Author Archives: dylanj

Parables // TEAM 5, QUESTION 3

Posted on by under words

There are substantially more details included in Matthew’s Parable of the Weeds, recorded in verses 24-30 of chapter 13, than in Mark’s Parable of the Seed Growing. Both begin by comparing the Kingdom of God/Heaven to a man sowing seed/scattering seed on the ground of a field. Matthew goes another direction with his parable, though, and makes the distinction that the seed is good. Mark makes no distinction between the quality of the seed because, it seems, the point of the parable is not to address the quality or lack thereof.

The point of Mark’s parable seems to be, in contrast to expectations that the last judgment (sickle and harvest) would come soon, instead that the commencement of the Kingdom of God would inconspicuous and its growth would be slow (first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear) but come to fruition in due season (when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come), and then the Kingdom of God will come. Matthew’s parable, on the other hand, draws a distinction between good and bad seed. With the bad seed (sons of the evil one) come weeds, sown among the good seed of wheat (sons of the Kingdom). The bad seed are sown by the enemy (the devil) of the man (Son of Man). At early growth, the weeds and the wheat are indistinguishable, but as they reach maturity you can tell them apart. Attempting to gather the weeds would harm the wheat, so they are allowed to grow together (in the world) until harvest (the end of the age, Day of Judgment). The prolonged coming of the Kingdom of God isn’t the point here, but the fact that there are good and bad seed, and the explanation for why the bad seed are allowed to continue. This could be seen as an expansion on Mark’s parable, but the clearest reason for Matthew’s parable being different is that the point the parable is making is different. The two parables are both talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, but they’re making completely different points.

Matthew’s account of Jesus explaining the Parable of the Weeds has a much more explicitly elevated view of Jesus than Mark’s parable. Jesus is the Son of Man, and he is the one sowing sons of the Kingdom and the one inaugurating the Kingdom of God. Clearly this is a portrayal of the scene in Daniel 7, after the Ancient of Days gives everlasting dominion over the Earth, glory, and a Kingdom to one like a Son of Man. Matthew, in his account, is clearly identifying Jesus with this Son of Man figure.

Matthew’s Parable of the Treasure continues the theme of talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. Here another point is made as to the inconspicuous or hidden nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. However, the main thrust of this parable seems to be more about the surpassing worth, as treasure, of the Kingdom of God compared to any sacrifice one could make to get it. Matthew’s Parable of the Pearl of Great Value is also talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, but unlike the man who stumbled on hidden treasure, this man was is a merchant is earnestly searching for fine pearls. But when he found the pearl of great value (the Kingdom of Heaven), he has the same reaction as the man in the field and sacrificed all he had to get it. Matthew’s Parable of the Net is essentially making the same point as his parable of the weeds. Making the same point that good and bad fish won’t be sorted until the final harvest, and evil won’t be totally removed from the world until the end of the age. Making these points about the Kingdom of Heaven would do well to explain Jesus’ rejection by the Jews and his movement’s seeming defeat at his death.

Team 5 // Question 3 “Nodes, Narratives, and the Empty Tomb”

Posted on by under narrative expansion

According to White, the earliest oral traditions about Jesus, though brief, did include statements about the Last Supper, his death, burial, resurrection and appearances. These early traditions, he says, over time and with the help of storytellers’ artistic
enhancements, were developed from “loosely connected story ‘moments’” to “a flowing narrative” and the Passion narrative we know today. These alleged new components include the Judas story and the empty tomb carracciascension scene. But why add these embellishments? White’s answer is that references to Jewish scriptures were a way to fill in gaps in the oral traditions, fleshing out a narrative and adding a sense of “divine guidance”, as well as serving an apologetic function to defend the young movement against its critics.

Matthew and Luke’s Gospel Passion accounts have many similarities with Mark’s, and the differences are largely additions rather than subtractions. This has led many scholars to suggest that Matthew and Luke actually got their material from Mark, and added to it. All three Gospels contain that the women went to the tomb on the Sabbath very early with spices, that they saw the stone rolled back, and finds someone at the tomb.

Matthew adds that there was an earthquake (v.2), names the person at the tomb as an angel that descended (v.2), mentions guards at the tomb (v.4), and that after hearing from the angel the women ran to tell the disciples.

Luke lacks some of the information in Mark, but adds that the women specifically didn’t find the body in the tomb (v.3), instead that there were two men at the tomb (v.4), the message of the angels described (v.5-8) is different than the descriptions in Matthew and Mark. This description includes a reference to Jesus’ predictions of his death in Luke 9 and 18. Finally, Luke also has the women going to tell the disciples about Jesus’ absence in the tomb (v.9). Both Luke and Matthew stick out from Mark in this regard, whom on the the contrary has the women overcome with fear and telling no one about the risen Jesus (Mark 16:8). There are some later verses (v.9-20), which do not appear in some of the earliest manuscripts, that tell of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene who subsequently went and told the disciples.

In our methodology in evaluating the writings of the early Christians, it is important to fairly examine the documents before jumping to conclusions about whether they are historical or not. The authors of 1st John and 2nd Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who themselves observed Jesus, not “inventing clever stories” (1st John 1:1,3 and 2nd Peter 1:16). Luke on the other hand, states he wasn’t an eyewitness to the events of his gospel, but  is relying on eyewitnesses for his depiction (Luke 1:1). This seems to indicate, in contrast to the aretaology, the gospel writers saw themselves as eyewitnesses to record history. Evaluating these texts, it’s important to keep in mind witness testimony is colored by personal interests, predispositions, ambitions, and individual quirks. Furthermore, the perspectives of eyewitnesses would be limited to their own perspective. Many times, as modern readers, we don’t realize it was commonplace to round off specific numbers and descriptions, and confuse imprecision with error. Common details between gospel accounts would then be the most central, and variation in supplementary details can be expected. The gospel authors and the early church certainly had the chance to eliminate variations and supposed contradictions between gospel accounts, but they didn’t. Why? For the most part, the gospel traditions were circulated in the name of the eyewitnesses from whom they originated. This strikes me as a distinguished form of oral tradition distinguished by eyewitness backing. These are all integral points that should be a part of the historical study of the gospel accounts and their Christian writers.

ROJ: 4/7; Team 5, Question 3

Posted on by under logos, sophia

In John 1:1-18, the Word (the Logos) was not just present with God before all created things were created, the Word (the Logos) was God (v.1). The Word (the Logos), also known as the light of men and the Son, is making people children of God (v.12). Though no one has direct visual access to God, as the Word (the Logos) has become flesh and dwelt among men (v.14) he is and has made God known (v.18). The whole world, everything that came into existence, was created by the Word (the Logos) (v.3,10), yet despite this the world did not know or accept him (v.10-11). Even his own people, presumably the Jews, did not receive him. The world’s very existence depends on the Word (Logos), and he is the source of life and light (v.4), yet they did not receive him. The community seems to be those who recognize the necessity to receive the Word (the Logos) when others did not, and now have been made children of God. Now this community also sees the glory of the Father through the Son (v.14). The Word (the Logos) is significant for the community because in him is life and the light of men (v.4), the opportunity to be children of God, and as seen in 11:25 the Word (the Logos) is the resurrection and the life.

According to Philo of Alexandria, a devout 1st century Jew who applied Platonic philosophy to Jewish cosmology, there is a dichotomy between the heavenly Logos and earthly humanity. He sees two types of humans: the heavenly man who is the offspring of God, free of corruption and earthly substance, and the earthly man disparate and not the offspring of God. Sophia or personified wisdom, is the feminine counterpart to the masculine Logos term. She is active in the activity of creation and makes the “holy souls” prophets and “friends of God”, and to approach God one must be a lover of Sophia (White 46).

As a 1st century reader of John, I would be fairly familiar with the concepts of Sophia and Logos, and I would understand that it is the personification of virtue, reason and wisdom that has taken on human form. Logos actually being God himself doesn’t seem to be present in the established understanding prior to John. As a 1st century reader, I would also expect that Logos would be necessary for getting to God, just by necessity of him representing wisdom and truth, not mentioning that he is God.

Despite some differences, John also writes that the Word (the Logos) was also involved in the activity of creation, that he gives the right to be children of God (John 15:15 “friends”) and is the way to approach God. Like Philo’s Logos, Jesus also fully displays the glory of God (is without corruption) and is the Son (offspring in Philo’s terms) of the Father. In addition, though no one had visual access to God (v.18), as in Greek contexts when Sophia/Logos is a very active agent under a transcendent though indifferent God, Logos in the Gospel of John, while also being God, has made God known as the intermediary between God and earthly man.

Skip to toolbar