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

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING 516.2 ciples in saying 'our Father'. 51 And we recall also the conclusion of Jesus' reply to the Baptist: 'Blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me' (Matt. 11.6/Luke 7.23). All this strengthens the likelihood both that Jesus thought of himself as God's son and that he sensed his sonship to be something distinctive in its intimacy and immediacy. 52 Such certainly seems to be the most obvious conclusion to draw from the impact which he left on, in and through the Jesus tradition at this point. c. Did Jesus Teach That He Was God's Son? Leaving aside the much developed Johannine tradition, 53 there are three passages which cannot be ignored: Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22; Mark 12.6; and 13.32.1 have dealt with them in some detail in Jesus and the Spirit, with indecisive results. 54 Does a more explicitly tradition-historical approach add anything new? (1) Only the Son (Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22): Matt. 11.27 All things have been handed over to me bv mv Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anvone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him'. Luke 10.22 All things have been handed over to me bv mv Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father. or who the Father is except the Son and anvone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him'. Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22 is the continuation of the fuller Q passage Matt. 11.25- 27/Luke 10.21-22 (§16.2b), whose language, style, and structure clearly indicate an Aramaic origin. 55 The variations between Matt. 11.27 and Luke 10.22 are no more than performance variants. 56 The problem for questers is that both forms look like developed tradition. Two considerations are of greatest weight. First, the saying is untypical of the Synoptic tradition and has a distinctively Johannine 51. Dalman, Words 190; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth 128-29; Goppelt, Theology 1.203; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 526. 52. See again my earlier discussions in Jesus and the Spirit 23-26 (where the discussion focuses on the question of Jesus' own experience), and in Christology 28-33 (where the discussion focuses more on whether Jesus had a consciousness of pre-existence). 53. See again my Christology 29-32. 54. Jesus and the Spirit 26-36. I omit consideration of Luke 22.29-30 ('my Father's kingdom') here, since it is attested only by Luke and cannot be attributed to Q; but see Jesus and the Spirit 36. 55. Burney, Poetry 133, 171-72; Manson, Sayings 79; Jeremias, Prayers 46-47; also Proclamation 57-58. There is disagreement on whether the two sayings originally belonged together; for contrasting views see Fitzmyer, Luke 2.866; Davies and Allison Matthew 2.279. 56. See also discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew 2.280-81 and n. 206. 718

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING 516.2<br />

ciples <strong>in</strong> say<strong>in</strong>g 'our Fa<strong>the</strong>r'. 51 And we recall also <strong>the</strong> conclusion of <strong>Jesus</strong>' reply<br />

to <strong>the</strong> Baptist: 'Blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me' (Matt. 11.6/Luke<br />

7.23). All this streng<strong>the</strong>ns <strong>the</strong> likelihood both that <strong>Jesus</strong> thought of himself as<br />

God's son and that he sensed his sonship to be someth<strong>in</strong>g dist<strong>in</strong>ctive <strong>in</strong> its <strong>in</strong>timacy<br />

and immediacy. 52 Such certa<strong>in</strong>ly seems to be <strong>the</strong> most obvious conclusion<br />

to draw from <strong>the</strong> impact which he left on, <strong>in</strong> and through <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> tradition at<br />

this po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />

c. Did <strong>Jesus</strong> Teach That He Was God's Son?<br />

Leav<strong>in</strong>g aside <strong>the</strong> much developed Johann<strong>in</strong>e tradition, 53 <strong>the</strong>re are three passages<br />

which cannot be ignored: Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22; Mark 12.6; and 13.32.1 have<br />

dealt with <strong>the</strong>m <strong>in</strong> some detail <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Spirit, with <strong>in</strong>decisive results. 54<br />

Does a more explicitly tradition-historical approach add anyth<strong>in</strong>g new?<br />

(1) Only <strong>the</strong> Son (Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22):<br />

Matt. 11.27<br />

All th<strong>in</strong>gs have been handed over to me bv mv<br />

Fa<strong>the</strong>r; and no one knows <strong>the</strong> Son except<br />

<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r, and no one knows <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r except<br />

<strong>the</strong> Son and anvone to whom <strong>the</strong> Son chooses to<br />

reveal him'.<br />

Luke 10.22<br />

All th<strong>in</strong>gs have been handed over to me bv mv<br />

Fa<strong>the</strong>r; and no one knows who <strong>the</strong> Son is except<br />

<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r. or who <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r is except<br />

<strong>the</strong> Son and anvone to whom <strong>the</strong> Son chooses to<br />

reveal him'.<br />

Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22 is <strong>the</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uation of <strong>the</strong> fuller Q passage Matt. 11.25-<br />

27/Luke 10.21-22 (§16.2b), whose language, style, and structure clearly <strong>in</strong>dicate<br />

an Aramaic orig<strong>in</strong>. 55 The variations between Matt. 11.27 and Luke 10.22 are no<br />

more than performance variants. 56 The problem for questers is that both forms<br />

look like developed tradition. Two considerations are of greatest weight. First,<br />

<strong>the</strong> say<strong>in</strong>g is untypical of <strong>the</strong> Synoptic tradition and has a dist<strong>in</strong>ctively Johann<strong>in</strong>e<br />

51. Dalman, Words 190; Bornkamm, <strong>Jesus</strong> of Nazareth 128-29; Goppelt, Theology<br />

1.203; Theissen and Merz, Historical <strong>Jesus</strong> 526.<br />

52. See aga<strong>in</strong> my earlier discussions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Spirit 23-26 (where <strong>the</strong> discussion<br />

focuses on <strong>the</strong> question of <strong>Jesus</strong>' own experience), and <strong>in</strong> Christology 28-33 (where <strong>the</strong> discussion<br />

focuses more on whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Jesus</strong> had a consciousness of pre-existence).<br />

53. See aga<strong>in</strong> my Christology 29-32.<br />

54. <strong>Jesus</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Spirit 26-36. I omit consideration of Luke 22.29-30 ('my Fa<strong>the</strong>r's<br />

k<strong>in</strong>gdom') here, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is attested only by Luke and cannot be attributed to Q; but see <strong>Jesus</strong><br />

and <strong>the</strong> Spirit 36.<br />

55. Burney, Poetry 133, 171-72; Manson, Say<strong>in</strong>gs 79; Jeremias, Prayers 46-47; also<br />

Proclamation 57-58. There is disagreement on whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> two say<strong>in</strong>gs orig<strong>in</strong>ally belonged toge<strong>the</strong>r;<br />

for contrast<strong>in</strong>g views see Fitzmyer, Luke 2.866; Davies and Allison Mat<strong>the</strong>w 2.279.<br />

56. See also discussion <strong>in</strong> Davies and Allison, Mat<strong>the</strong>w 2.280-81 and n. 206.<br />

718

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!