans." (p. 107) -Clark-Soles says of Schweitzer, "Schweitzer's work effectively stymied the flow of historical Jesus research for half a century" (p.108) -A (German) Enlightenment Project -Science, Reason, Natural Law -Experience of "Faith" does not fit because it cannot be quantified -No supernatural -Modern Hermeneutics -Reason and Science (roots of historical-criticism) -Prove or Disprove Christianity based on historical data found in Gospels -H. S. Reimarus (1694-1768) -D.F. Strauss (1841-1860) -Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) -Results: -Take History and reason seriously -Markan priority (exclusion of John) -Questions of context: German Jesus or Jewish (and apocalyptic?) Jesus -Historical Jesus after the First Quest -Jesus of Nazareth... -Historical actions as a whole are irrecoverable -Prioritize the enduring "love ethic" instead -The New (Second) Quest -Another German/Western European Effort -Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) -Clark-Soles says of Bultmann, "he declared that the historical Jesus is not particularly relevant to Christian faith." (p. 108) -Clark-Soles says of Bultmann, "Bultmann sought to demythologize the New Testament, to ferret out the basic universal kernels of wisdom embedded in ancient forms so foreign to moderns, such as miracles." (p. 108) -Experience of World Wars... -Existentialism and the New Testament -Existence over essence -One can exist but can resist -A French resistance movement -In reading the Gospels, you encounter a lot of extra stuff -still discounts the supernatural -Read the encounters in the NT in order to get nuggets of truth of the experiences of the people in the Bible -Do you have an experience with the text that causes a crisis encounter? A type of faith -Experience of faith over objective (and unsatisfying) historical data -Historical Jesus doesn't matter—the experience of faith does -Demythologize the New Testament to uncover "nuggets" of truth -Ernst Kasemann (1906-1998) -Clark-Soles says of Kasemann, "contested...that the Jesus of history does matter for Christians and their faith." (p. 108) -Clark-Soles says of Kasemann, "Kasemann...is considered the founder of the New Quest" (p. 108) -A need for some continuity between Jesus of history and Christ of faith -Need to find a method -Creates Criterion of dissimilarity (when things that are written are counter-culture to their time) -Historical Jesus after the Second Quest -Jesus of Nazareth... -Historical actions are mostly irrecoverable -But searching for him still matters -Need to blend faith and history -Question is "how"? -He is dissimilar to Judaism and Christianity -The Third Quest -Jesus Seminar -Sanders -Accessibility of Jesus, even outside of the "Church" E.P. Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, 1985) -Significant study into Second Temple Judaism -Variety of expressions of Judaism in 1st Century Palestine -Covenantal Nomism (thought their were various Jewish groups, they all believed in this—that "Israel was expected to obey God's law, and God was expected to champion Israel and its fate." (Clark-Soles p. 113) -Jesus is profoundly Jewish and Eschatological -Not the dominant view of Judaism -Crossan (one of the leaders), Borg -"If you spend too much time watching the History Channel's episodes on Jesus, you will no doubt recognize the face and lilting Irish voice of Crossan." (Clark-Soles p. 114) -Clark-Soles says of Crossan that he believes that Jesus's body, "was either devoured by carrion bird or dogs" (p. 115) -Clark-Soles says of Crossan that "he has taught us the importance of attending to the archeological record." (p. 115) -Meier -Clark-Soles says of Meier that Meier believes that "Jesus is an eschatological prophet" and quotes Meier saying that Jesus "addressed, challenged, and tried to regather the whole of Israel in the expectation of the immenent end. He was wrong, and he failed." (p. 116) -Theissen/Merz -Funk (the other leader) -Allison -Believes in a Resurrection -Jesus of History and/vs. Christ of Faith -Can Jesus be studied "outside" of the "church"? -How do history and theology relate? -A variety of Jesuses -Jesus in my own image -Different Jesuses throughout life -Questioning the Quest: -Do we have the right tools? -Criterion of Dissimilarity -Criterion of Embarrassment -Criterion of Multiple Attestation -Do we have a realistic goal? -Does the study for the historical Jesus even matter? -Allison's (simpler) Approach -Generalizations over particulars: -Jesus and Self-Sacrifice -Eschatology and self-Understanding -Reputation and self-perception as Miracle Worker -Theological Ramifications -Christology -Too High...and Too Low -Eschatology -Apocalyptic, apocalypse, apocalypticism, and other long words... "Whether we like it or not, the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic Jesus" (91). -Context -"Gone for good." -Jesus Seminar -Clark-Soles says of the Jesus Seminar that at it they began to "debate about which words and deeds of Jesus ascribed to him in ancient sources were likely to have stemmed from the historical Jesus himself" (p. 110) -Clark-Soles says of the Jesus Seminar that, "The Seminar is particularly fond of Q and tends to privilege Q and the Gospel of Thomas as sources usually more authoritative than the canonical Gospels." (p. 110) -Western European and North American -But getting more diverse...At least in results! -Jesus Seminar (1980's) -Faith rests (or should rest) in the actual words and deeds of Jesus 1. Q 2. gospel of Thomas 3, 4, 5. Synoptics 6. Paul 7. John -Method to find them: -Independent sources (prioritize gospel of Thomas, Q) -Criteria of Dissimilarity, Embarrassment, Multiple Attestation -Criteria for Historicity -The results (1330 sayings) -29 are red (2%)—Jesus said it -184 are pink (14%)—probably said something like it -381 are gray (29%)—didn't say but fit His ideas -736 are black (55%)—definitely didn't say it—reflect the early church -Jesus of Nazareth: -Hellenistic Cynic Sage -Itinerant -Humor/Paradox -Not eschatological/apocalyptic -Reactions to Jesus Seminars -Reactions: -Not actually a majority group -Sources are debatable (so are criteria) But: -Engage Public -Jesus Seminars relied on Q and the Gospel of Thomas, but Sanders relied on the Synoptics. Neither used John.

MESSIANIC SECRET

-P. 43 Carter & Levine- From the Enlightenment until the start of the twentieth century, the dominant understanding of the "messianic secret" was that it served to correct the disciples' nationalist messianic expectations. On this view, Jesus did not reveal his Messianic identity because he feared that it might inspire people to revolt or that the news would draw attention to the Roman authorities...In this reading the secrecy claims are politically motivated. In 1901, the German biblical scholar William Wreded, who coined the term "messianic secret," proposed an alternative interpretation. He argues it was Mark, not Jesus who created commands to silence. Still others proposed that the secrecy motif is designed to prevent the Jewish community from hearing the good news.

3. Markan Sandwiches (intercalation)

-P. 44 Carter & Levine--Establishing the integral relationship between discipleship and suffering.death. -Mark 6:6-13 depicts the commission of the 12 to teach and preach, cast out demons and to anoint the sick. -Then, 6:14-29 describes John's proclamation, Herod's retaliation, and John's death. In Mark 6:30, the disciples return to report their success to Jesus. -This mission of the 12 frames the death of John, and the two stories inform each other.-Proclaim the "good news," suggests Mark, and you may be killed. -This sandwich technique known as intercalation (inclusio), appears other times. The account of the hemorrhaging woman and the dead girl in 5:25-43; the narrative of Jesus' trial and Peter's denial in 14:53-72 -From Class Powerpoint: "The Fig Tree and the Temple" (11:12-22) and the "Trials of Jesus and Peter (14:53-72)) Big Inclusio: --Jesus' Baptism (1:9-11) -heavens torn apart (1:10) -Spirit descending like a dove (1:10) -voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the beloved with you I am well pleased." (1:11) -Revelation of God's glory through Jesus --Jesus' death [and Resurrectiom] -curtain of the temple was torn in two (15:38) -breathed His last (15:37) -Centurion: Truly this man was God's Son (15:39)

8. Luke's prologues

-P. 56 in Carter & Levine-Often claimed that the gospel's opening four verses resemble the prologue of Greek and Roman historical writings and thereby indicate that Luke is writing "history." It is much shorter, lacks the author's name and origin, a feature of the earlier Greek histories often included & it lacks any moral reflection on the value of history that historians often included. Luke indicates that other accounts existed about Jesus (for example, Mark, Q) yet finds these accounts inadequate. This gospel is meant as corrective, or at least as a supplement, to those earlier sources. Second, the prologue suggests some years have passed between the time of Jesus and the writings. Stories have been handed on through two generations by eyewitness, and by "servants" or "ministers of the Word." Despite the passage of time, the sources are credible according to Luke. Third, it underscored the gospels reliability. Material is comprehensive ("investigating everything carefully"), appeals to the origin of the tradition ("from the very first"), and is clear ("an orderly account"). The dedication suggests the theophilus is Luke's patron, a high-status individual who supports the writer financially, or a patron of a house-church and supplied other benefactions for group members, or "Theophilus" is Luke's dedication to an ideal reader. The name is Greek for "Friend of God" or "Lover of God," one who embodies Jesus teaching to love God. --"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4) -"In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. "This," he said, "is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." (Acts 1:1-5) -Greeks and Romans often open their texts with a preface identifying who they are and why they are credible in writing a source and a dedication to someone -Luke mimics this style but leaves off his name

7. Isaiah ("new" Exodus)

-Referencesfrom Mark to Isa. 40-55 which is called 2nd Isa. time period end of exile (recalling the 1st Exodus) in Mark Chapter 8 considered the new exodus, what God did in the past is doing it in a new way. (Narrative on the way). Jesus is the manifestation. We see a triumphal entry (donkey), visits the temple, etc.

JOHN THE BAPTIST

-The name comes from the Greek word meaning to "dip" or "dunk" with connotations of washing. Some connotations highlight the oddity of the epithet by referring to "John the Dipper." John's appearance also evokes Israel's Scriptures. John resembles the prophet Elijah, who was taken up to heaven. -P. 41 Carter & Levine, by connecting John and Elijah, Mark turns the one who announces the messianic age into the one who announces the messiah, even as his narrative prompts readers to see the "Old Testament" as imbued with the story of Jesus.

KINGDOM OF GOD/HEAVEN

-p. 41 Carter & Levine--The term "kingdom of God" is central to Mark's presentation, and too requires a full reading of the gospel to understand its nuances. A "kingdom" (Greek: basileia) can suggest a places as well as as a "reign," with an emphasis on activity; the reference to the "kingdom [or empire] or God" also establishes a contrast to all other kingdoms or empires such as Rome's. -Class PowerPoint--Part One Jesus the Christ "The Kingdom of God (1:14-15); Collection of His disciples (1:16-20) Inaugural "Teaching" (1:21-28) and what does this reveal about the "Kingdom of God""? -Mark's readers, familiar with the language of "kingdom," this see a tension between their own world and that of the kingdom of God. The kingdom Jesus proclaims presents him as a new authority, one better than the Roman emperor, as well as anyone else; Pharisee or chief priests, John the Baptist, even one's own mother and father. He further proclaims that rulers should act as servants and not lords. Thus, the "kingdom" that Jesus proclaims has political, familial, and practical implications

MONOGENES [SECOND ENTRY]

"only begotten son" [SECOND ENTRY]

JEWISH FEASTS IN JOHN

(Weeks, Booths, Dedication)

BARABBAS

- in the New Testament, a prisoner or criminal mentioned in all four gospels who was chosen by the crowd, over Jesus Christ, to be released by Pontius Pilate in a customary pardon before the feast of Passover. He was not Roman, he was Jewish. His name means "Son of the Father." Look up differences in Gospels

ZECHARIAH

-a priest, he belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. Elizabeth his wife, a descendant of Aaron and was barron. Zechariah, while serving as a priest before God and his section was on duty he was chosen by Lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and offer incense. Gabriel appears to him to tell him, his prayer has been heard and Elizabeth will have a son, named John. Zechariah questions the angel and is made mute, unable to speak because of unbelief. Luke 1:5-23. Elizabeth's neighbors and relatives wanted to name the baby after Zechariah. Elizabeth told them no, when asked Zechariah what his name would be, he asked for a writing tablet and wrote John and immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue looked. He began to speak and praise God. He was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophecy. Luke 1:57-80 (Luke 1:5-25) -Blameless/Righteous -Marries and childless -Old -Elizabeth is barren (think Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah) -Praying -Doubt/disbelief of angel (alludes to Sarah) -Mute—a sign... -Angel shows up in the Temple -Belongs to the priestly order of Abijah -Wife is a descendant of Aaron (priestly house) -Questions, searching for a sign -John born 6 months before Jesus

PAROUSIA (DELAYED)

Carter p. 66-67 (means "second coming" or arrival) a. Jesus' delayed return was not as urgent in Luke as it was in Mark or Matthew i. Is not imminent b. In Luke it is "already and not yet" i. Is eschatological hope and present reality (be faithful while waiting) ii. Delay represents time of faithfulness and opportunity c. The delay, yet certainty, of Jesus Parousia does not mean that the kingdom is not accessible, but that it is already present: in preaching, lending money without payment, healings, feeding, the hungry, exorcism and breaking of bread

Apocalyptic

Destruction (trigger word); relating to the end of the world

Sermon on the Mount

Discourse #1--Mt. 5:1-7:29; In Mark and Luke, it's divided--less divided in Luke than in Mark--in Luke, it's the Sermon on the Plain[may be referenced in Matthew 5])--most famous sermon; collection of sayings; 1st extended speech. Jesus' Most Famous Sermon -Collection of sayings -First extended 'speech' of Jesus in Matthew -Structure -Setting (5:1-2) -Character of disciples (5:3-16) -Relationship to the Law (5:17-48) -Fasting, Almsgiving, and Prayer (6:1-34) -Living the Golden Rule (7:1-28)

Jesus as the "New Moses" (Matthew)

Jesus as Messiah, "deliverer!" out of Roman oppression--military leader? Moses on the Mt. and Jesus "transfigured"

IRONY (ESP JOHN]

John - Chapter 3 - What if I speak of Spiritual things? Sons of Thunder want to be on the right and left in the kingdom

PARACLETE

John 14-16 --means advocate or helper. In Christianity, the term paraclete most commonly refers to the Holy Spirit

MAP LOCATIONS

Locations Rome (to the West on the boot) Syria is above Palestine Galilee (above Samaria, below Palestine) Samaria (below Galilee) Jerusalem (a city in the southern part of Judea) Judea (can be seen as the province of Palestine or as a local area beneath Samaria)

Synoptic Gospels

Matthew, Mark, Luke; they look (-optic)-- alike (syn)

Physiognomy

One's physical appearance denotes your moral character (reference to hand-out about story of the bent woman, daughter of Abraham)

RUDOLF BULTMANN

Rudolf Bultmann and the Quest for the Historical Jesus May 11, 2012 Introduction Among the most influential theologians of the twentieth century stands Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976).[1] He was a man of towering intellect whose work continues to exercise a significant influence over theological discussions to this day. Although more people say negative things about Bultmann than those who have actually read him, he has made many important contributions to the theological world. The following essay will explore his role within the quest for the historical Jesus.[2] Influences Theological ideas are never formed in a vacuum. They are always developed within a matrix of past and present influences. Bultmann's understanding of Jesus is no exception. Along with Karl Barth, Bultmann's work marks the transition between the "Old" and the "New Quest", a period of about 40 years often referred to as the "No Quest" era.[3] In most histories of the quest, Bultmann is usually considered to have been the direct successor of Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). Schweitzer is generally regarded as being responsible for demolishing the "Old Quest" of the nineteenth century with his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus,[4] in which he critically weighed the previous reconstructions of Jesus that had been suggested and found them wanting. He concluded that these portraits of Jesus reflected the faces of the historians themselves more than the historical figure they were searching for.[5] He dismissed their views as being distortions of the evidence found in the Gospels, arguing instead that Jesus was a wandering apocalyptic prophet predicting the end of the world, which of course didn't happen. Ten years earlier, Martin Kähler (1835-1912) had written The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ[6] in which he also rejected the nineteenth-century quest, regarding "the entire Life-of-Jesus movement as a blind alley".[7] While he argued that it is impossible to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith, his distinction between the two has had a significant impact on all subsequent quests.[8] Kähler is also responsible for distinguishing between historieand and geschichte;[9] the former refers to the facts of history, while the latter refers to the interpretation or meaning of history. Thus, the Christ of faith was geschichte, while the Jesus of historie was simply a "figment of the historical-critical mind".[10] Having made these careful distinctions, Kähler was able to argue that faith was not dependant on historical research. Much of this was anticipated decades earlier by Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855).[11] Casting doubt on the whole quest, he stated that "It is infinitely beyond history's capacity to demonstrate that God... lived here on earth as an individual human being."[12] Instead, he reasoned that faith grows out of an existential experience, not history. Around the turn of the century, a new methodology was being developed which came to be known as Formgeschichte, or "form criticsm" as it is better known in English. Its aim was to examine the biblical text in order to determine what can be considered as reliable historical source material. Following Hermann Gunkel's (1862-1932) use of it in Old Testament studies, Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) was the first to systematise the method for the Gospels in From Tradition to Gospel.[13] Dibelius argued that the Gospels were composed of a series of isolated units that were products of oral traditions developed in response to the church's needs. He grouped the material into six categories, concluding that the Gospel writers were little more than collectors and editors of the traditions about Jesus that were really produced by the church,[14] although he didn't deny the possibility that some of the tradition went back to Jesus Himself.[15] These are among the many influential ideas that formed the climate in which Bultmann began his work on Jesus.[16] Description Given the negative attitude towards the quest by many of his predecessors and contemporaries, it is perhaps no surprise that Bultmann rejected it altogether. Morris Aschcraft notes that there were at least two reasons for this: 1) the failure of the old quest, and 2) the unsuitable nature of the sources.[17] Like Schweitzer and Kähler, Bultmann had no time for the nineteenth-century portraits of Jesus, but went further than both of them by insisting that not even the "personality" of Jesus could be recovered from the Gospel records. In the most frequently quoted statement fromJesus and the Word, he wrote: I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist.[18] This quotation has been too often misunderstood. Bultmann did not mean that we can know next to nothing about Jesus. The book he wrote, in which this statement is found, proves he believed there are in fact some things that can be known about Him. What he was rejecting were the biographical narratives that were attempting to define Jesus' personality.[19] Following Dibelius,[20] Bultmann took a more radical approach to form criticism inThe History of the Synoptic Tradition.[21] He utilised this new method of historical analysis to distinguish the differing layers of oral tradition present in the Synoptic Gospels.[22] While the individual fragments of Jesus' teachings were gathered together in a layer of tradition grounded in Palestine, a unified life of Jesus "was first created by the Christ myth of the Hellenistic congregation".[23] The Gospel of Mark is the first example in which we see not only a unified form of "the Christ myth" but also the questions, interests and concerns of the Hellenistic church, far removed in time, language and culture from the Palestinian origins of Jesus. In other words, the Gospels simply "give us a glimpse into the period after Jesus' death when the church was defining its stand points, settling controversies and coming to some sort of terms with its environment".[24] Thus for Bultmann, "what is found in the Synoptic Gospels is a record of the life of the church, not the life of Jesus".[25] He concluded that, in terms of the available evidence, we are able to know very little about the historical Jesus. "The Christ who is preached [in the Gospels] is not the historic Jesus, but the Christ of the faith."[26] So after all the tradition had been stripped away, what kind of Jesus did Bultmann find? In his major work on the topic, Jesus and the Word, he argued that what we know about Jesus is that He baptised by John, He was part of a messianic movement, He preached the kingdom of God, and was executed under Pontius Pilate. However, He had no consciousness of being the Messiah, He never predicted His passion nor did He imagine that He would return again to earth. He was essentially an existentialist teacher of timeless truths that calls for a decision in the present.[27] At this point Bultmann takes up the ideas of Kähler and Kierkegaard and develops them further. Combining the insights gained from form criticism and existentialism, he was basically confronted with a question similar to that which Kierkegaard faced a century earlier: How is faith related to historically uncertain facts?[28] For Bultmann, the answer was simple. Throughout all his writings, he repeats the refrain that Christian faith is not dependant on the historical Jesus but on the Christ of faith. He consistently maintained "that it is impossible to write a modern biography of Jesus because the source materials are confessional rather than biographical".[29] He made no attempt to say that Christianity stands or falls on historical evidence. Rather, Christianity then as now, stands on the proclamation of Christ,[30] which he referred to as the kerygma. Bultmann was convinced that he was on the same ground as the New Testament when he turned his attention away from the historical Jesus towards an encounter with the Christ of faith[31] since he believed that the New Testament only deals with the latter and not the former. Even if we did have the kind of historical evidence needed to paint an accurate portrait, Bultmann believed that theology which is centred on the figure of Jesus would not be Christian theology at all, because in reality Christian theology is the explanation of faith, a faith that initially became a historical reality in the Hellenistic church, not the Jesus movement of Palestine. Thus, the very nature of Christian faith and theology basically leaves the historical Jesus irrelevant, though not completely forgotten: Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.[32] Critique As mentioned in the introduction, people seem to have more negative things to say about Bultmann than positive, and it's not hard to see why. However, Herbert Wolf rightly points out that "any critique of Bultmann demands recognition of the positive contribution he has made in this area of thought."[33] Although Bultmann's picture of Jesus may be considered downright heretical, he was at least attempting to make Jesus relevant. His motivation to present the message of the Gospel to modern man is seen in the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith.[34] What matters most is not the often misguided reconstructions of Jesus, which are based on confessional documents not historical accounts anyway, but how one will respond to the timeless call for decision. Jesus is not some dusty figure of a bygone era; His message continues to demand a response in the present. Bultmann thus intended to direct attention to faith rather than simple facts, a corrective that was perhaps needed at the time.[35] However, although his approach managed to avoid some of the confusion that previous historical research had generated, it ends up creating bigger problems elsewhere. For instance, how can there be any existential response to Jesus that does not involve some objective historical knowledge?[36] The problem with driving a wedge between faith and history is that it totally ignores the fact that Christianity is and always has been a historical religion. It depends entirely on concrete historical events, especially the resurrection.[37] As Ben Witherington points out, "A faith that does not ground the Christ of personal experience in the Jesus of history is a form of docetic or gnostic heresy."[38] Faith does not arise in and of itself; it comes in response to historical facts.[39] Through his use and development of form criticism, Bultmann quite correctly brought to light the fact that the Gospels do indeed reflect many of the questions and concerns of the early church communities. No New Testament scholar would deny the reality of that today. Along with the others championing form criticism, he helped draw attention to the process of writing, compiling and editing the Synoptic Gospels which has been a constant area of research ever since, often producing important insights. But once again, Bultmann was right in what he affirmed but wrong in what he denied. Although the Synoptic Gospels clearly reveal insights into the community to which they were written, does that mean that the writers or editors simply fabricated parts of it to meet their needs? Furthermore, despite the criteria he outlines in The History of the Synoptic Tradition, how can we be totally sure of which sayings of Jesus are authentic and which are not? Where do we draw the line?[40] These are among some of the most notable weaknesses in his understanding. Conclusion Whether one agrees with Bultmann's understanding of Jesus or not, no one can doubt the far reaching influence it has had on all subsequent quests for the historical Jesus. Pointing to the insufficiency of the Gospels as historical sources, he shifted the focus away from history and on to faith. Jesus is not a figure confined to the past; His message continues meets us in the present. While his understanding contains some major flaws, it has had some positive outcomes. And for those, Bultmann is to be thanked. -Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) -Experience of World Wars... -Existentialism and the New Testament -Existence over essence -One can exist but can resist -A French resistance movement -In reading the Gospels, you encounter a lot of extra stuff -still discounts the supernatural -Read the encounters in the NT in order to get nuggets of truth of the experiences of the people in the Bible -Do you have an experience with the text that causes a crisis encounter? A type of faith -Experience of faith over objective (and unsatisfying) historical data -Historical Jesus doesn't matter—the experience of faith does -Demythologize the New Testament to uncover "nuggets" of truth

7. Mary Magdalene

She was not a *****/prostitute. Pope Gregory the Great gave her a bad reputation. She was at the tomb. She was an evangelist. Read Clark-Soles pp. 35-42 Look up differences in Gospels

DALE ALLISON

The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus ● Dale C. Allison, Jr. ● Mar 26, 2009 ● Series: Volume 12 - 2009 Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009. x + 126 pp. Pap. $16.00 ISBN 978-0-8028-6262-4. Dale Allison, New Testament professor at Pittsburgh Seminary, is probably best known for co-authoring the massive three-volume International Critical Commentary on Matthew. But his writing keeps returning to questions surrounding the quests of the historical Jesus, here in the published outgrowth of a series of lectures delivered at Duke in 2008. The title is carefully chosen. While Allison is ruthlessly honest about what he believes the quests cannot accomplish as historical endeavors, he nevertheless finds enough reason to believe that the Jesus of history saw himself as the Messiah (Christ) and that one can derive a theological agenda from the historical Jesus. In his introduction, Allison describes his pilgrimage as "doubt seeking understanding" (p. 5)! Chapter one sets out with stark clarity the changing trends of Jesus scholarship, so that one era's critically assured results are largely replaced by a quite different and contradictory set a quarter of a century later. Allison shows how scholars to the present day continue to remake Jesus in their own image, just as Schweitzer demonstrated that pattern for the bulk of the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, pastors and teachers inevitably gravitate to the portraits of Jesus they like, paying far less attention to those they do not, so that they are insufficiently challenged to see if their approaches to Jesus can really withstand rigorous scrutiny. Still, Allison thinks that New Testament portions that may not reflect historical events in the form in which they now appear may be theologically accurate windows to what Jesus was all about. He highlights three-the temptation narratives (given the battles Jesus fought with evil throughout his ministry), the passion narrative in Mark (given his principle of enemy-love and non-resistance that permeates the Sermon on the Mount), and 1 Corinthians 13 (not ostensibly a historical narrative at all, but what could have inspired it but the self-sacrificial ministry of Jesus himself?). Chapter two shows how the historical problems get worse before they get better. The classic criteria of authenticity and their more recent revisions alike promise far more than they can deliver, which is why the Jesus Seminar can come to extremely skeptical results about almost all of the Gospel of John and I can argue that a core of probably historical material can be viewed as probable in most of John's pericopes. All scholars, usually fairly early in their careers, develop a general picture of Jesus and of the amount of accuracy we can expect from the various Gospels and seldom acknowledge how thoroughly their subsequent work is driven by the non-negotiables they have already established. Allison indicts even himself. Having come to think of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet with an expectation of the nearness of the end and a touch of asceticism, and even after realizing all of the subjective factors that lurk behind masks of greater objectivity, he acknowledges that he still thinks that portrait is the historically most reliable. But he marvels at how little assessments of historicity impinge in most of his students' work on the meaning they derive from Gospel readings, a reminder perhaps that they can still serve Christians well theologically, even if we have to acknowledge that a much higher percentage of the Gospels function like parables, where we are unable to determine how much really happened, but it doesn't matter. How then should the quest proceed? Allison's third chapter suggests that criteria for evaluating the probable historicity of individual sayings or deeds of Christ will never be developed to deliver the goods they advertise. Instead, we should look to the broad contours of what the Synoptic Gospels most pervasively stress. This fits the way memory works in general; we may unwittingly get details wrong, but we remember big pictures. Often accompanied with long lists of supporting texts and motifs, Allison insists we can conclude with a high degree of probability that Jesus insisted on self-sacrifice from his followers, performed exorcisms, supported John the Baptist, repeatedly spoke of God as a surprisingly loving Father, taught in parables, and came into regular conflict with the religious authorities. Whatever titles he did or didn't use for himself, "Jesus probably believed himself to be not just an eschatological prophet, but the personal locus of the end-time scenario, the central figure of the last judgment, someone akin to Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek, or the Elect One in the Parables of 1 Enoch" (p. 66). So pervasive are the stories of Jesus working miracles and so commonly elsewhere in religious and non-religious accounts do credible accounts of people's encounters with the numinous appear, that we scarcely can write off the Synoptic miracle stories as merely akin to the far more fanciful apocrypha. Allison uses the Transfiguration as a good example, while at the same time stressing that our global perspective remains independent of our ability to demonstrate the authenticity of any single narrative. What is the theological significance of the results of a quest followed along these lines? Allison's answer is that we must guard against both too high and too low a Christology. John's is too high, and the tacit docetism of many early Church Fathers and many contemporary conservatives only exacerbates the problem. But the perspectives of the Jesus Seminar as a group or of key scholars like their former co-chairs, Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, are too low, as they fool themselves into thinking they can reject dominant and pervasive themes of the Synoptic tradition and replace them with non-traditional portraits. More than once Allison stresses that if the main contours of the Synoptics are wrong, then no one, neither the Gnostic gospel writers, nor the modern skeptics are in any position to propose a better alternative; sheer agnosticism remains the only option. Meanwhile, "a domesticated Jesus who sounds like us, makes us comfortable, and commends our opinions is no Jesus at all" (p. 90). Above all, eschatology and Jesus' warnings of coming judgment are here to stay, however unpopular the theme is to many today. Most all religions address the topic, it was pervasive in antiquity, and it is absurd to believe Jesus did not also address it pervasively. But it is dressed in the mythological garb of the day; we are not to look for Christ literally returning on the clouds of heaven to rule on earth. Instead, Jesus hoped for a better future, he believed in life after death in which that future would be fully realized, and he taught that it should inspire his followers to have compassion on the poor and outcast and seek justice for the oppressed and marginalized, already in this life, as a foreshadowing of the fullness of life to come. In a short closing section of "personal impressions" he observes that eschatology is necessary if there is to be any adequate accounting of the problem of evil. "If the sufferings of the present time are never eclipsed, if there is nothing beyond tragedy and the monotony of death, then I for one do not believe that Jesus' good God exists. But as I do believe in his God, I must believe in a resurrection of the dead or, if I may echo Plato, something like it" (p. 111). And the pattern in Jesus' teaching of suffering followed by vindication is also so entrenched in the Synoptics that it must be authentic. Indeed his very life incarnates the extremes of joys and sorrows, making him both "sympathetic and convincing" (p. 118). But the two extremes are not equal opposites. "There can be no tie, for evil is bound to lose." Thus, "the resurrection does not balance crucifixion and the grave. It defeats them" (p. 119). Allison's work will not make conventional conservatives or liberals happy, and that is his point. Neither does his understanding of the historical Jesus or of the God who gave us the Bible, including the Gospels, with the kind of mix of history and theology that leaves classic conservatives wrong to find it primarily historical in genre and classic liberals wrong to reject its pervasive theology as either non-normative or irrelevant for the twenty-first century. Both camps will protest that he could have made most of his main points and yet not taken them quite so much to task. And if presuppositions are as determinative as he stresses they are, what is missing in the volume is a discussion of whether one or more collections of presuppositions might actually turn out to be more legitimate than their rivals. Allison has not demonstrated that the center of the spectrum is automatically the right place to locate oneself, either historically or theologically. But his book remains so filled to the brim with common sense, lessons from history, profound insights, self-disclosure and self-effacement, refreshing candor and "equal-opportunity" criticism for all scholars that it is one of the few works I can recall reading with which I had fairly significant disagreements in key places but still absolutely loved and couldn't put down. A must for anyone concerned with the Christ of history or the Jesus of faith (as well as the more traditional pairing). Craig Blomberg, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor of New Testament Denver Seminary March 2009 -Jesus of History and/vs. Christ of Faith -Can Jesus be studied "outside" of the "church"? -How do history and theology relate? -A variety of Jesuses -Jesus in my own image -Different Jesuses throughout life -Questioning the Quest: -Do we have the right tools? -Criterion of Dissimilarity -Criterion of Embarrassment -Criterion of Multiple Attestation -Do we have a realistic goal? -Does the study for the historical Jesus even matter? -Allison's (simpler) Approach -Generalizations over particulars: -Jesus and Self-Sacrifice -Eschatology and self-Understanding -Reputation and self-perception as Miracle Worker -Theological Ramifications -Christology -Too High...and Too Low -Eschatology -Apocalyptic, apocalypse, apocalypticism, and other long words... "Whether we like it or not, the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic Jesus" (91). -Context -"Gone for good." -...(More on PowerPoint) -Nature of Scripture? -What is Scripture?

N. T. WRIGHT

The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology* (Originally published in Sewanee Theological Review 39, 1996. Reproduced by permission of the author.) N. T. WRIGHT The quest for the historical Jesus began as a protest against traditional Christian dogma, but when the supposedly ''neutral" historians peered into the well, all they saw was a featureless Jesus. Even when scholars decided that other biblical figures—John the Baptist, the evangelists, Paul, the "Q" people, and so on—were at home in a richly-storied and symbolic world. Jesus himself was not allowed to act symbolically, to criticize his contemporaries, to think theologically, to reflect on his own vocation, or to evoke any of the various meta-narratives with which his Jewish world was replete. At this point objectivist historiography begins to eat its own tail; it has now decided that it dislikes the taste, which is hardly surprising. So what are we doing now, talking about the historical Jesus and Christian theology? We are taking Hermann Reimarus's challenge seriously: investigate Jesus and see whether Christianity is not based on a mistake.1 We are taking Albert Schweitzer's challenge seriously: put Jesus within apocalyptic Judaism and watch bland unthinking dogma shiver in its shoes.2 If this is too dangerous, escape routes are available. First, Wilhelm Wrede: Mark is theological fiction, and Jesus is a non- apocalpytic, teasing teacher.3 This is alive and well over one hundred years later. Second, Martin Kähler: the true Christ is a Christ of faith detached from the Jesus of history.4 This, too, is alive and well today. The church may urge this latter escape route, part of the academic guild may urge the former. Both should be resisted. Instead, we should accept both Reimarus's challenge and Schweitzer's proposal. Schweitzer's account of apocalyptic must, however, be seriously modified. First-century Jewish apocalyptic, is not the same as "end-of-the-world." Instead, it invests major events within history with their theological significance. It looks, specifically, for the unique and climactic moment in—not the abolition of—Israel's long historical story. We must: renounce literalism, whether fundamentalist or scholarly. Apocalyptic is the symbolic and richly-charged language of protest, affirming that God's kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven—not in some imagined heavenly realm to be created after the present world has been destroyed. In particular, apocalyptic is the language of revolution: not that YHWH will destroy the world, but that he will act dramatically within it to bring Israel's long night of suffering to an end, to usher in the new day in which peace and justice will reign.5 "Apocalyptic" therefore is the natural context for a truly subversive "wisdom." Wisdom and folly within this worldview are not abstract or timeless. They consist in recognizing (or failing to recognize) that the long-awaited moment is now arriving. Apocalyptic and wisdom fit snugly together, and are mutually reinforcing. One of the major critical tools proposed by Wrede's contemporary successors is, therefore, shown to be blunt beyond all usefulness. When we make the adjustments required by this historical redefinition of "apocalyptic," the major division in contemporary Jesus studies is clear. The current debate, though far more complex, is essentially comprehensible as a re-run of Wrede's "consistent skepticism" against Schweitzer's "consistent eschatology." John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar offer a non-apocalyptic Jesus: not just a Jesus who did not expect the end of the space-time universe, but a Jesus who did not think that Israel's long and checkered story was now reaching its dramatic and decisive climax.6 I take the other view, claiming descent from Schweitzer. While agreeing that Jesus did not expect the end of the space-time world, I insist, like E. P. Sanders and many others, that Jesus was not a religious reformer but an eschatological prophet.7 Like other first-century eschatological prophets—and messianic or quasi-messianic figures—Jesus really did believe that Israel's God was acting through him and his movement to do for Israel at last what die prophets had promised. What, more precisely, was that? With the Exodus as their symbolic and narrative backdrop, the prophets declared that Israel would be released from the bondage that had begun with Babylon and that continued into Jesus's own day. Nobody in Jesus's day would have claimed that the visions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel had yet been fulfilled. The Babylons of this world would be defeated, and Israel would be free. And this real "return from exile"—that is, this complete liberation—would, of course, involve the return of YHWH to Zion. Prophet after prophet says so; nowhere in Second-Temple literature does anyone claim that it has actually happened. The prophets, moreover, interpreted the exile as the punishment: for Israel's sin; the end of exile would, therefore, be "the forgiveness of sins." It would mean Israel's redemption, evil's defeat, and YHWH's return. All of this can be summed up in a single phrase: "the kingdom of God."8 Where does Jesus belong on this map, and what effect does this have on Christian theology? I have set out elsewhere a worldview model focusing on praxis, story, symbol, and question, leading to aims and beliefs.9 When we apply this to Jesus, it produces the following analysis. First, Jesus exemplified the praxis of a prophet. He was known as a prophet; he spoke of himself as a prophet. He was both an oracular prophet and a leadership prophet. His movement grew out of that of John the Baptist, who was also a prophetic figure. Both men were clearly eschatological prophets. They were not merely visionary teachers. They were not merely advocating subversive wisdom or behavior. They were announcing, in symbol and narrative, that Israel's story was reaching the point for which Israel had longed. Second, Jesus' stories—not just his parables but his whole announcement—consisted at bottom of this: the time had arrived. To say "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Matt. 4:17) was to supply the missing line in the story that many wanted to hear. To speak of the return of a disgraced young son (Luke 15:11-32), and to use that as the validation of open and celebratory commensality (Luke l5:1-2), was to claim that table-fellowship as the embodiment of the real return from exile. To speak of the fall of the house (Matt. 7:26-27) evoked the theme of evil's defeat. To speak of the master returning after a long absence (Luke 19.11-27) hinted strongly at YHWH's return to Zion. These were among Jesus' characteristic kingdom-stories. The stories did, however, have a twist for which Jesus's listeners were unprepared. Like all kingdom-stories of the time, they invited Herod and Pilate, Caesar, and Caiaphas to tremble in their beds. If Israel's God was going to become king, all other rulers would be demoted. Like most kingdom-stories of the time, moreover, they also offered a critique of other kingdom-stories. If the Pharisees' kingdom-story was correct, the Essenes' was not, and vice versa. Jesus's kingdom- story, like all others, was doubly subversive: subversive of the great empires and their representatives, but subversive also alternative Jewish kingdom-stories. Still within Jesus' narrative world, there are two other points to he made. First, Jesus invited his hearers to become part of the story. His radical narrative summoned all and sundry to celebrate with him the real return from exile, the real forgiveness of sins. He was offering the latter precisely because he was enacting the former. This is eschatology, not reform. Jesus's so-called "ethics" belong just here: they were part of the story, the story of what God's renewed Israel would look like. Like other Jewish leaders before and since, Jesus was urging his contemporaries to follow turn in the subversive way of peace. He was radically opposed to the way of ultra-orthodoxy, of violent nationalist revolution. This was not, of course, because he was supporting the status quo (or was "non-political"), but precisely because he was not. Second, Jesus warned his contemporaries that failure to come his way would result in ruin. He stood in the great tradition of Israel's prophets, notably Elijah and Jeremiah. His story had two possible endings between which his hearers had to choose. If they followed his way, the way of peace, they would be the light of the world, the city set on a hill that could not be hidden. If they went the other way, as Jesus saw many of his contemporaries eager to do, they would call down on themselves the wrath of Rome. Jesus, like Amos or Jeremiah, warned that Rome's wrath would constitute God's wrath. To follow his teachings, his subversive wisdom, would be the only way to build the house on the rock. To follow the raise prophets who were leading Israel into nationalist revolution would cause the house to fall with a great crash, After praxis and story, symbol. Consider Jesus' work in relation to the regular Jewish symbols one by one. Family: Jesus regarded his followers as a fictive kinship group, subverting normal family loyalty, which was ultimately loyalty to the people. Land: Jesus urged his followers to abandon their possessions, which in his world mostly meant land. Torah: Jesus acted and spoke with a sovereign authority, and challenged in particular the two symbols—Sabbath and food—which distinguished Galilean Jews from their pagan neighbors. Temple: Jesus symbolically enacted its destruction, recognizing that its guardians, and the people as a whole, had refused his way of peace. He constructed his own alternative Jewish worldview (as, mutatis mutandis, the Essenes had done) around key symbolic actions and styles. In his case these were: healings, which were seen by sonic as subversive and "magical"; open and restive table-fellowship; the call of the twelve; the offer of the eschatological gift of forgiveness; the redefined family; and, of course, his own agenda and vocation. Jesus's critique of his contemporaries' use of traditional symbols came together in his action in the Temple (Mark 14:12-25) and the symbols of his own work in the Last Supper. These two actions belong together and interpret each other. Does all this mean that Jesus was in some sense anti-Jewish? Of course not. Was Elijah anti-Jewish for telling his contemporaries that they were under judgment? Were the Essenes anti-Jewish for denouncing the present Temple and its rulers, or for attacking the Pharisees? The debate, tike some tragic current debates, is essentially "inner-Jewish." Once again, Jesus' critique was based not on religion but on eschatology. Jesus did not "speak against the law"— as though he were a Lutheran born out of due time. He did not regard the symbols of Israel's worldview as bad, shabby, offensive, strange, or representative of a wrong sort of religion—as though he were a nineteenth- or twentieth- century liberal. Nor did he simply offer a new option to be chosen by those who fancied it—as, though he were a postmodernist. He claimed that the day had arrived in which the God-given Mosaic dispensation was being overtaken the eschaton, and this was highlighted for him by the fact that he saw the God-given symbols of Temple, Torah, land, and family being used to undergird the ultra-orthodox zeal for revolutionary violence, Jesus' work aroused opposition, not in the form of an intra-Pharisaic dialogue about the finer points of Torah, but in the form of a radical clash, of agendas. We of all people ought not to be surprised if zealous students of Torah turn violent against someone who advocates peace at the cost of ancestral land. Jesus' praxis, stories, and symbols thus indicate his answers, implicit and sometimes explicit, to the five major worldview questions. Who are we? Jesus and his followers form the real return-from-exile people, the remnant, the seed, the little flock. Where are we? We are in the land, though still slave, but our God will make us inherit the earth. What time is it? The hour of crisis, the great tribulation through which the kingdom will come, the long-awaited moment when the Exodus will be re-enacted, when exile will end, evil will be defeated, and YHWH will return to Zion. What is wrong? Evil is rampant not merely within paganism but within Israel: from the oppressive regime of the chief priests to the populist revolutionary movements, the world's evil has radically infected Israel also. What is the solution? Everything we know about Jesus suggests that in his heart of hearts he gave the answer: "I am." But how? Without in any way psychologizing Jesus, we can as historians attempt to understand the network of motivation—and even of vocation—that seems to have been present to him We: can move, in other words, from a worldview to specific aims and beliefs. First, Jesus believed he was Israel's messiah, the one through whom YHWH would restore the fortunes of his people. The word "messiah" had, of course, nothing to do with trinitarian or incarnational theology. Simon and Athronges had been hailed as messiahs when Jesus was a boy. The Sicarii regarded Menahem as messiah until a rival group killed him. Simeon ben Kosiba was hailed by Akiba as "son of the star." Presumably, they all regarded themselves as messiah. People in out world today mostly do not think like that, but Jesus was a first century Jew and not a twentieth-century liberal. Anyone doing and saying what Jesus did and said must have faced the question? Will I be the one through whom the liberation will come? All of the evidence—not least the Temple-action and the title on the cross—suggests that Jesus answered, "Yes." Second, Jesus's radical and counter-cultural agenda, subverting both the political status quo and the movements of violent revolution, was focused in his awareness, of vocation, John the Baptist re-enacted the Exodus in the wilderness; Jesus would do so in Jerusalem. Jesus's gospel message constantly invokes Isaiah 40-55, in which YHWH returns to Zion, defeats Babylon, and liberates Israel from her exile. At the heart of that great passage there stands a job description. Schweitzer argued a century ago that Jesus saw the Great Tribulation, the Messianic Woes, coming upon Israel and believed himself called, like the martyrs, to go ahead of Israel and take them upon himself. This would be the victory over evil; this would be the redefined messianic task. Jesus had warned that Israel's national ideology, focused then upon the revolutionary movements, would lead to ruthless Roman suppression; as Israel's representative he deliberately went to the place where that suppression found its symbolic focus. He drew his counter-Temple movement to a climax in Passover week, believing that as he went to his death Israel's God was doing for Israel (and hence for the world) what Israel as a whole could not do. Schweitzer divided the "lives of Jesus" into those that had Jesus going to Jerusalem to work and those that had him going there to die. Schweitzer chose the latter. I think he was right. Third, Jesus believed something else, I submit, that makes sense (albeit radical and shocking sense) within precisely that cultural, political, and theological setting of which I have been speaking. Jesus evoked, as the overtones of his own work, symbols that spoke of Israel's God present with God's people. He acted and spoke as if he were in some way a one-man, counter-Temple movement. He acted and spoke as if he were gathering and defining Israel at this eschatological moment—the job normally associated with Torah. He acted and spoke as the spokesperson of Wisdom. Temple, Torah, and Wisdom, however, were powerful symbols of central Jewish belief: that the transcendent creator and covenant God would dwell within Israel and order Israel's life. Jesus used precisely those symbols as models for his own work. In particular, he not only told stories whose natural meaning was that YHWH was returning to Zion, but he acted—dramatically and symbolically—as if it were his vocation to embody that event in himself. I suggest in short, that the Temple and YHWH's return to Zion are the keys to gospel Christology. Forget the titles, at least for a moment; forget the pseudo-orthodox attempts to make Jesus of Nazareth conscious of being the second person of the Trinity; forget the arid reductionism that is the mirror-image of that unthinking would-be orthodoxy. Focus instead, if you will, on a young Jewish prophet telling a story about YHWH returning to Zion as judge and redeemer, and then embodying it by riding into the city in tears, by symbolizing the Temple's destruction, and by celebrating the final Exodus. I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of vocation, a vocation given him by the one he knew as "Father," to enact in himself what, in Israel's scriptures, Israel's God had promised to accomplish. He would be the pillar of cloud for the people of the new Exodus. He would embody in himself the returning and redeeming action of the covenant God. This bald, unsubstantiated summary of several lengthy historical arguments will not, perhaps, convince by itself. The main argument in its favor is double similarity and double dissimilarity with Jesus's Jewish world and with the early church. The picture I have drawn is not obviously what the early church believed, but we can see how early Christian beliefs might have grown out of it. It is thoroughly credible within first-century Judaism while not being at all what most first-century Jews were thinking. It is not the featureless Jesus of modernist reconstruction. Then again, why should not Jesus have been just as much aware of symbol, story, theology, and vocation as the other figures whom we enthusiastically ascribe them? Thus far, so much we may say of the history—which is, of course, completely theological, both in itself and in our reading of it. I turn, in conclusion, to three wider remarks, again about history and theology. First, Schweitzer was right to see that his eschatological Jesus would shake comfortable Western orthodoxy to its foundations. I have modified his scheme by interpreting apocalyptic historically, but the Jesus that I discover remains shocking. Western orthodoxy has for too long had an overly lofty, detached, and oppressive view of God. It has approached Christology by assuming this view of God, and has tried to fit Jesus into it. Hardly surprisingly, the result has been a docetic Jesus; this in turn generated Reimarus's protest, not least because of the social and cultural nonsense which the combination of deism and docetism reinforced. That combination remains powerful and still needs a powerful challenge. My proposal, then, is not that we assume that we know what the word "God" means, managing somehow to fit Jesus into that. Instead, I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately-risky— indeed, apparently crazy—vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, dining once more with his friends, and dying on a Roman cross, and that we somehow allow our meaning for the word "God" to be re-centered around that point, Second, the story of Jesus does not generate a set of theological propositions, a "New Testament Theology." It generates, as Schweitzer saw with prophetic clarity, a set of tasks. The great exegetical mistake of the century (perpetrated by Schweitzer himself)—the idea that first-century Jews (including Jesus) expected the end of the world and were disappointed has so occupied the minds of scholars that the real problem of delay has gone almost unnoticed, and people now come upon it as though it were a novelty. If for Jesus, and indeed for the whole early church for which we have any real evidence, the God of Israel defeated evil once and for all on the cross, then why does evil still exist in the world? Was Jesus, after all, a failure? The New Testament answers this question with one voice. The cross and resurrection won the victory over evil, but it if the task of the Spirit, and those led by the Spirit, to implement that victory in and for all the world. This task demands a freshly-drawn worldview: new praxis, stories, symbols, and answers. These come together into a fresh vision of God in which—precisely because of this re-discovery of who God is—history, theology, spirituality, and vocation recover their proper relationship. For Jesus's followers, finding out who Jesus was in his historical context meant and means discovering their own task within their own contents. Third, and last. Several first-century Jews other than Jesus held and acted upon remarkable and subversive views. Why should Jesus be any more than one of the most remarkable of them? The answer must hinge upon the resurrection. If nothing happened to the body of Jesus, I cannot see why any of his implicit or explicit claims should be regarded as true. What is more, I cannot as a historian see why anyone would have continued to belong to his movement and regard him as its messiah. There were several other messianic or quasi-messianic movements within a hundred years on either side of Jesus. Routinely, they ended with the leader being killed by the authorities or by a rival group. If your messiah is killed, naturally you conclude that he was not the messiah. Some of those movements continued to exist; where they did, they took a new leader from the same family. (Note, however, that nobody ever said James, the brother of Jesus, was the messiah.) Such groups did not suffer from that blessed twentieth-century disease of cognitive dissonance. In particular, they did not go around saying that their messiah had been raised from the dead. I agree with Paula Fredriksen: the early Christians really did believe that Jesus had been raised bodily from the dead.10 What is more, I cannot make sense of the whole picture, historically or theologically, unless I say that they were right.

James & John of Zebedee

The Son of Zebedee also called the Sons of Thunder, they asked Jesus to let them to sit with Jesus in his glory at his right hand and his left hand. They also had a unique run-in: "When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, 'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?'" (Luke 9:54)Look up differences in Gospels

BELOVED DISCIPLE

The beloved disciple is thought to be John the Son of Zebedee, the brother of James. Lazarus, Nathaniel, Mary Magdalene

Mary & Martha of Bethany

The sisters of Lazarus Look up differences in Gospels

Judas Iscariot

Was a disciple of Jesus. He was rebuked by Jesus at the Last Supper and was told by Jesus that he would be the one to betray him. Hypocrite and thief. He questioned the anointing of Jesus' feet. Look up differences in Gospels

Parable

a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

JOHN'S PROLOGUE

a. 1:1-18 b. A very different Gospel c. Without prologue Jesus is "loony;" He goes into the temple with knife d. What is the Word? i. There is no flesh in Greek until v. 17 e. The prologue is about the Word i. Logos-word, reason, logic ii. Mamre--Word (Aramaic used for word) iii. Sophia- Greek word for wisdom iv. Hokmah--Hebrew word for wisdom f. He is the embodiment of God's created Word! i. Not born g. What does it mean for "the Word" to become flesh? i. The monogenes--the only one that has been begotten. ii. God's Glory "Dwelling" h. Jesus is identical manifestation of god! That is why can talk about his body as Temple. i. A New Begetting/Birth

DUALISM

a. Distinction in John's Gospel between those who follow Jesus to life and those follow Satan to sin and death b. Jesus and Jews have logical arguments in John 8 c. The world (haters of Jesus) vs. Love d. Insiders vs. Outsiders e. Children of the Light vs. Children of the darkness

TABLE FELLOWSHIP/ HOSPITALITY

a. In Mark's Gospel Jesus never stops moving, in Luke's Gospel Jesus never stopped b. Hospitality can be way of peace in world c. Meals as occasions of hospitality d. Meals as occasions for teaching e. Symposium: meeting for drinking, music, and intellectual discussion among the ancient Greek

ELIZABETH

a. Mother of John the Baptist b. Elderly, barren wife of Zechariah c. Cousin to Mary d. From a priestly family

Redaction

text editing combines various sources of text. Criticism--compare and contrast accounts.

MARK

● Symbol-lion ● Tagline: Jesus as the Son of God. ● Authorship is anonymous-church tradition attributes to John Mark. ● Provenence: Rome ● Shortest gospel- power of deeds. ● Direct authority to the point. ● No birth narrative. ● Fastest pace: Jesus never rests. "Immediately" ● Least flattering portrayal of the 12. ● Most human version of Jesus. He is called Son of God first time at his baptism. ● No resurrection story. ● "Don't tell that Jesus is alive." ● Shortest ending is legendary. ● Lots of inclusios. ● Allegory. ● Hyperbole. ● Temple curtain parallel to sky being ripped open at baptism. ● Mark asks what are you going to do? ● Offers invitation to take up cross and follow me, ● No victorious ending like Matthew. ● Longer ending added by scribe.