Allusions, citations, echoes (AGAIN)

Should exegetes avoid classifying the myriad of ways in which the New Testament writers use the Old Testament as S. Pattemore suggests (see previous post)? I can appreciate Pattemore’s emphasis on understanding the text of Scripture. I would even agree that determining whether a given use of the OT is a “quotation,” “allusion,” “echo,” etc. does not directly help one interpret how that text is being used in the NT. Nonetheless, it seems the jargon used to categorize how a NT writer is using an OT text provides a helpful means of expressing how closely the NT writer “mirrors” an OT text. This in turns allows the exegete to convey the degree of likelihood a NT writer is using an OT text and thus interpret a greater number of NT texts intertextually. For example, while Paul does not indicate in Philippians 2:16b that he quoting from Daniel 12:3, an analysis of both passages indicates that he is likely directed the reader to interpret Phil 2:16 in light of Dan 12:3. In fairness to Pattemore, he would likely respond that since the cognitive environments are close enough and the results one gleans from interpreting Phil 2:16 in light of Dan 12:3 would have been relevant to Paul’s audience, then Phil 2:16b and Dan 12:3 are sufficiently parallel contexts. [One should note here that Pattemore's approach seems closely related to Hays' criteria of 'satisfaction' (see R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture).]

Pattemore’s approach to intertextuality is especially helpful for weighing the possibility that a given OT (or second temple) text is being alluded to by a NT writer. Nonetheless, using (subjective) categories such as ‘allusion,’ ‘echo,’ etc. does allow the exegete to convey the degree of likelihood that a NT writer is in fact intentionally using the OT. This opens to door to consider another possible problem with Pattemore’s methodology – an overemphasis of the audience/reader to the exclusion of the author.

More on this last point to come . . .

Allusions, citations, echoes, etc.,etc., etc.,

Lately I've been reading S. Pattemore's "The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis." Thus far, I've been impressed with his handling of the text of Rev 6. I've also found his approach to Old Testament and second temple parallels quite interesting. Pattemore's use of Relevance Theory (more on this to come) seems to help him make judicious decisions regarding possible intertextual connections. I plan on commenting more on his approach to intertextuality, but for now I will begin with a "short" quotation:

"[H]ow does it advance our understanding of a text if we distinguish between a quotation and an allusion? If an allusion is deliberate and recognizable, then it is equivalent to a quotation because it conveys communicative propositions like 'I have taken this idea from the former text' and 'the former text has something to contribute to your understanding of my meanings' as cognitive effects. Even a formal quotation may convey no more than this, in terms of communicative intents."

The Pocket Dictionary of Charismatic "Theology"

For those of you who have always wondered what constitutes an "overcomer" in Revelation 2-3, you might want to check out this helpful explanation of common terms used by those in the contemporary Charismatic movement.

link

Jesus and the Trinity (finally)

I guess I've finally found the time to put together some thoughts on John 14:28. Hopefully the first question that was posed in the previous post demonstrates that if someone reads Jesus' statement properly (ie., looking at the overall context) it is obvious that Jesus is not making a statement about his ontological relationship to the Father. Instead, Jesus is likely saying something about his mission as the Father's "representative." Rather than being a statement about his ontological relationship to the Father, Jesus' statement would then point to his subordinate status relative to the Father (4:34; 5:30; 6:38).

Jesus' statement, "because I am going to the Father" should likely be seen in relation to his role as "the sent one" (cf. 3:17; 4:34; 5:23; 8:29). That is, the one who was sent is now portrayed in 14:28 stating that he is going back to the one who sent him. Therefore, Jesus' words likely signify that his mission will soon end. If Jesus' mission will soon end, then his disciples would have good reason to rejoice. Finally, it is likely that when Jesus speaks of the Father's greatness, his words should be seen in light of John 10:28-29. Jesus' words would then point to the reality that the disciples need not fear (14:27) because the Father is fully able to protect them (cf. 17:15).

I suppose one of the things that can be learned from this is that there is a serious difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Was Jesus anti-Trinitarian (John 14:28)?

The Sunday School class I'm involved in has recently been discussing John 14. Last Sunday, we were discussing the latter half of that chapter and someone suggested that Jesus' statement "for the Father is greater than I" in v. 28 seems problematic for an orthodox view of the Trinity. Some one else in the class noted that this verse is used by some religious groups in their anti-Trinitarian polemic.

I declined to comment on the statement, thinking that such a complex and important issue deserved more than a cavalier answer. I have some thoughts regarding Jesus' statement and felt this might be a good topic to discuss at "the round table."
So here are two questions for discussion:

1) What is the relationship between Jesus' statement, "for the Father is greater than I," his departure to "the Father" and the disciples love for Jesus?
2) Closely related to # 2, what are the implications of Jesus' statement for our understanding of the "Father"?

[I originally had three questions for discussion, but it seems to me that if you one can gain a better sense of what Jesus is conveying in the ENTIRE sentence, then one can determine if Jesus is anti-Trinitarian or not. There thus was no need for the first question (whatever it was).]

Any thoughts...

"Jesus' Cleansing of the Temple" vs. "Jesus' ______ of the Temple"

In true Alan Bandy fashion, I've decided to try my hand at coining a new theological expression. After reading and pondering Michael Bird's helpful comments about the 'temple cleansing' (see my first post on the temple cleansing in John), I made the determination to find a more accurate description of what Jesus likely was trying to symbolize through his actions in the Jerusalem temple. I know this is not very politically correct, but I think the phrase "Jesus' denunciation of the Temple" may a more accurate ways of describing his overall intention. [I have not read everything on this subject, so if someone else has come up with this phrase, I apologize!] Jesus' description of the temple as "my Father's house" (2:16), however, might suggest that the word "denunciation" is too negative to effectively capture what Jesus is symbolizing.
I do appreciate Sanders' critique of the "Temple cleansing" theory, but I can't help but think it leaves something out. This seems especially likely since he envisions the restoration of the Jerusalem temple by another physical temple. This is certainly not what seems to be presented in the FG (cf. John 2:19). Alan B. has some helpful comments about "both/and" interpretations (see cafeapocalypsis.blogspot.com), but I think this is one case where it is appropriate. I would therefore allow for the possibility that Jesus' action was intended to symbolize more than the Temple's destruction.



Any thoughts...

What will they try to sell next?

Here's an interesting article about the latest Bible out on the market. Is the underlying problem with this PRODUCT the research it is based on or the approach to Bible study it advocates?

Any thoughts...

link: the next great Bible study tool

The Temple Cleansing in John

I've spent the past couple of days mulling over John 2:13ff and thought this might be an interesting topic to begin discussing. The two main difficulties that I've been wrestling with are 1) the placement of the Temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in the FG; 2) the symbolic significance of Jesus' act.

Regarding the first issue, I am open to the possibility that there were actually two Temple cleansings during Jesus' ministry. The differences between John's account and the Synoptics at least allow for the possibility that there were two cleansings. Furthermore, several scholars note that John 1-5 contains traditions that are unique to the FG, suggesting that the Evangelist is narrating a period of Jesus' ministry that is unrecorded in the Synoptics. I know that this is the minority position. Regardless, the Evangelist seems to portray a Jesus that is motivated by different factors (note the absence of an appeal to Isa 56:7). This could also allow for the possibility that there two cleansings.

Regarding the second issue (and more important in my opinion), I am open to Jesus expressing opposition to the priestly class (the corruption of the Temple authorities is well documented by C. Evans and R. Bauckham). I am ALSO open to Jesus' act being understood as symbolic of the temple's destruction and replacement (by him). This latter point is based on the presence of a possible allusion to Zech 14:21 in John 2:16b, Jesus' response in 2:19, and the larger 'replacement' theme in the FG.

In my view, the distinction between Jesus' act as a "cleansing/purification" (eg. Evans) or a "symbol of the Temple's destruction" (Sanders) is an unwarranted disjunction.

Any thoughts . . .

Hello Biblioblogdom!

I must begin by thanking Alan Bandy for introducing me to the world of Biblioblogdom. This seems like a really helpful way of interacting with (somewhat) like-minded individuals and I look forward to lots of fruitful discussion.