Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§ 12.6 The Kingdom of God
understand the history of which Jesus was a part as a single (grand) narrative,
what then? It is unsatisfactory to conclude that the only alternative option is to
envisage a multiplicity of narratives for first-century Jews. For the undoubtedly
different readings of God's hand in history which we find in the 'Judaisms' of the
time were still perceived as different readings of the same narrative, as given in
Israel's scriptures. The different readings were, in effect, variations on the common
trust in God to work out his purpose for humankind and creation. What is
lacking is a single complete narrative wholly agreed as to its details. What we
have in the eschatology of § 12.2c is a common basic outline of trust and hope
elaborated and supplemented only by flashes of insight and inspiration. We have
a narrative somewhat like a fragmentary Dead Sea scroll: we know that (most of)
the fragments belong together (though some may come from an unknown document);
but piecing them together is literally beyond us, because so much is missing
or has been worn away. The incompleteness of the narrative means that the
temporal flow breaks down, and we do not know how to relate episodes and visions
to one another. An alternative image is that of a film full of flashbacks,
where it is not always clear whether the scene portrayed at any moment is past or
present. With the eschatology of the Jesus tradition we have as it were a film full
of flash-forwards, but posing the same problem for the viewer. If we're not confused,
then something is wrong: we are imposing our order on an intrinsically
unordered narrative. The shattered mirror of prophecy gives a Picasso-esque image,
and how the often jagged fragments fit into a whole is by no means clear.
Another term which has proved useful in such discussions is 'myth' —
myth understood not in the sense of 'unhistorical', but in the sense of denoting
that which is beyond history, that for which scenes drawn on the template of human
history can function only pictorially or allusively. 484 Biblical scholars have
become accustomed to using the term in relation to the 'time' of beginnings, the
Urzeit, the opening chapters of Genesis. This is a 'time' which precedes history
— historical time, by definition, being time which is in principle capable of being
investigated by the normal tools of historical research. Urzeit is 'prehistory
time', if we may put it so. What then about 'post-history time', Endzeit? One of
the non-linear features of Jewish eschatology is the expectation that Endzeit will
be as Urzeit, the 'end' will return to the beginning, heaven will be paradise restored.
Which is also to say that post-history time will inevitably share the mythical
character of prehistory time. Any attempt to speak about the final future will
previous section (§12.6d) one might note the inevitability of some 'slippage' between the three
phases of the process.
484. My use of the term 'myth' is thus limited (see also 'Myth', DJG 566-69). I am
aware of the debate regarding its much more extensive use; K. W. Bolle and P. Ricoeur, 'Myth',
in M. Eliade, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987) 10.261-82; R. A.
Oden, 'Myth and Mythology', ABD 4.946-56.
485