New Testament Midterm

Lectures 1-5

Where do we likely go in search of the gospels?

• 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

• Romans 1:14

• Gospel Proper verses affects

By their very designations, do the Gospels not communicate the gospel?

°Mark 1:1

°Titled [Gospel] “according to . . .”

°Justin, First Apology 66.3 (ca. AD 150-55) refers to the books as εὐαγγέλια (Gospels)

°Didache 8:2, 11:3, 15:3-4 use εὐαγγέλιον in reference, likely, to the Gospel of Matthew. See Pennington, Reading Wisely, 7f10.

The reality is that Paul’s doctrine is based on the life of the historical Jesus in the Gospels.

Paul would have had access to “Jesus traditions” (see 1 Cor. 7, 11, 15). The placement of the Gospels in relation to Paul. Also, what about the testimony and history of the church?

Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) The Gospels as “the four pillars of the church”

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.

Origen (ca. AD 231) “Gospels as the First Fruits”

Now the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled to God in Christ is put together;  . . . The Gospels then being four, I deem the first fruits of the Gospels to be that which you have enjoined me to search into according to my powers . . . (Commentary on John 1.3)

Resituating the Gospel

Paul prioritizes Jesus’ tradition later found in the Gospels. The Canonical order universally places the Gospels before Paul, despite that the latter corpus preceded the former. Early church witnesses recognize the priority of the Gospels. Also, it was not until the Reformation that Paul’s epistles were elevated above the Gospels for understanding the gospel. In Conclusion, we should prioritize the Gospels for understanding the gospel.

The four Gospels (from their unique vantage points) communicate the gospel message: that Jesus is the promised Messiah whose kingdom transforms the present order into a new creation.

°Matt 1, Mark 1

°(Gospel of) Kingdom/Kingdom of God: Matt 4:23, 24:14 (GOK); Mark 1:14–15, Luke 9:27, 16:16, 13:28, 17:21 (KOG); Mark 15:43, Luke 23:51 (Joseph of Arimathea)

°The gospel has continuity with OT; in particular, prophets like Isaiah, who have a cosmic vision of the gospel (Isa 40-66; 40:9, 52:7, 60:6, 51:1).

±The fifth Gospel

±When we see this, we envision a “fuller” Gospel, one that is more than forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus, more than getting to heaven.

±We see that the kingdom gospel, by the power of the Spirit, offers people hope of tangible flourishing in the present and into the future.

°The example of the Majority world, e.g., Padilla, Escobar, etc. 

Why the need for four gospels? 

The four Gospels (from their unique vantage points) communicate the gospel message: that Jesus is the promised Messiah whose kingdom transforms the present order into a new creation.

Unified Genre Indicators 

The four books that share similar literary characteristics (a genre).

–- John the Baptist prepares the way

–- Jesus’s ministry and increasing opposing of Jewish leaders

–- Entry into Jerusalem

–- Passion, death, resurrection

•Examples

–Witnesses at a basketball game

–Recalling a church sermon

•In short, the titles to each Gospel, which ascribe the works to authors who present the gospel from their unique perspectives (selectivity, arrangement of material, eyewitness account), indicate that the Gospels share a unified genre. 

Sui Generis

•Late 19^th Century and early 20^th Century

–Gospels as “their own genre” (sui generis).

–With the rise of form criticism, the Gospels were considered the unique literary productions of early Christians based on the preaching and teaching of the church.

–These “folk stories” (kleinliteratur) were then unconnected traditions strung together into Gospels.

–Gospels were nothing more than windows into the “life” of the early church.

–Bultmann called the Kerygma “cult legend” and the Gospels “expanded cult legends” (NT Theology, 86).

Greek Biographies (Bioi)

Latter 20th Century

Turn toward reading the Gospels as literary works; a greater respect for the evangelists as skilled authors.

Gospels no longer considered sui generis, but comparable to Greco-Roman biographies.

No writing occurs in a vacuum; it is akin to other writings.

Burridge argues that biographies “are works with a setting focused on a person, about whom the writer selects topics from a group of standard motifs” such as the person’s ancestry, birth, boyhood, and education (Luke2), great deeds, virtues, and death and its consequences. (What are the Gospels? 129-48)

Suetonius, Life of the Caesars, Tacitus, Histories

Like such biographies, the Gospels are comparable to Greco-Roman biographies, focusing on the life of Jesus. No gospel is exhaustive; rather, selective (John 20:30-31).

Non-canonical Gospels do not share these features.

Nota bene: Each biographer, as in Greco-Roman bioi, strives to present his own version (“according to . . .”) of the “good news” of the historical Jesus.

Are the Gospels, then, the ipsissma vox of Jesus or the ipsissma verba?

•The case for ipsissma vox

–Jesus spoke Aramaic and the evangelists render his words in Greek. This requires translation, which is removed from the source’s original words. There are four Gospels, not one. If exact reproduction of Jesus’s verba were required, why are there four Gospels that present Jesus’s teachings with different words? Would this not necessitate that one is right, and the others are wrong?That there is more than one Gospel tells us the church valued the voice of Jesus presented by the Gospel authors. One can present history accurately whether one quotes or summarizes teaching or even mixes the two together. To have accurate summaries of Jesus’ teaching is just as historical as to have his actual words; they are just two different perspectives to give us the same thing. All that is required is that the summaries be trustworthy. . .(Darrell L. Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire, 74-75). Question: Does ipsissma vox conflict with divine inspiration?

The Gospels and Greek Bioi

•The Gospels and Greek Bioi certainly share characteristics—so in some sense they are biographical—yet they have other distinctives.

–Jesus is not just one important figure in history—he is the central figure; the divine creator and redeemer of all things. This is comparable to the centrality of Yahweh in the Old Testament. See John 1.

–The Gospels are not just individual stories; they are to be read in continuity with the Old Testament, showing how Jesus is the promised Messiah. See Matt 1.

–Unlike other figures, Jesus dies and rises from the grave—all four Gospels testify to this truth!

–Also, unlike other figures, Jesus is still with us…and will be with us. His arrival is one and the same with the promised return of Yahweh. See Matt 1:23 (Emmanuel), Matt 28:20.

–No Greek biography ever makes this claim.

•The Gospel authors do not just speak of Jesus as one great figure among many, such as Moses (Matt, Mark) and the prophets. Jesus is the greatest figure!

What are the Gospels?

•The Gospels are comparable to Greek bioi (literarily) but are also deeply influenced by Jewish writings (theologically).

•The Gospels are theological, biographical accounts about Jesus, the promised Messiah, whose kingdom transforms the present order into a new creation. 

–Each account is meant to be read in view of the larger story of Scripture.

–Each account has its own author, and thus its own perspective, and the events surrounding the life of Jesus. Yet, they are still the very vox of Jesus.

–Each account calls us to emulate Jesus. Thus, the Gospels call for the readers transformation.

–So, have we rightly understood the Gospels if we have not applied them?

Author Centered reading of Scripture

•Dominated 19^th Century

–The rise of modernity gave rise to a “positivistic” (assumed neutrality) view of hermeneutics: background, setting, authorship, etc.

–The goal of interpretation is to understand the meaning of the text by stepping into the mind of the author. . . even better than the author himself (Schleimacher 1768-1834).

–

–We “must look behind the text to situations, experiences, and intentions that gave rise to the text, some of which may not even have entered the author’s awareness” (Thiselton, New Horizons, 79).

–

–The preoccupation with the mental acts of the author even stretched, for some, to understanding the author better than he understood himself (Dilthy).

–

–This was often associated with “authorial intention.”

–

–But does meaning really reside in the mind of the author?

•Rather than seek the mental state of the author, a more realistic goal is to capture the intention of the author communicated in the text.

•

•This would mean more specific studies in background, rather than trying to recreate the world of the author.

•

•Example: Matt 5-7

–That Jesus went up to the mountain is vital…

–Avoid too much speculation regarding the background of the author…

Text centered reading of scipture.

•Reaction against the “author”: 1920-40s

–Against optimism of reconstructing the author’s world “behind the text”

–Against giving more attention to the author than the text itself

•The text is the sole vehicle of meaning, divorced from the author; it is an “autonomous text.” Often associated with New Criticism.

–“With writing, the verbal meaning of the text no longer coincides with the mental meaning or intention of the text” (Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 75).

–With no author, meaning is polyvalent and indeterminate. Ideally, the text provides limited constraints.

–In its most rigid forms, the text is emphasized apart from author and reader.

•What are the pros?

–A returned emphasis on the text

–A focus on literary techniques, such as repetition, organization, as well as genre

–E.g., Galatians 3:15-29; “works of the Law” in Galatians

•What are the cons?

–Who rules the reading?

–Others?

Reader centered view of scipture

•Reaction to text centered approaches

•Emphasizes the importance of presuppositions (interests, foresight, background, etc.) in interpretation (Heidegger).

–What our presuppositions?

•Heidegger emphasized a “hermeneutical circle”: author’s presuppositions are challenged by the text and so on.

•Gadamer argued that the reader brings a “horizon” to the text. Reading occurs when the horizon of the reader “fuses” with the horizon of the text.

–What are our horizons? Think individually and communally.

•Point: All reading is “contextualized.” Our presuppositions or horizons are involved in interpretations. Objectivity is not possible, nor is it even a realistic goal.

–Should we even consider the attempt to be objective a positive pursuit?

In its most idealized sense, there are almost as many meanings as there are interpreters. Yet Fish argues reading communities provide “controls.”

•Pros

–Our knowledge is limited by our contexts. We are, after all, fallible.

–Emphasizes the importance of listening to other voices, who may enlighten our own limited, fallible readings.

–Example: On your own, provide an interpretive summary of Matt 28:1-10.

–Meaning more like a circle rather than target.

•Cons

–Possible overemphasis on reader

–Lack of emphasis on how authors and their texts control meaning

–Others

Integrated Approach for interpreting Scipture 

1. Authors communicate meaning in a text.

2. A text (where meaning is encoded) contains the indicators of an author’s intent. So, we must consider things like genre, repetition, grammar, intertextuality, typology, etc.

3. Readers should realize their limited “horizons” mediate their access to an author’s meaning in the text. So, they should read in consultation with voices outside of their contexts, avoiding “echo chamber” readings.

  -Example: Padilla and Escobar

•The more we come to the text in consultation with others (creeds, confessions, saints from different contexts) the closer we may come to understanding the text.

•This does not mean interpretive anarchy. An author’s intent in the text is still the goal, which should lead to transformation, but we approach the text with a sense of humility: we need others to assist us in reading texts rightly, arriving at a “fuller meaning,” so that (together) we may become more like Jesus.

•The valuing of multiple voices is seen in that that we have four interpretations of the one Gospel story centered on the historical Jesus.

•Range of acceptable readings, then, should be more like controlled circle rather than a target. Again, think of the similar (though different) picture of the Gospels.

•Exercise: Read the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32. Answer the following question: Why did the prodigal son return home?

•Mark Allan Powell’s study (What do they hear?) on how cultural contexts shape interpretation can be helpful. Regarding the reason the prodigal son returned to his father, Powell found that where you grew up determined how you interpreted the parable.

–Americans said the son ran out of money;

–Russians said it was because of famine;

–Africans said it was because no one gave him food.

–All three are contextualized “readings” that highlight different truths in the same passage. Put them together and you have a richer, fuller interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son.

•The Gospels are a (perhaps the) canonical example.

–The church has not preserved only one witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—but four: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each with their own point of view and material they have chosen to include or exclude. Put them together and you have clearer insight into the historical Jesus.

Source Criticism 

•Seeks to determine written sources behind the Gospels and their relationship to each other.

•In so doing, scholars have identified a “Synoptic Problem.”

•The Gospels share remarkable similarities, but they are also unique.

•Analogy: Have you ever graded a stack of papers?

SOURCE CRITICISM  AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

Further Evidence  for Literary Dependence

•Common material among the Synoptics

•Over 90% of Mark’s material appears in Matthew or Luke

•Over 90% of John’s material is unique to that Gospel

The Synoptic Problem 

•The “Synoptic Problem” is the question of their relationship

•It seems that the Synoptic Gospels are dependent on one another.

•If so, which came first and which are dependent?

The Proposed Solutions for the Synoptic Problem

1.Augustinian Proposal: priority of Matthew

2.Two-Source Theory: Priority of Mark + Q (Weisse, Holtzmann, 19^th cent.)

3.Four-Source Theory: Priority of Mark + Q + M + L (B. H. Streeter, early 20^th)

*All of these emphasize the sources “behind the text.”

Of the solutions, which one do you find the most convincing? Is there another solution?

Form Criticism

Form criticism seeks to classify forms (mini-genre, or type of story) in the Gospels and determine the church context (Sitz im Leben) out of which the forms originated.

These forms originated as “oral stories” situated in the Sitz im Leben of the earliest Christians. E.g., Give to Caesar (Mk 12; Matt 22)

While it does point out that individual stories were collected into units of material, there is an overemphasis on “oral” stories behind the text.

There is also an anti-supernatural and antihistorical bias.

Rudolf Bultmann was a major proponent.

Redaction Criticism

•Arose in the mid-twentieth century as a reaction against form criticism.

•Analyzes how the Gospels writers “redacted” or edited their sources into Gospels.

•Discern from this redaction the theological emphases/purpose of each writer

•This brings the role of the author back into focus.

•How he shapes his Gospel is purposeful.

Goals of Redaction Criticism (Conzelmann, Marxsen) [cont.]

•In short, with Redaction Criticism we see a move back to the author and the text. This is a positive correction against Source and Redaction criticism which focuses on what is “behind” the text. We can argue that there is still too much emphasis on the “editorial activity” of the author.

Canonical Criticism/Canonical Interpretation (mid 20^th century)

•An emphasis on reading the “final form.”

•Reaction against historical criticism’s emphasis on what is “behind the text.”

•Also, a reaction against microlevel textual analysis: focus on individual historical, grammatical readings divorced from the whole.

•Sailhammer Visual

•Canonical interpretation aims to show how a particular “passage (or book or corpus) fits into a canonical section (whether a book, corpus, or canon), and what message that canonical whole is attempting to convey” (Emerson, New Creation, 5).

•The argument is that (1) the placement of passages is purposeful and (2) the placement of books in the canon is also purposeful. This involves redaction or organization of a sort.

•Significance for reading: An interpreter will consider the placement of a passage in both the book and the canon, rather than limiting a reading to an individual passage or source of origin.

•Example: John 1

A Couple of Significant Figures in intepretation

•Brevard Childs

•Historical Criticism is not an end

•Focused on how particular passages are ordered and connected to other parts of the book. Childs “wants to know why the writer chose this material to place in the canon and why he arranged it the way he did” (Armstrong, Canonical Approaches, 30).

•E.g., Matt 5-7, Sermon on the Mount. Why here? What are the structural markers Matthew uses to mark its inception and conclusion? Etc.

•For most of his career, Childs focuses on individual passages in books. See Canonical Introduction to the New Testament

•Until his final work: The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus

•Argued the ordering of the Pauline corpus has a specific hermeneutical function.

•Romans as key.

•John Sailhammer

•Order of books does make a difference in how passages and books are interpreted.  Focused mainly on the OT. 

•Why is Matthew first, not Mark?

•Why does John sit between Luke and Acts?

•Why does Acts follow John?

•Any order will/should have an impact on exegesis.

•Argued for “con-textuality.”

•There is therefore a larger intent beyond the immediate historical author. One must consider the church’s canonical placement.

•Why is this important?

•Why did the church struggle with the order of books? The only constants in the New Testament are the Gospels and Revelation.

•What would happen if the books were arranged in chronological order?

•Would it make a difference, for instance, if the Pauline epistles were first, then the Gospels? If Hebrews were first?

•So, is placement important?

The placement of the gospels within the canon

•The Gospels continue the story of the Old Testament, showing that Jesus is the one who fulfills the promises of a kingdom that will transform the present cosmos by initiating a new covenant in his blood (e.g., Matt 1, Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20).

•

•The Gospels’ presentation of Jesus supports the remainder of the New Testament canon (Acts, Epistles, Revelation).

•The disagreement on the placement of Acts, Paul’s epistles, and General epistles is evidence of the struggle to communicate the “rule of faith.”

•

•The Gospels are the Christocentric key to reading Scripture, helping us read backwards and forwards in view of Christ.

•Are they a “canon within a canon”?

Broad overview of the gospels and interpretation

•Each Gospel has been redacted into a final shape.

•Each Gospel is in a particular order.

•The Gospel corpus has been situated between the Old Testament and the remainder of the New Testament canon because it reveals that Jesus fulfills the covenant promises. This understanding of Jesus undergirds the remainder of the New Testament.

•Thus, we will read the Gospels in view of their final shape and placement in the canon. That is, we will read them canonically.

Why were the four gospels places into the canon?

•They were recognized as new covenant writings, on par with covenantal writings of the Old Testament.

•“those responsible for shaping the canon in this way viewed the NT in toto as a covenantal document” (Goswell, “Two Testaments”: 689).

•“For the historical relationship sustained by the new covenant to the old covenant and the place occupied by the New Testament as the divine documentation of the new covenant compel us to understand the New Testament as a resumption of that documentary mode of covenant administration represented by the Old Testament” (Kline, Canon and Covenant, 196)

Criteria for a document within the canon

•Conformity to the Rule of Faith: the story of how Jesus the Messiah died and rose from the dead, initiating a new covenant and the restoration of the entire creation, i.e., the storyline of Scripture.

•Irenaeus explains the Rule by retelling the biblical narrative, focused on the fulfillment of the promises in Christ (Epideixis).

•He argues that Gnostics impose a “foreign storyline” to the Scriptures, which is contrary to the one presented in the Rule (Ag. Her. 1.9.4).

•Origen has the Rule in view when he argues: “the goodness of God through Christ will restore his entire creation to one end, even his enemies being conquered and subdued” (On First Principals, Christian Classics, 70).

•See also Tertullian (praescr. Haer. 39.5–7)

•Apostolic Origin

•Mark was connected to Peter and Luke to Paul; Matthew and John were apostles.

•Ecclesiastical Use

•Eusebius argues that certain writings were “recognized” among the churches and became “encovenented” (Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–7).

•Documents with this status were considered authoritative for teaching, preaching, and worship.

Quotation within the text?

–An author writes the exact words from a previous context (in full or in part)

–An established practice in the OT: Gen 13:15, 17:8, 24:7 [B]).

–Paul is simply following an established hermeneutic, now recontextualized in Christ. (cf. Gal 3:15-18)

–

–Matt 27:46 [A]; Psalm 22:1 [B]

–

–John 4:26 [A]; Exod 3:14 [B]

–

–The evangelists take their “intertextual” hermeneutic from the OT.

Allusion within the text 

–When an author alludes to another text—sharing enough of the text, without reproducing the exact words.

–The Bible was the framework for the worldview of the Evangelists. So even when they do not directly cite, we still hear allusions to the Old Testament.

Mark 6:45-52 (a); Job 9:8 (b)

John 2:5 (a); Gen 41:55 (B) (almost a quotation)

Sometimes more like a matrix of texts Death of Jesus in the Gospels (a); Passover lamb (Exod 12), suffering servant (Isa 52-53), Persecuted prophets (1 Kings 18-20; Neh 9:26; cf. 1 Thess 2:15)

Echo within the text

–Like an allusion, but less explicit.

Does the author have to be conscious of an eco?–

My rights (A); Constitution (B).

Examples:

Matt 5:35: “turn the other cheek”

Rom 2:4 (A), cf. Isa 52:5 (B);

Typology is what?

–A type is an event, person, institution, or thing that connects the past with the present by means of historical correspondence and escalation, in which a divinely ordained prefiguration finds its fulfillment in a later event.

–Types are not arbitrary.

–Two essential qualities: historical correspondence and escalation.

Explicit types

–Explicit types.

–Rom 5:14

–

–1 Cor 10:6

–

–Heb 9:24

–

–Heb 10:4

–

–Does a type have to be explicit? In other words, do NT authors have to identify something as a type for it to be a legitimate type?

Non explicit types

The example of Jesus in the Gospels.

John 3:14 (Numbers 21)

Matt 12:40 (Jonah)–Gen 4: Cain and Abel

Esther 5

1 Samuel 17: David and Goliath