Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

khazarzar.skeptik.net
from khazarzar.skeptik.net More from this publisher
09.02.2013 Views

§14.2 The Character of Discipleship similar-sounding degree of intimacy. 32 And the suggestion that God was thought of as remote in the Judaism of Jesus' time speaks more of an earlier generation's tendency to denigrate 'late Judaism' as well as being contradicted by such evidence. 33 Nevertheless the fact that Jesus did encourage his disciples to trust in God as Father, while hardly unique within the Judaism of his day, may be said to be distinctive in its consistency and in the degree of childlike persistence which he encouraged his disciples to express in their prayers. a. Child-Like Trust The data are straightforward. Jesus is remembered as speaking of God quite regularly as 'your Father', the 'you' being his immediate disciples. 34 There can be little doubt that in the course of transmission the motif of God as Father has been extended within the Jesus tradition. 35 But the evidence is sufficient to suggest clearly that the extended motif was an elaboration of a well-remembered feature of Jesus' own teaching. In the Lord's Prayer the disciples are encouraged on their own part to address God as 'Father' (Luke 11.2/Matt. 6.9), which subsequent 32. Sir. 23.1, 4; 51.10 (Hebrew); Wis. 14.3; 3 Mace. 6.3, 8 (G. Schrenk, pater, TDNT 5.981). Much has been made, by Vermes in particular, of the tradition of Honi the circle-drawer (first century BCE), who according to tradition prayed to God 'like a son of the house' (m. Ta 'an 3.8) (Jesus ch. 3). Vermes, however, also notes the absence of such intimacy in the DSS prayers (Religion 180). 33. A basic misconception was that divine 'intermediaries' (Spirit, Wisdom, Word, Name, Glory, as well as angels) indicated thought of God's remoteness (Bousset-Gressmann 319, an often quoted passage; echoed by Bultmann in his Jesus and the Word 137-41; also Primitive Christianity 61), whereas they are better understood as ways of asserting God's immanence without compromising his transcendence (see my Christology 130, 150-51, 176, 219- 20, 229, 252-53). 34. 'Your (singular) Father', Matt. 6.4, 6, 18. 'Your (plural) Father', Mark 11.25/Matt. 6.14-15; Matt. 5.48/Luke 6.36; Matt. 6.32/Luke 12.30; Matt. 7.11/(Luke 11.13); Matt. 5.16,45; 6.1, 8, 26; 10.20, 29; 18.14; 23.9; Luke 12.32; John 20.17.1 will discuss references to 'the Father' (Mark 13.32; Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22) below (§16.2c). 35. Jeremias provided the following statistics for the use of the title 'Father' for God in the words of Jesus: three in Mark, four common to Matthew and Luke, four additional instances peculiar to Luke, thirty-one additional instances peculiar to Matthew, and one hundred in John (Prayers 30-32), to which may be added twenty in GTh (see below). Matthew's tendency to add references to God as Father is illustrated by Matt. 5.45/Luke 6.35; Matt. 6.26/Luke 12.24; and Matt. 10.29/Luke 12.6. Jeremias also notes a 'tendency of the later tradition to suppress "your Father" almost to vanishing point', a tendency attested not least by Thomas, which has only two instances of 'your Father' (GTh 15, 50.3, neither with parallels in the canonical tradition), as against twelve instances of 'the Father' (GTh 27, 40.1, 44.1, 57.1, 69.1, 76.1, 79.2, 83.1, 96.1, 97.1, 98.1, and 113.1, with italics in the list here indicating parallels where 'the Father' has been added). 549

§14.2 The Character of Discipleship<br />

similar-sound<strong>in</strong>g degree of <strong>in</strong>timacy. 32 And <strong>the</strong> suggestion that God was thought<br />

of as remote <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Judaism of <strong>Jesus</strong>' time speaks more of an earlier generation's<br />

tendency to denigrate 'late Judaism' as well as be<strong>in</strong>g contradicted by such evidence.<br />

33 Never<strong>the</strong>less <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Jesus</strong> did encourage his disciples to trust <strong>in</strong><br />

God as Fa<strong>the</strong>r, while hardly unique with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Judaism of his day, may be said to<br />

be dist<strong>in</strong>ctive <strong>in</strong> its consistency and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> degree of childlike persistence which<br />

he encouraged his disciples to express <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir prayers.<br />

a. Child-Like Trust<br />

The data are straightforward. <strong>Jesus</strong> is remembered as speak<strong>in</strong>g of God quite regularly<br />

as 'your Fa<strong>the</strong>r', <strong>the</strong> 'you' be<strong>in</strong>g his immediate disciples. 34 There can be<br />

little doubt that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> course of transmission <strong>the</strong> motif of God as Fa<strong>the</strong>r has been<br />

extended with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> tradition. 35 But <strong>the</strong> evidence is sufficient to suggest<br />

clearly that <strong>the</strong> extended motif was an elaboration of a well-remembered feature<br />

of <strong>Jesus</strong>' own teach<strong>in</strong>g. In <strong>the</strong> Lord's Prayer <strong>the</strong> disciples are encouraged on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

own part to address God as 'Fa<strong>the</strong>r' (Luke 11.2/Matt. 6.9), which subsequent<br />

32. Sir. 23.1, 4; 51.10 (Hebrew); Wis. 14.3; 3 Mace. 6.3, 8 (G. Schrenk, pater, TDNT<br />

5.981). Much has been made, by Vermes <strong>in</strong> particular, of <strong>the</strong> tradition of Honi <strong>the</strong> circle-drawer<br />

(first century BCE), who accord<strong>in</strong>g to tradition prayed to God 'like a son of <strong>the</strong> house' (m. Ta 'an<br />

3.8) (<strong>Jesus</strong> ch. 3). Vermes, however, also notes <strong>the</strong> absence of such <strong>in</strong>timacy <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> DSS prayers<br />

(Religion 180).<br />

33. A basic misconception was that div<strong>in</strong>e '<strong>in</strong>termediaries' (Spirit, Wisdom, Word,<br />

Name, Glory, as well as angels) <strong>in</strong>dicated thought of God's remoteness (Bousset-Gressmann<br />

319, an often quoted passage; echoed by Bultmann <strong>in</strong> his <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Word 137-41; also<br />

Primitive <strong>Christianity</strong> 61), whereas <strong>the</strong>y are better understood as ways of assert<strong>in</strong>g God's immanence<br />

without compromis<strong>in</strong>g his transcendence (see my Christology 130, 150-51, 176, 219-<br />

20, 229, 252-53).<br />

34. 'Your (s<strong>in</strong>gular) Fa<strong>the</strong>r', Matt. 6.4, 6, 18. 'Your (plural) Fa<strong>the</strong>r', Mark 11.25/Matt.<br />

6.14-15; Matt. 5.48/Luke 6.36; Matt. 6.32/Luke 12.30; Matt. 7.11/(Luke 11.13); Matt. 5.16,45;<br />

6.1, 8, 26; 10.20, 29; 18.14; 23.9; Luke 12.32; John 20.17.1 will discuss references to '<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r'<br />

(Mark 13.32; Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22) below (§16.2c).<br />

35. Jeremias provided <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g statistics for <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> title 'Fa<strong>the</strong>r' for God <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> words of <strong>Jesus</strong>: three <strong>in</strong> Mark, four common to Mat<strong>the</strong>w and Luke, four additional <strong>in</strong>stances<br />

peculiar to Luke, thirty-one additional <strong>in</strong>stances peculiar to Mat<strong>the</strong>w, and one hundred <strong>in</strong> John<br />

(Prayers 30-32), to which may be added twenty <strong>in</strong> GTh (see below). Mat<strong>the</strong>w's tendency to add<br />

references to God as Fa<strong>the</strong>r is illustrated by Matt. 5.45/Luke 6.35; Matt. 6.26/Luke 12.24; and<br />

Matt. 10.29/Luke 12.6. Jeremias also notes a 'tendency of <strong>the</strong> later tradition to suppress "your<br />

Fa<strong>the</strong>r" almost to vanish<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t', a tendency attested not least by Thomas, which has only two<br />

<strong>in</strong>stances of 'your Fa<strong>the</strong>r' (GTh 15, 50.3, nei<strong>the</strong>r with parallels <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> canonical tradition), as<br />

aga<strong>in</strong>st twelve <strong>in</strong>stances of '<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r' (GTh 27, 40.1, 44.1, 57.1, 69.1, 76.1, 79.2, 83.1, 96.1,<br />

97.1, 98.1, and 113.1, with italics <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> list here <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g parallels where '<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r' has<br />

been added).<br />

549

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!