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

§16.2 How Did Jesus See His Own Role? ring. 57 This Q passage may thus indicate one of the shoots which grew into the full Johannine bloom. But it also may indicate that the development was already well under way in Q. If, for example, John 10.15 ('the Father knows me and I know my Father') attests awareness of an early tradition somewhat along these lines, 58 then Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22 already attests a heightened exclusivity in the christological claims of Q. Second, the claim to unrestricted authority and the absoluteness and exclusiveness of the relation postulated between 'the Father' and 'the Son' are unprecedented in the pre-Easter Synoptic tradition. 59 Again it is possible to argue for an earlier, less exclusive, form of the tradition. Jeremias suggested that the chiastic parallelism of the two lines 'is simply an oriental periphrasis for a mutual relationship: only father and son really know each other'. 60 And the Wisdom literature throws up several parallels of not so dissimilar claims to knowledge of God, 61 particularly Wis. 2.10-20, where it is said of the righteous man: 'He claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child (paida) of the Lord ... and boasts that God is his father' (vv. 13, 16). 62 However, the more we think we can see a less controversial father-son saying behind Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22, the more controversial the present form of the Q passage seems to be. 63 Here it is wise to acknowledge that such a discussion is unavoidably caught in the inadequacies of the historical method. 64 For its natural recourse is to search out precedents and parallels to help explain particular and distinctive data. And the tendency or temptation is to conform the data to the precedents, to explain by explaining away the less obviously explicable elements. 57. Cf. John 1.18; 3.35; 5.20; 7.29; 10.15; 13.3; 14.7,9; 17.25. This is the decisive consideration for Funk, Five Gospels 182, and Lüdemann, Jesus 330-31, in deciding for the saying's inauthenticity. Note also Dial. Sav. 134.14-15: 'How will someone who does [not] know [the Son] know the [Father]?' 58. Dodd, Historical Tradition 359-61. 59. The closest parallel to Matt. 11.27a in the Synoptic tradition is (the post-resurrection saying) Matt. 28.18: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'. 60. Jeremias, Prayers 47-48; taking up a suggestion of Dalman, Words 193-94. 61. F. Christ, Jesus Sophia. Die Sophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern (Zürich: Zwingli, 1970) 89 refers to Job 28.1-28; Sir. 1.6, 8; Bar. 3.15-4.4; cf. 1 Cor. 2.11. M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1970) 89-95 refers particularly to Wis. 2.17-18 and 4.10, 13-15. For the DSS, see W. D. Davies,'"Knowledge" in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matt. 11.25-30', HTR 46 (1953), reprinted in Christian Origins and Judaism (London: DLT, 1962) 119-44. E. Schweizer refers particularly to 1QS 4.22; 9.17-18; 11.3,15- 18; lQSb (lQ28b) 4.25-28; 1QH 10[2].13; 18[10].27-28 (TDNT&373 n. 281). 62. Cf. Schillebeeckx, Jesus 265. 63. Contrast I. H. Marshall, 'The Divine Sonship of Jesus', Interpretation 21 (1967) 87- 103, reprinted in Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology (London: SPCK, 1990) 134-49 (here 137-39); Witherington, Christology 221-28. 64. See above, §6.3c. 719

§16.2 How Did <strong>Jesus</strong> See His Own Role?<br />

r<strong>in</strong>g. 57 This Q passage may thus <strong>in</strong>dicate one of <strong>the</strong> shoots which grew <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong><br />

full Johann<strong>in</strong>e bloom. But it also may <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>the</strong> development was already<br />

well under way <strong>in</strong> Q. If, for example, John 10.15 ('<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r knows me and I<br />

know my Fa<strong>the</strong>r') attests awareness of an early tradition somewhat along <strong>the</strong>se<br />

l<strong>in</strong>es, 58 <strong>the</strong>n Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22 already attests a heightened exclusivity <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> christological claims of Q.<br />

Second, <strong>the</strong> claim to unrestricted authority and <strong>the</strong> absoluteness and exclusiveness<br />

of <strong>the</strong> relation postulated between '<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r' and '<strong>the</strong> Son' are unprecedented<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pre-Easter Synoptic tradition. 59 Aga<strong>in</strong> it is possible to argue for an<br />

earlier, less exclusive, form of <strong>the</strong> tradition. Jeremias suggested that <strong>the</strong> chiastic<br />

parallelism of <strong>the</strong> two l<strong>in</strong>es 'is simply an oriental periphrasis for a mutual relationship:<br />

only fa<strong>the</strong>r and son really know each o<strong>the</strong>r'. 60 And <strong>the</strong> Wisdom literature<br />

throws up several parallels of not so dissimilar claims to knowledge of<br />

God, 61 particularly Wis. 2.10-20, where it is said of <strong>the</strong> righteous man: 'He<br />

claims to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child (paida) of <strong>the</strong> Lord<br />

... and boasts that God is his fa<strong>the</strong>r' (vv. 13, 16). 62 However, <strong>the</strong> more we th<strong>in</strong>k<br />

we can see a less controversial fa<strong>the</strong>r-son say<strong>in</strong>g beh<strong>in</strong>d Matt. 11.27/Luke 10.22,<br />

<strong>the</strong> more controversial <strong>the</strong> present form of <strong>the</strong> Q passage seems to be. 63<br />

Here it is wise to acknowledge that such a discussion is unavoidably<br />

caught <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>adequacies of <strong>the</strong> historical method. 64 For its natural recourse is<br />

to search out precedents and parallels to help expla<strong>in</strong> particular and dist<strong>in</strong>ctive<br />

data. And <strong>the</strong> tendency or temptation is to conform <strong>the</strong> data to <strong>the</strong> precedents, to<br />

expla<strong>in</strong> by expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g away <strong>the</strong> less obviously explicable elements.<br />

57. Cf. John 1.18; 3.35; 5.20; 7.29; 10.15; 13.3; 14.7,9; 17.25. This is <strong>the</strong> decisive consideration<br />

for Funk, Five Gospels 182, and Lüdemann, <strong>Jesus</strong> 330-31, <strong>in</strong> decid<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>the</strong> say<strong>in</strong>g's<br />

<strong>in</strong>au<strong>the</strong>nticity. Note also Dial. Sav. 134.14-15: 'How will someone who does [not] know<br />

[<strong>the</strong> Son] know <strong>the</strong> [Fa<strong>the</strong>r]?'<br />

58. Dodd, Historical Tradition 359-61.<br />

59. The closest parallel to Matt. 11.27a <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Synoptic tradition is (<strong>the</strong> post-resurrection<br />

say<strong>in</strong>g) Matt. 28.18: 'All authority <strong>in</strong> heaven and on earth has been given to me'.<br />

60. Jeremias, Prayers 47-48; tak<strong>in</strong>g up a suggestion of Dalman, Words 193-94.<br />

61. F. Christ, <strong>Jesus</strong> Sophia. Die Sophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern (Zürich: Zw<strong>in</strong>gli,<br />

1970) 89 refers to Job 28.1-28; Sir. 1.6, 8; Bar. 3.15-4.4; cf. 1 Cor. 2.11. M. J. Suggs, Wisdom,<br />

Christology and Law <strong>in</strong> Mat<strong>the</strong>w's Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1970) 89-95 refers<br />

particularly to Wis. 2.17-18 and 4.10, 13-15. For <strong>the</strong> DSS, see W. D. Davies,'"Knowledge" <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Dead Sea Scrolls and Matt. 11.25-30', HTR 46 (1953), repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Christian Orig<strong>in</strong>s and Judaism<br />

(London: DLT, 1962) 119-44. E. Schweizer refers particularly to 1QS 4.22; 9.17-18; 11.3,15-<br />

18; lQSb (lQ28b) 4.25-28; 1QH 10[2].13; 18[10].27-28 (TDNT&373 n. 281).<br />

62. Cf. Schillebeeckx, <strong>Jesus</strong> 265.<br />

63. Contrast I. H. Marshall, 'The Div<strong>in</strong>e Sonship of <strong>Jesus</strong>', Interpretation 21 (1967) 87-<br />

103, repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jesus</strong> <strong>the</strong> Saviour: Studies <strong>in</strong> New Testament Theology (London: SPCK, 1990)<br />

134-49 (here 137-39); Wi<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>gton, Christology 221-28.<br />

64. See above, §6.3c.<br />

719

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!