This "Supplement" contains quotations, etc. that underscore or enhance the text of the main body of the document "Some Personal Questions………."
The Doctrine of God (Theology). The New Testament offers no new doctrine of God, but simply proclaims that the Old Testament God has now acted definitively. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is now the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Even the fatherhood of God is not new (Isaiah 64.8). Thus all Old Testament theology is implied in the New Testament: God is the creator and Lord of history, the God who acts, who calls Israel into covenant, who promises the redemption of his people. The New Testament proclaims that these promises have now been fulfilled, or rather are now in the process of being fulfilled. - Reginald H. Fuller, "Biblical Theology; New Testament; The Doctrine of God (Theology)" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford, 1996) [CD-Rom]
Excerpts from "God in the NT" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, 1997) [CD-Rom]
A. Jesus' Proclamation of God
Jesus' understanding of God, insofar as it can be reconstructed from the gospel accounts, stands in strong continuity with OT thought, particularly that of the prophetic literature. God is creator, king, and judge, whose holy will, though not fully captured by the Law, is certainly not antithetical to it, and whose love for all creation is reflected in, but not limited to, God's covenant love for Israel. Two features, however, emerge from this background as particularly characteristic of Jesus' preaching and particularly evocative of his concept of God: his proclamation of the imminence of the kingdom of God and his use of 'abbã (father) in prayer to God.
…………
C. The NT Concept of God
That God is good, wise, powerful, just, blessed, holy, and merciful the NT writers do not for a moment doubt. Nor, however, do the OT writers or, for the most part, the pagan writers of this period. Documentation for these and other attributes is as easy to come by in the NT as in the OT . ….
1. The One God. Statements of faith in the one God ( 1 Cor 8:4-6 ; Eph 4:6 ; 1 Tim 2:5 ; Rom 3:30 ; Jas 2:19 ), the only God ( Rom 16:27 ; 1 Tim 1:17 ; 6:15 ; Jude 25 ; John 17:3 ), the God from whom all things derive ( Rom 11:36 ; Heb 2:10 ; 1 Cor 8:6 ; Rev 4:11 ) permeate the NT , and their presence guarantees continuity with the OT and its fundamental proclamation of practical ( Deut 5:7 ) and theoretical ( Deut 4:35 ) monotheism. ……..
Monotheism was also seen to have Christological implications. In Mark 10:17-22, the confession of "God alone" is coupled with Jesus' command to "follow me," suggesting that faith in one God and following Jesus are compatible and even complementary (see 2:7-12 ). In Matt 23:9-10, the uniqueness of God, the "one Father," is paralleled by the uniqueness of Jesus, the "one master" who stands in contrast to the multiplicity of earthly masters. …….
This fundamental monotheistic faith is challenged, but not seriously compromised, by Christological developments within the early Church. Many of the functions of God-creative ( 1 Cor 8:6 ; John 1:3 ), ruling ( 1 Cor 15:24-25 ), and judicial ( 1 Cor 4:4-5 )-and a number of divine epithets, including the title "Lord," are transferred to Jesus. He is the image of God ( Col 1:15 ), bears the very stamp of God's nature ( Heb 1:3 ), and in a few texts, some more ambiguous than others, he is even hailed as God ( Rom 9:5 [disputed]; Titus 2:13 [disputed]; ……). Yet Paul insists that Jesus resisted the temptation to grasp equality with God ( Phil 2:6 ) and affirms that in spite of the divine authority of the risen Christ, which includes dominion over "every rule and every authority and power" ( 1 Cor 15:24 ), he will ultimately deliver this dominion back to God, including dominion over himself, in order "that God may be everything to every one" ( v 28 ). Thus Paul insists that Jesus' divine authority, though tremendous, is nevertheless partial and temporary, while God's power and deity are eternal ( Rom 1:20 ). Even in the Fourth Gospel, where assertions of the unity of Father and Son abound ( 10:30 ; 14:10 ; 17:11 , 21 ), the point is emphasized that this oneness is that of agent and sender ( 5:19-30 ; 6:38-40 ), a oneness of will and function that allows the agent-son to reveal the sender-father ( 12:44-50 ; 14:9 ) without compromising God's primacy ( 14:28 ). ……………..
According to John 5 , part of Jesus' defense against the charge of "making himself equal with God" ( v 18 ) is to assert that his power is derivative, not autonomous, for it is "only what he sees the Father doing . . . that the Son does likewise" ( v 19 ). …..
With regard to Dr. Mauch's Philippians paper (see the separate item within "The Christs of Faith" subsite), note "Philippians 2: 6-11: A Problematic Text" in George W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins (Fortress, 2003), pp. 113 f. - which is supportive of Mauch's exploration.
Regrettably, in the prior section "The Incarnation of Preexistent Wisdom and Logos," Nickelsburg appears to support "Jesus as the preexistent Word" rather than Jesus the Christ as the embodiment of Dabar Yahweh.
Excerpt from James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered [Christianity In The Making, Volume 1] (Eerdmans, 2003), page 225.
a. Aramaic Tradition
We may start by recalling that the tradition as it has come down to us has already been translated once, from Aramaic to Greek. Here is another curious blind spot in most work on Jesus' teaching, in all phases of the 'quest for the historical Jesus'. I refer to the repeated failure to ask about the Aramaic form which Jesus' teaching presumably took.220 Without such inquiry any assertions about earliest forms of the teaching tradition are bound to be suspect in some measure. Not that such a criterion (Can this saying be retrojected back into Aramaic?) should be applied woodenly; translation aimed to achieve dynamic equivalence could easily produce a Greek idiom quite different from the nearest Aramaic equivalent.221 What is of more immediate importance for us here are the important observations by Aramaic experts with regard to the character of the teaching tradition. All have noted that the tradition, even in its Greek state, bears several marks of oral transmission in Aramaic. Already in 1925 C. F. Burney had drawn attention to the various kinds of parallelism (synonymous, antithetic, synthetic)222 and rhythm (four-beat, three-beat, kina metre) characteristic of Hebrew poetry.223 And Matthew Black noted many examples of alliteration, assonance, and paronomasia.224 This is all the stuff of oral tradition, as we noted above (§8.3f). Joachim Jeremias climaxed a lifetime's scholarship by summarising the indications that many of the words appearing in Jesus' teaching had an Aramaic origin, and that the speech involved had many characteristic features, including 'divine passive', as well as the features already noted by Burney and Black.225
220. See below §9.9b, and n. 287.
221. Note the warning of M. Casey, 'The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus' Interpretation of the Cup', JTS 41 (1990) 1-12, particularly 11-12; repeated in Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (SNTSMS 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998) 241. G. Schwarz, 'Und Jesus sprach': Untersuchungen zur aramäischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu (BWANT 118; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 21987) is vulnerable to criticism at this point.
222. Riesner estimates 'about 80 per cent of the separate saying units are formulated in some kind of parallelismus membrorum' ('Jesus as Preacher and Teacher' 202).
223. C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925); see also Manson, Teaching 50-56.
224. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 31967) 160-85; though note J. A. Fitzmyer's strictures ('The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament', A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays [Missoula: Scholars, 1979] 1-27 [here 16-17]). See also Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer 392-404.
225. Jeremias, Proclamation 3-29. Still valuable is the classic study by G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesus mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schriftums und der aramäischen Sprache (Leipzig; Hinrichs, 1898); PT The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (Edinburgh: Clark, 1902).
EXCERPTS FROM E. M. Wallace's Review of
Koester, Craig R., Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community
Second edition
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Pp. xix + 347. Paper. $27.00. ISBN 0800635949NOTE ESPECIALLY THE REVIEWER'S COMMENTS IN PARAGRAPH 4.
Reviewed by Eric M. Wallace
Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Education, Matteson , IL 60443
Review published 12/20/20031
Koester's second edition, with moderate success, again tackles the daunting task of understanding the function of Johannine symbols. He examines the literary, sociohistorical, and theological dimensions of these symbols as seen from the possible vantage point of Jewish, Samaritan and non-Jewish Greek readers. In this second edition, as in the first edition, Koester begins by setting the criteria for identifying and understanding Johannine symbolism in chapter 1. He examines the literary context, the cultural context, and the means for determining a valid interpretation versus an invalid one. It is in this chapter that Koester states the problem in theological reflection, which is: "How do people know God? In the language of the Fourth Gospel, God is 'from above' and people are 'from below,' and to ordinary human eyes God's presence is veiled, his activity elusive" (1). Koester's working thesis is that the symbols (earthly images) bear witness to divine realities. Therefore, the "Gospel presents the paradox that the divine is made known through what is earthly and the universal is disclosed through what is particular" (2). Hence, the symbolic language of the Gospel, of which Jesus is central, gives testimony to who God is and helps to illuminate or unveil the "mystery that is God" (3). Understanding these symbols is crucial to properly interpreting John's Gospel. Koester proposes that even those without a Jewish/ Samaritan background can understand many of the symbols John incorporates, therefore expanding the possible audience of this Gospel outside what has been proposed as an exclusive Johannine community.
2
In chapter 2 Koester examines representative figures. …
3
Chapter 3 addresses symbolic actions that cover the signs Jesus performs as well as the cleansing of the temple and the washing of the disciples' feet. Chapter 4 examines the themes of light and darkness, while chapter 5 explores the symbolism of water. Chapter 6 looks at the crucifixion and Jesus' portrayal as "the man," the "Lamb of God," and the Prophet-King. Chapter 7 examines symbol and the community, giving special attention to the image of the vine and its branches. The last chapter, which is a new chapter, examines symbol and the knowledge of God. At the end of each of these chapters, except for his new and last chapter, Koester adds a theological reflection.
4
The thrust of Koester's work is to argue that the readers of John's Gospel are much more diverse than has been portrayed by others in the past (see Meeks, Lindars, Käsemann, Segovia). Though I am in agreement with Koester in principle, I differ in practice. I feel that in an attempt to show an eclectic audience Koester has gone beyond the intent of the author(s) by focusing too much attention on possible readers and how they may have interpreted the symbols. Because of this focus on possible non-Jewish readers, Koester tends to diminish the significance of the Jewishness of the text. He points out, correctly, the Old Testament parallels to the Johannine symbols as background for understanding these symbols. Yet Koester continues to try to find Hellenistic parallels that would give credence to the idea that Greeks were able to identify and understand the Johannine symbolism. I feel this is unnecessary. The many parallels to the Old Testament indicate that the author(s) wrote the Gospel with a particular audience in mind, an audience who was familiar with the Old Testament. The Greeks who appear in the Gospel have come to Jerusalem during the Passover to worship (12:20). It remains to be seen whether these are Hellenistic Jews or proselytes, but they have come to worship, so it is safe to assume that they know something of the Jewish scriptures. This does not mean that everyone in the Johannine community was a converted Jew, but it does give further credence to the fact that the symbolism in John has Jewish roots, not Hellenistic ones. Therefore, to fully understand the symbolism and the message of John's Gospel, one must look to the Old Testament, to Moses and the prophets who wrote about Jesus (1:45; 5:46-47). Otherwise we begin to see Jesus in light of gnostic redeemer myths (Bultmann) or the Gospel paralleled in light of Hermetic literature (Dodd). John clearly borrows from Israel's salvation history to explain who Jesus is. If the Gospel says that Moses and the prophets wrote of him, why do we look to Homer, Plato, or Seneca for enlightenment? Except for the elements of the Gospel that are clearly Gentile, such as crucifixion and other Roman customs and practices, the theology of the Gospel and the symbols employed by the Gospel writer should be located in the Old Testament.
5
This brings me to another point. Because of this preoccupation with the universality of a symbol, Koester never speaks of the symbol in terms of the major motif and how that motif may change how that symbol is viewed or how it functions within authorial intent. A number of scholars have pointed out that Deut 18 is crucial to understanding the Gospel of John (P. Anderson, Boismard, Meeks). The prophet-like-Moses motif has major import for John's Gospel, yet Koester spends little time at all with this motif. ….
6
Koester's work is well written and provocative. He makes us take a fresh look at the symbols of John's Gospel and question how they function in the narrative, which invites the question: To whom do they speak? I believe that Koester is on track in recognizing that the symbols of John are vital for understanding the Gospel in total. I also agree with Koester that some of these symbols have some universal import. However, I firmly believe that even the astute reader must have some knowledge of the Old Testament to comprehend the deep theological implications of this Gospel, without which the reader would be lost. I also agree with Koester that the readers of John's Gospel, or his community, are not some exclusive community seeking to shut others out. The Gospel seeks to distinguish between those who believe and those who do not, at the same time opening the door ("gate"; John 10:7-10) for all who are drawn by the Spirit to enter in and become a part of the community. The author also assumes some level of Old Testament competency. Koester's own examination of Old Testament parallels validates this point. Even with these points in mind, this monograph is a valuable tool in interpreting the Gospel of John.
This review was published by RBL !2003 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
In earlier periods we had Christian specialists in Islam, but Muslims never carefully studied Christianity. The Muslims I have been speaking with on my travels knew next to nothing about the application of historical-critical exegesis to Christianity. Their understanding of Christianity predates the critical approach. But when I was confronted with questions regarding the Incarnation, I was able – because of the basis I had developed in books like On Being A Christian – to explain how you can understand the title, Son of God, from a monotheistic Hebrew perspective. If the title is so understood, as it was applied to the kings of Israel and then transferred to Jesus, it does not contradict monotheism. Muslims, I found, were very interested to learn of this common Semitic background to divine sonship. It made for mutual understanding, whereas the Hellenistic background (to the definitions of the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon) made for misunderstanding.
“The same was true in explicating the doctrine of the Trinity. If taken within a Hebrew context, this too could be affirmed without contradicting monotheism. In this way, two hundred years of historical-critical research afford us the possibility of giving very different answers to the old, divisive questions.”
-- from “Religions Of The One God: Hans Küng On World Theologies” an interview by David Toolan, S.J. in Commonweal (March 13, 1987; pp. 146f.)