Theme 1 Religious figures and sacred texts

EDUQAS

Give seven differences between the gospels of Matthew and Luke

-Emphasis on Joseph in Matthew as the angel appears to him, emphasis on Mary in Luke as Gabriel appears to her

-In Matt Joseph and Mary are explicitly married, in Luke they are betrothed
-The Magi visit Jesus in Matthew, Shepherds in Luke

-In Matt JC was born in a house, Luke JC was born in a manger
-Herod's slaughter of the innocents in Matthew, no Herod in Luke
-Reign of Herod in Matthew, census from Qurinious, Governer of Syria, in Luke

-In Luke JC is presented at temple 8 days post birth (no mention in Matt)

(Matt is more focused on a Jewish audience, extensive quotes from OTes

Birth Narrative definition

-Accounts on how God the son entered the world

-There are two Gospels on it, Matt and Luke

Luke 1:26-2:40

-Luke's account of the Birth narrative of Jesus

-Framed around Eliz’s pregnancy, Mary’s perspective is prioritised (JC revealed himself to women+minorities to elevate himself in life)

-A census occurs with no mention of the infant massacre

-Mary is engaged

-They are visited by shepards

-JC is presented at the temple and circumcised

‘In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth[…]to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David’

Gabriel “the Holy Spirit will come on you” (seemingly a ref to Ezekiel, an age of the messiah to come is mentioned where God will “pour out my spirit upon all flesh”)

‘A census should be taken’

‘There were shepards’

‘On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus’

Matthew 1:18-2:23

-Matthew’s account of the birth narrative

-Joseph accepts Jesus as his son after annunciation from unnamed angel

-The Magi (wise men) visit the Messiah

-The Escape to Egypt and the Return to Nazareth

‘She was found to be pregnant through the HS’

‘Joseph her husband […] he had in mind to divorce her quietly’

The angel “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”

‘Presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh’

The angel “escape to Egypt[…] Herod is going to search for the child to kill him”

Give concerns with the historicity of the birth narratives

-No external historical detail or evidence for Herod's massacre in Bethlehem
- May have been an invention to draw parallels between Jesus and Moses
BUT Know Herod killed some of his sons, Matt wouldve been young when this happened+impactful (explains why Luke wouldnt mention)

-Bart Ehrman questions the validity of David's relation to Joseph (he was alive in 1000 BC, would he know)
-No mention of this census in any other sources but Luke and Christian authors post Luke. Ehrman believes it was invented it to fit the Jewish belief that the saviour has to come from Bethlehem.

-Ehrman notes Jesus was in Mary's womb during the census of Quirinius(6CE), then he couldnt have been born under the rulership of Herod (died 4BC) (10-year gap between those events.)
BUT
- It is possible that the scribe miscopied Quirinas for Saturninus (governor from 9BCE to 6CE).
-Currently there is insufficient data to justify the conclusion that Luke was wrong.

-(Only Matthew and Luke document the birth narratives, compared to the resurrection narratives in all four gospels)
-The supernatural events are questionable

-Raymond Brown,Roman Catholic scholar, thinks that the lack of ancient records means that the historicity of the nativity is impossible to fully determine, and it is more significant to understand what the birth narratives meant to early Christians.

Give four similarities between the gospels of Matthew and Luke

-Mary was a virgin betrothed to Joseph
-JC was conceived through the HS
-Visitors came to Jesus
-Jesus was born in Bethlehem when Herod was king of Judea

(many of these were key beliefs)

(JC fulfilled OTest prophecy and had the role of bringing salvation)

Harmonising the birth narratives (Bart Ehrman's view on chronology)

-Bart Ehrman claims that it is “impossible” to reconcile the differences in the birth narratives.

“If Matthew is right that they fled to Egypt, how can Luke be right that they went back to Nazareth a month later? The chronology doesn’t work.”

-Claims the authors knew that Jesus was raised in Nazareth but wanted to place him in Bethlehem birth to fit Jewish prophecy about the birthplace of the Messiah. So they invented different stories which served that purpose

-Ehrman notes Jesus was in Mary's womb during the census of Quirinius(6CE), then he couldnt have been born under the rulership of Herod (died 4BC) (10-year gap between those events.)
BUT
- It is possible that the scribe miscopied Quirinas for Saturninus (governor from 9BCE to 6CE).
-Currently there is insufficient data to justify the conclusion that Luke was wrong.

BUT

-Some argue that Herod died later than 4Bce, such as 1Bce.

-Some argue that the events in Matthew chapter 2 (from the Magi onward) took place around 2 years after the events in Luke. This would explain why, in Matthew, Herod wanted to kill all male babies under 2.

BUT

-Arguably it is not a good principle to think that there could be information discovered one day which would justify your conclusion. It is more reasonable to judge based on the available evidence.

Birth narrative insight on Incarnation Doctrine?

If we accept Birth Narratives how does that influence the Incarnation Doctrine

SCIENCE?

-Some argue the birth narratives + incarnation doctrine are ancient myths due to supernatural

(ancient tendency to make a figure a hero with a supernatural birth)

BUT it is unscientific to reject accounts without examination

There are 2 accounts that many believe- may be true?

BOLTMANN should demythologise the narratives to understand the deeper narrative (if we need to remove ekements how helpful can it be?)

BUT NT Wright accounts may be historical despite inconsistencies (vital events are conveyed)

We see God’s omnipotence+JC as his son (supernatural birth makes sense with JC as God)

CONSISTENT WTH CHRISTIANITY

-Virgin birth signals his different nature (supports him having two natures)

BUT doesnt directly support hypostatic union

BIBLICAL HARMONY of virgin birth

-Birth narratives reflect the belief JC is God’s son (because of virgin birth)

-(supernatural birth makes sense with JC as God>hypostatic union)

BUT only mentioned in two accounts

may be a mistranslation (Matt used Septuagint for Isiah prophecy speaking of a virgin birth, but in hebrew it means ‘young woman’)

Septuagint

the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

What do Redaction Critics claim about the birth narratives?

-A scholarly approach to the study of Scripture that attempts to see how each of the Gospel writers edited, or redacted, materials for Gospel's audience
(in the transition from oral tradition authors interpreted information about Jesus to address the particular needs of their time)

-Matthew's gospel was widely believed to be written for Jews.
-He quotes from the Old Testament frequently and writes more in line with Jewish belief and culture e.g. angel appearing to Joseph, not Mary (emphasises his link to David with Joe's pers)
-Says the "scriptures are fulfilled", a reference to the fulfilment of the Jewish Messiah prophecy
-Isiah 53 prophesises one who will suffer and bare the sins of humanity, Matthew shows Jesus came for all people, i.e. very first visitors were Gentile foreigners.

-Luke's gospel has a Greek flavour - as a Gentile he wrote for other non-Jews and so doesn't mention the OT as often and when he does he quotes the Greek Septuagint.

-Emphasis on HS
-He is concerned to show sympathy for women, the poor and social outcasts, writing more to liberate those low in social hierarchy e.g. the shepherds first to see Jesus

Does Redaction Criticism help us understand the birth narratuies?

YES

-We understand the true message and the reason for differences (whilst highlighting similarities)

NO

-Chronological differences still unclear (Erhman)

-If we remove their details what is the point? We can gain knowledge from other areas eg doctrine of incarnation

-The bible is the word of God, if we remove elements we are redacting God

What is the significance of Mary's perspective being used by Luke

-Shows sympathy for those who were marginalised at the time- Jesus brought salvation to the poor and needy
-News of Jesus' birth was brought to the poor shepherds not the wealthy wise men
-Joseph and Mary were poor people- the sacrifice they make is the sacrifice of the poor
-The birth of John the Baptist emphasises Jesus' connection with the Jewish

Hypostatic Union/Substantial Presence (and quote)

-Jesus is fully God and fully human, not half each.

-He was fully God in that his human life was just a brief interlude in his total existence, he exists before and after Jesus of Nazareth.

-He is fully human because he became flesh and blood, and he died

-Any idea that suggests he was more one than the other has been rejected by the Church

-Supports substantial presance

-Nicene Creed "begotten, not made, of the same essence as the father"

Kenotic model

-Jesus was not born with all the attributes of God, or at least that some of these attributes were hidden or supressed.
-Kenosis means "self-emptying", coming from the Greek word Keno,
-The Kenotic model is an attempt to understand the incarnation.
-For example, in Luke, Jesus is presented as growing in knowledge, getting hungry and tired + asks "who touched me?" Despite omniscient and omnipotent God

-The Kenotic model attempts to explain by drawing on Paul, in Philippians 2:5-11, Jesus "humbling himself and taking the form of a servant" and "emptying himself and becoming obedient to death".
-Theorised to consist of a preincarnate self-limitation by Jesus, (self-emptying of his own will and submitting to the will of God)
-C Evans proposes that Jesus voluntarily gives up or just does not make use of divine attributes. This is why he appears in Luke a having human frailties
-There is a theme of reversal where the rich will be emptied and the poor filled, materially and spiritually, just as Jesus also reverses from the purely divine to the divine incarnate who is an obedient servant.

BUT

N. T. Wright argues this is "completely un-true to what Paul has in mind". (Paul meant Jesus was already equal with God before he existed as a human being)
-"the decision to become human,... was not a decision to stop being divine. It was a decision about what it really meant to be divine".
-When God became flesh in the incarnation, he "emptied" himself in that he subjected himself to a mortal life involving suffering and death, but that was not emptying himself of divinity, (eg washing disciples feet, practices humility)
GOD WAS NOT LESSENED

-Traditional orthodoxy claims it undermined the perfection and resultant immutability of God.
BUT C Evans proposes a Kenotic model that claims God chooses to limit himself, not contradicting divine perfection

BUT The Council of Chalcedon in 451 so that Jesus was thought of as both fully God and fully human. Evans’ Kenotic idea of self-limitation seems to contradict the Chalcedon characterisation of Christ as having two natures that co-exist “without change, without division, without separation

Pope Pius XII condemned the interpretation of kenosis that suggests Jesus’ divinity was taken away. JC is not lesser “I and the father are one” (John 10:30), “The word was made flesh” (John 1:14). Pope Pius XII concludes that the Kenotic model is “a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it”.

BUT Hick argue that since the earliest Gospel, Mark, makes no reference of Jesus’ divine birth, and that it is only in the final gospel of John that you get really clear statements by Jesus that he was divine, it looks like the divinity of Jesus was a later creation.

Substantial presance (for and against)

-Explains God is fully present in JC and is God himself with divine attributes FROM BIRTH
-Disagrees with the kenotic model, and agrees with the hypostatic Union

-Matthew, Jesus is referred to as "Immanuel", meaning "God is with us"
-The wise men worship Jesus (surely he is divine)

BUT

-Virgin has been argued to be a mistranslation of 'almah' (a young woman of marrying age) as a result of using the Greek translation, which undermines the virgin birth+JC's divinity
-Luke “son of God”
-Criticised by reform theologians for depending too much on Aristotle's pagan views on substance

-Hick argued that the historical Jesus did not teach nor 'apparently believe that he was God, or God the Son, Second person of a Holy Trinity, incarnate, or the son of God in a unique sense.'
-Gospel writers wrote long after Jesus' life, Mark, the earliest gospel, begins with Jesus' baptism making no mention of a divine birth and Jesus is depicted as a prophet.
-Suggests that Jesus being the son of God in a unique sense was a later invention (Council of Chalcedon in 451)
-The label 'son of God' (Luke) was a common title in Judaism when referring to a very special human chosen by God (eg Adam was called the son of God)
-The incarnation was therefore metaphorical, Jesus embodied 'the goodness and love of God'.
-Hick argues the benefit is this avoids the paradoxes of the the duality of Christ and the trinity.

Doctrine of Incarnation (evidence and questions)

-The Son of God became true man while remaining true God (JC was god in human form)
-Supports hypostatic union and substantial presence

EVIDENCE
-Matthew, Jesus is referred to as "Immanuel", meaning "God is with us"
-The wise men worship Jesus (surely he is divine)
-Virgin Birth

BUT

-Virgin has been argued to be a mistranslation of 'almah' (a young woman of marrying age) as a result of using the Greek translation, which undermines the virgin birth+JC's divinity

-Criticised by reform theologians for depending too much on Aristotle's pagan views on substance

-Hick argued that the historical Jesus did not teach nor 'apparently believe that he was God, or God the Son, Second person of a Holy Trinity, incarnate, or the son of God in a unique sense.'
-Gospel writers wrote long after Jesus' life, Mark, the earliest gospel, begins with Jesus' baptism making no mention of a divine birth and Jesus is depicted as a prophet.
-Suggests that Jesus being the son of God in a unique sense was a later invention (Council of Chalcedon in 451)
-The label 'son of God' (Luke) was a common title in Judaism > referred to a special human chosen by God (eg Adam)
-The incarnation was therefore metaphorical, Jesus embodied 'the goodness and love of God'.
-Hick argues the benefit is this avoids the paradoxes of the duality of Christ and the trinity.

What are the two differing theories for incarnation?

The kenotic model
The substantial presance (with hypostatic union)

Kenotic model quotes

Philippians 2 "emptied himself taking the form of a slave".

Messiah

Savior sent by God

Resurrection story vague outline

-JC arrested and killed, many disciples fled and questioned him

-He returned three days later

-He was on earth for 40 days to prove he had been resurrected

-Disciples warned that they would be persecuted but they can only “kill the body”

-He ascended

How do the birth narratives provide insight into the doctrine of incarnation?

-Some argue that Matthew's claim to a virgin birth is based on a mistranslation of the OT
- the original Hebrew word "almah" means young woman of a marriageable age, rather than virgin. Isaiah was not writing of a Messiah born of a virgin, and Matthew's translation has led to this misconception
-Some regard this concept as mythical, in which heroes are born to heroes e.g. Hercules, and so was in invention of the Early Church to portray Jesus as the Son of God
-However, some readily accept the virgin birth in that Christian writers are highly unlikely to have been influenced by pagan writers. Both gospels unanimously agree that Mary was a virgin, and Luke's gospel is insisted that his research was careful and accurate
-If Jesus is God, as Christians believed, it makes sense that He would enter the world in a supernatural way.

John's Gospel may be more theological than historical

-Use of chiasm in the ABCBA structure. Highly stylised and thought out narrative, formatted more as a literary work than a historical account. This suggests he organised chronology in a way to highlight his theological point about the disciples believing in the risen Jesus.
-Climatically ends with Thomas believing after doubting Jesus, with a broad message to the audience about us believing without seeing - this is a highly convenient ending!

Chiasm in resurrection John 20

A- the disciples who “saw the linen”, “he saw and he believed”, though they can only testify to empty tomb they believed in the resurrection (believed without seeing)

B- Mary doesn’t recognise JC “thinking he was the gardener” (she is later sent to spread good news > apostle > gender equality) (doesn’t recognise JC but comes to)

C- disciples don’t recognise him but are influenced by the HS “he breathed on them and said ‘receive the HS’”

(Genesis God breathed life, signifies the new life and beginning of Church, HS now with them for guidance)

B- Thomas doesn’t believe “unless (he) see(s) the nail marks” and he does!

A- John addressed the readers and says “you may believe” after reading this and be blessed

Heavenly body post resurrection

JC seems more powerful

John 21 he performs a miracle with omniscience, “throw your net on the right side of the boat” (against kenotic model?)

“J appeared” by the sea, how’d he get there?

JC reinstates Peter

He repeats “feed my lambs” and other Shepardy phrases> three commands and Sheparding imagery > reflects God’s care

JC references Peters death (“J said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God”) so although John is identified as the source it must have been written later

Matthew 10:28

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Outline of scholars (Wright+Bultmann) on the resurrection

NT Wright

Believed it as a historical event (12-25 1 Corinthians)

There must be an afterlife for JC to be resurrected from

– P there was no clear evidence from the Greeks or Jews of bodily resurrection (lots of visions from God), early Christians, cited resurrection as evidence for Jesus as the Messiah – bodily resurrection is not the default. Why would they assume it?

– E. “then the other disciples, who reached the tomb, first also went in, and he saw and believed“ John 20:8

– P bodily resurrection taught Christians about heavenly bodies.

– E when Mary thought Jesus was a gardener John 20:15

– P resurrection is very important and specific to Christians.

- E “I desire to the part and be with Christ, which is better by far“ Philippians 1:23.

Bultmann

Aims to demythologise the New Testament

He does not believe that the resurrection of historical, as it is unscientific. “a wise man proportion is his belief to his evidence“

The crucifixion contains the Resurrection.

– P – resurrection is a myth.

– E “if the resurrection was a historical fact, faith would become superfluous“

– E Jesus Christ is not literally God, but an expression of him, a mouthpiece

– P when demythologised the resurrection is the realisation that the crucifixion was a victory (lord of life dying = conquering death)

– E “faith in the resurrection is really the same thing as faith in saving efficacy of the cross”

– E the resurrection takes place within individuals (they hear the word of preaching and experience their faith rise)

NT Wright's view of the afterlife+heavenly body

-N. T. Wright thinks our souls are not immediately judged and sent to heaven or hell for eternity (influence of Middle Ages paganism + Platonic dualism)

-The Bible tells us that immediately after death our souls will have a temporary presence with Christ until judgement day and the second coming where our souls will be united with our body
-Our resurrected body will be immortal and the righteous (the unrighteous will have eternal separation from God) -Wright calls resurrection "life after life after death".

-Afterlife will not be a simple return to the same sort of body as before nor will it be disembodied bliss
-Jesus' body had transformed, the disciples had to touch him to make sure he was real, he appears in locked rooms and disappears > the resurrection body is an upgrade,

BIBLICAL SUPPORT
-Book of revelation, God shows John the future where there is the 'new heavens and the New Earth" where there will be "no more death, or mourning, or crying or pain."
-Lord's prayer Jesus suggests people pray to God that "Your kingdom come". Wright argues this means the kingdom of heaven is not a place where you go but will come to earth

Was the Resurrection physical or nonphysical

-physical res=physical afterlife v nonphysical res=nonphysical afterlife
-Paul calls JC's res "the firstfruits" > the first resurrection after which ours will follow
-Paul claims that JC saved us from our sinful state which Adam caused "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive".
-Paul differentiates the earthly body from the resurrected body: "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable (implies afterlife is eternal) [...] it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body".
-It will not be mere flesh and blood, since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ... we will all be changed".
(Augustine believes hevbod more believable)
-When we are raised we will have a different and improved body (as happened to JC)
-His disciples, they did not recognize him at first "Thinking he was the gardener" John 20
-The Gospels emphasise he can appear and disappear "Jesus appeared again to his disciples" Luke 21

SPIRITUAL RES
-Argued to make more sense of Jesus' post-mortem appearances
Seems to be able to disappear and reappear + is unrecognisable > could indicate a non-physical form.
-St Paul even called our future resurrected bodies 'spiritual' bodies.
-Our earthly bodies are associated with sin and earthliness, some dont believe it could become heavenly

BUT

-Empty tomb suggests a physical resurrection

-Paul’s use of ‘spiritual’ was not immaterial as we think of it now, the spirt was a material (perfect and incapable of decay)

> N. T. Wright Paul and the gospels use the word ‘soul’ not in a platonic/dualistic manner but closer to the Hebrew word ‘nephesh’, meaning living God-breathed creature

Augustine- our earthly body being raised in the flesh in an exalted form is far more believable than that our spirit could be joined with those sinful earthly bodies in the first place
-Our resurrected body must be physical since Christ's resurrection was of a physical body (which repped the hope for all Christians to be resurrected)

PHYSICAL RES
-Jesus' physical body had disappeared (MM "They have taken the lord out of the tomb" Luke 20) > suggests it was his physical body and the same will occur for us

-We will receive a heavenly body- this explains Paul’s description of the ‘spiritual’ body and JC’s alterations (Augustine says it is more believable as our earthly bodies are assoc with sin)

BUT

-Cannibalism problem- what of bodies that are incompatible with a physical resurrection due to decay, cremation, cannibalism (animals eat you, you eat animals)

BUT God’s omnipotence?

Phillipians on the resurrection

-St. Paul's letter to the Philippians has been interpreted as suggesting something happens to us before resurrection at the end of time
'to attain to the resurrection from the dead.'
-Paul says it is better to die and be with Christ, but the 'more necessary' task is to keep living to spread Christianity
'I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body'
-He suggests that immediately after death there will be a presence with Christ (suggestion of smth before heaven) (particular judgement) > influenced idea of non-physical existence in Heaven
-BUT, he is not trying to replace general judgement with particular judgement, but just suggesting that there is particular judgement in addition to general judgement


-N. T. Wright argues that the New Testament is "largely uninterested" in the question of what happens to us after death but before the resurrection
-"in none of these passages is there any mention of the psyche [soul])."
-Concludes that if the early Christians had wanted to teach that what they mean by 'soul' is the "part of us which survives death and carries our real selves until the day of resurrection, they could have said so" (claims them as unhelpful in understanding the soul)

It’s just Platonic influences

Criticisms of NT Wright + the resurrection story's historical reliability

HALLUCINATION HYPOTHESIS

-Some argue that Jesus' post-mortem appearances to the disciples could have been some kind of visionary/religious hallucination and therefore not credible as historical evidence.
BUT
-Wright visions of the dead was a well-known idea in ancient Judaism (would have understood him as being taken up into heaven by God to the bosom of Abraham and glorified, not concluded that Jesus had been raised from the dead)
-Craig the diversity of appearances in multiple sources, including the disciples (Paul and James) and the fact that multiple people were present in the cases of the disciples, shows that the appearances being real is a better explanation.
BUT
-Most religions have miracle stories which are claimed to be attested to by eyewitnesses (would have to believe in the miracles stories from many religions which can't all be true and so we would be inconsistent)
-Keith Parsons according to the gospels "Jesus' ministry contained many heretical elements" e.g. Mark 2:28 Jesus claims to dictate on the rules concerning the sabbath. So the arising of radical beliefs about resurrection and Messianism in the disciple's minds "hardly seems to require supernatural explanation".

-Bart Ehrman points out that there are inconsistencies in the biblical accounts of the resurrection. John says Jesus died on the day before the Passover meal was eaten at noon, but Mark says it was after at 9am
-The gospels differ on:
it was Mary alone who went to the tomb, or she went with other women
the stone was rolled away before they got there,
saw a man, two men or an angel in the tomb.
> "these are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eyewitnesses, they were Greek speaking Christians living 35-65 years after”

BUT

-Craig the inconsistencies are peripheral to the message+later sources inconsistencies shouldn’t undermine the reliability of the earlier sources or central facts

NT Wright on the Resurrection

-Believed it as a historical event (12-25 1 Corinthians)

(There must be an afterlife for JC to be resurrected from)

– P there was no clear evidence from the Greeks or Jews of bodily resurrection (would’ve assumed visions from God)

-No evidence in ancient Greek philosophy for bodily resurrection (Homer and Plato speak of soul afterlife) In ancient Jewish thought there is a ‘vague and unfocused’ belief in resurrection which is about the restoring of Israel and all of its people.

-Early Christians cited resurrection as evidence for Jesus as the Messiah – bodily resurrection is not the default. Why would they assume it?

– E. “then the other disciples, who reached the tomb, first also went in, and he saw and believed“ John 20:8

-P The empty tomb being discovered by women followers (whose testimony was not valued in court) suggests it was not made up (would’ve said it was men)

-E “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed”John 20

– P bodily resurrection taught Christians about heavenly bodies.

– E when Mary thought Jesus was a gardener John 20:15

– P resurrection is very important and specific to Christians.

- E “I desire to the part and be with Christ, which is better by far“ Philippians 1:23.

-P Wright claims that Jesus saw himself as the Messiah, it wasn’t an invention of the early church, but not as the Messiah of Jewish tradition, (he would atone for the sins of all humanity)

-Jesus’ death on the cross would have been seen by Jews as confirmation that he was not the Messiah but post crucifixion followers viewed it as confirmation

-Wright concludes “that is why as a historian I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”

BUT

Hallucination Hypothesis

Rudolph Bultmann on Resurrection

-Aims to demythologise the new Testament by eliminating mythological elements (to find deeper truths)

-He does not believe that the resurrection of historical, as it is unscientific. “a wise man proportion is his belief to his evidence“

BUT St Paul criticises this belief saying if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ resurrection, your faith is futile.

-Bultmann claims what is essential to faith is the realisation that the crucifixion was not a defeat but a victory, because the lord of life had given himself over to death and conquered it (the crucifixion of Jesus contained the resurrection within it)

-(eg Easter, when demythologised, is not about the rising of Jesus but the raising the early church due to the raising of faith of the disciples which inspired them to preach )

-He believes Jesus is not God’s son, but an expression of God.

-You do not need faith in the Resurrection for Christian faith.

-If the Resurrection was historical faith would not be needed (need to have faith in Jesus and the message)

BUT much of the Bible is fact

BUT some is not

BUT how do we differentiate fact from fiction (Bult not biblically supported)

-Because it can never be proven, and when demythologised, the resurrection is merely a realisation that the crucifixion was not a defeat

“if the Resurrection, what historical fact faith become superfluous. What is decisive? It’s not that Jesus has come to life again, but that he is for you the reason one, the one who was crucified is alive again if you see him, as such with the eyes of faith”

NT Wright's criticism of Bultmann demythologising

N. T. Wright’s criticism of Bultmann

-Wright claims that Bultmann’s supposed “objective methods” were biased and influenced by their context

-Bultmann was in unstable post-WW1 Germany. The culture then was against big leader figures and many Germans felt they needed was a sense of community so there was a shift from focus on leaders to community reflected in Bult shifting the focus from Jesus as a great leader, but on the “Christian community”

-Wright claims that through the Gospels we can actually learn something about historical events+the authors personalities and Bult reduces the meaning of the Gospels to mere expressions of deeper truths

-“writers who intend to write about other things than themselves will give you quite a lot of themselves en route, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t telling you about things that actually happened” practicing “critical realism.”

-Wright thinks that unless a Christian has a sense of the historical Jesus, then they are in danger of just believing in a fantasy

-Argues there is a danger of having a sense of Jesus which is uprooted from history, (eg Nazis were able to spread their own non-Jewish version of Jesus)

Hebrew-sheol

shadowy afterlife

1 Corinthians 15:15-23

“For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”

“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”

Hebrew-sheol

shadowy afterlife

"The Bible's teaching on the resurrected body is confusing"

For;
-Paul's work on the resurrected body as a seed and plant is vague, and the only explanation he offers. He speaks of a "spiritual body", which contradicts his firm anti-dualistic stance
-The Church struggles to get doctrine from it, having been debated over many years and no clear conclusion formed - "we believe in the true resurrection of this body we now possess"
-Doctrine states that the earthly body will come back rejuvenated and restored to its prime - what about those with disabilities or babies?

Against;
-Edwin A Abbott's "flatland" speaks of other dimensions that are logical, but incomprehensible and beyond our understanding.
-Seed and Plant have identical DNA - in this way, there are the same but different
-Reflects the nature of Jesus i.e. hypostatic union!

There is no need for a literal resurrection in the Christian faith

For;
-Can't expect people to believe this - Bultmann - belief in the supernatural is unnecessary and indeed, unhelpful
-Close links to myth discredit it - e.g. Hercules and Virgin Birth, invention of the EC
-What the resurrection symbolises exists without a literal resurrection - we don't need to take it this far, the belief in Jesus as saviour doesn't need this extreme story!
Against;
-Paul in if Christ is not risen your faith is futile - without Christ rising, we have no hope of a bodily resurrection either. To spiritualise the resurrection is to destroy it.
- Jesus appears to friends and Apostles, no way this could have been a spiritual matter and not really have happened! Revealed to women - if it was made up they'd have used men as women couldn't testify
- Wright - no where else in Jewish culture! They wouldn't have just made that up and would have abandoned him as Messiah - after life becomes a peripheral concern to a central concern

David

Second king of Israel

Herod

king of Judea who ( according to the New Testament ) tried to kill Jesus by ordering the death of all children under age two in Bethlehem

Herod

king of Judea who ( according to the New Testament ) tried to kill Jesus by ordering the death of all children under age two in Bethlehem

Magi

Wise men of the East who followed a new star that directed them to the birth of Jesus .

Who was Matthew

A tax collector who followed Jesus and was older than him

Birth Narrative

Accounts on the birth of God's son Only has 2 Gospels

Who was Luke

Born after Jesus

Different birthplace

Luke 2:7 'She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them'

(Humble beginnings)

Matthew 2:11 'On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary'

Different dates of birth

Luke 2 : 2 “the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria”

Matthew 2 : 1 “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod , Magi from the east came to Jerusalem”

Helen Bond - The Historical Jesus “Matthew puts it roughly two years before the end of Herod's reign, giving a date of roughly 6 BCE ... Luke sets his birth stories in the days of Herod, King of Judaea 'but later links the birth of Jesus with Quirinius' census of 6 CE"

Different visitors

Luke 2:15 'When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, 'Let's go to Bethlehem'

Matthew 2:1 'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem'"

Links to how Luke’s accounts focus on JC’s interactions and support of impoverished minorites

Different visitors

Luke 2:15 'When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, 'Let's go to Bethlehem'

Matthew 2:1 'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem'"

Links to how Luke’s accounts focus on JC’s interactions and support of impoverished minorites

Different foci

Matthew 1:18 “an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said , Joseph son of David “

Luke 1 : 26-27 “God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth ... to a virgin ... and the virgin.s name was Mary”

Similar virgin conception

Luke 1:27 “to a virgin pledged to be married”

Matthew 1:18 “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph , but before they came together , she was ... with child”

Matthew 1:23 “The virgin will be with child”

Foci

Focus points

Revelation 21:4

“He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Protestant Bible's changes from Catholic

Luther's protestant Bible called the deuteron-canonical books "Apocrypha", (have some limited usefulness but are not equal to the holy scriptures) (gave them a different place in his Bible to indicate that they are not canonical, they are sometimes called intertestamental (written in between the books of NTest and those of the Hebrew Bible)
Luther thought some of the books were heresy, such as Maccabees 12:46 which seems to suggest purgatory exists and denies justification by faith alone.

Bible as a source of comfort

Psalm 46:1 'God is our refuge and strength, an ever present in trouble'

Temptation and sin: even the most devout sin and are tempted. If you repent God will forgive
Bereavement: death is not the end, it is temporary
Fear of death: Jesus has conquered death for us so we can share in his resurrection
Poverty: everyone should be treated the same. We need to provide for the poor. It difficult to go to heaven if you are very rich
Suffering: suffering can help you maintain a spirit of humility and to sympathise with others and rely on God. It is a test of loyalty

Does the Bible hold value

NARRATIVE
(Genesis) helps us understand our purpose and explains the possibility of salvation (comfort)
BUT value of narrative is challenged due to evolution and our knowledge that history is a biased account written by victors

MORALITY
Source of moral advice (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, Luke 6:36-37)
Sermon of the mount teaches agape
BUT we can be good without God (other ethical systems)

INFLUENCE
Influenced our legal systems (10 commandments), our calendar etc
BUT does not directly address modern issues
But is that still meaningful? Can we not just know or learn how to be good?
(Utilitarianism)

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

'Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgement'

Links to omniscience

Luke 6:36-37 (moral advice)

"Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Salvation History

The pattern of specific events in human history in which God clearly reveals his presence and saving actions

Psalm 119:9-10

'How can a young man stay in the path of purity?
By living according to your word.'

Bible shown to be a guide to living

Psalm 46:1-3

“God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.”

Bible as a source of comfort and encouragement

Genesis 1:26-28

‘Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ‘

‘"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."’

Establishes humans as the pinnacle of creation

Teaches meaning and purpose of life

Different views on the authority of the Bible

-Dif understandings on the role of the Bible

sola scriptura > Bible alone is the central authority

-Often maintain it is infallible, some believe it is self-authenticating (meaning clear to a rational reader)

-eg Protestants, too extreme for many >

Prima scriptura > Bible comes before all forms of authority

-eg Anglican Church (prot)

RCC > church and sacred trads are equal in authority to the Bible

-Pope+high-ranking Church members (in Magisterium) deliver new teachings

BUT NT Wright questions how the Bible can be authoritative when it isn’t a perfect rep of Gods will why use it?

It isn’t presented as a list of rules or set up as timeless truths, they are determined by historical context

argues the bible is a reflection of God’s authority (his impact) and we should study to understand that in the context of our lives

Others view it as a witness to divine events+a vehicle for divine truths > more a source of guidance

Magisterium

-RCC

-The body which declares new religious laws and truths for those of the catholic faith

Different ways of reading the Bible

-Impacted by beliefs on what the Bible’s position as a source of authority is

-Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the literal word of God

historically accurate, prioritised sometimes above science,

-Most accept it isn’t a perfect rep of God’s will due to human influence, human interpretation is needed

eg Catholics, trained clergy nec to analyse

BUT NT Wright questions how the Bible can be authoritative when it isn’t a perfect rep of Gods will why use it?

It isn’t presented as a list of rules or set up as timeless truths, they are determined by historical context

argues the bible is a reflection of God’s authority (his impact) and we should study to understand that in the context of our lives

Others view it as a witness to divine events+a vehicle for divine truths > more a source of guidance

The Bible as a source of moral authority

-Recognised as a good source of moral advice even by nonchristians, many moral laws have origins in Christianity

-How does one use the Βible as a source of moral advice

Bible is not just rules, religious+moral truths are conveyed dynamically (stories, parables etc)

Does ft rules eg Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 ‘fear God, and keep his commandments’ as it is humans duty (morally good to do DCT) + ‘for God will bring every deed into judgement’

>Conservatives use this as a central idea to show right and wrong reflects God’s will + it is our responsibility to submit > condemnations of abortion+homosexuality

BUT incoherent

dont keep every law eg Otest kosher laws, or laws that appear absurd eg Leviticus not wearing clothes that mix linen+wool influenced by cultural context not relevant today

OTest NTest differ as JC sought to overturn OTest legalistic thinking > Bible should be analysed alongside JC’s principles (Luke ideas on forgiveness, no judgement, charity, compassion, pacifism)

>Liberals reject legalistic approach view the stories as a template for the importance of moral character (JC virtue example VIRTUE ETHICS)

eg Good Samaritan+Esther> help others

-Agree Bible doesn’t always present sound moral advice, cultural context > bigotry < recognise they contradict JC’s teachings

BUT overly subject

not regarded as infallible then any meaning can be extracted

liberals often criticised for using it to justify trendy ethical ideas

The Bible as a Guide to Living

-Christian life is much more than following moral guidance

-Βible advises on how to celebrate God throughout life + changes this invokes in character+decisions (VIRTUE ETHICS)

-forms of worship

eg prayer demonstrate ones commitment to God + build a lasting relationship

Communal worship (Eucharist, festivals, baptism) no clear moral cause, but a way to be closer to God + be joyful

-Details the attitudes Christians should express in daily life

should internalise teachings Psalms “with my whole heart i seek you”

To follow even in the face of persecution “the wicked have laid a snare for me, but i do not stray from your precepts”

Encourage Christians to look towards salvation not only as an end goal but as a way to live more meaningfully in the present

The Bible as teaching on Life’s Meaning+Purpose

-It is not aimed purely at present circumstances

-Dictates elements of religious history (creation, why, place of humans) it dictates why moral laws exist and how they generate purpose

Genesis sets out how God created the world, provides foundation (made in his image with a specific purpose)

God established to have a pastoral role (humans can grow closer to him + fulfil purpose)

Established dominion and stewardship, importance of procreation as part of flourishing

-Doesn’t wholly equate the human life’s purpose with God given duties

eg Ecclesiastes the meaning is enjoyment (atheists can accept) ‘the dead know nothing […] even the memory of them is lost’ ‘let your garment always be white’ ‘go, eat your bread with enjoyment’

Not hedonistic, encourages finding value in material pleasures under God’s approval + spending time with loved ones whilst remaining good (ref to white)

-Recognise JC’s death on the cross was an act of atonement which opened up salvation

‘For god so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life’

Enjoyment of life must be understood in the context of the saving power of JC > essential to lead a moral life for eternal life (moral actions should be directed towards salvation)

There is not one fixed purpose, it is relative to the person reading- importance of procreation may not be intuitive, some may put salvation secondary to joy

The Bible as a Source of Comfort and Encouragement

-Narratives eg Job often deliver teachings while bringing personal comfort

depict God intervening, assisting individuals, may identify with the struggle and feel comforted by God being on his side

Themes established in Psalms ‘God is our refuge and strength’ ‘therefore we will not fear’

-JC speaks on the comfort brought by spirituality

Matthew ‘do not worry about your life[…] is not life more than food, the body more than clothing’

We may find comfort in JC’s resurrection

-Encourages Christians as a community

when NTest was being written the church was small and persecuted

Reminds that we are not alone, others have struggleled, God wont test beyond limits

Corinthians ‘no tester has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength’