Terug naar/vooruit met Danny Boyarin als vanouds!!


Jewish Gospels:
from Son of God to Son of Man.

DB67/44
'given sovereignty to decide
how to further extend & interpret the Sabbath Law' ~~

This is,
DB suggests,
primarily motivated by the fact that it is David who violates the Law to feed his minions,
so Jesus - the new David, the Son of Man - may do so to feed his minyan. The fact that David's action
did not take place on the Sabbath is completely irrelevant. Jesus' dis-ciples were "plucking" & "rubbing" corn because the were hungry!
DB suggests that Jesus' (Mark's!) erroneous substitution of Abiatar for Ahi-melek as the name of the high priest
denotes familiarity with the biblical text, not ignorance,
& rather supports the historicity
of the moment!

Someone very familiar with a text
& quoting it from memory could easily make such a mistake,
while a writer rarely would? DB thus disagrees on all points with the following sentence:
"THE CONCLUSION WE MUST DRAW BOTH FROM THIS ERROR & FROM THE OTHER EXAMPLES OF JESUS' INACCURATE RETELLING OF THE OT STORY IS SIMPLE & OBVIOUS: the recounting of the incident of David & Ahimelech shows both a glaring ignorance
of what the OT text actually says & a striking inability
to construct a convincing argument
from the story" ~~

DB believes that the Lukan version supports his interpretation
in that the direct move from David to the Son of Man implies the messianic pa-rallelism strongly.

See also Lucky Luke 6:4-5 & Mark 2:10;
clearly, then, this Galilean cycle of dispute stories is an intricate piece of literary art & artifice, written by a Christian theologian to advance his overall vision of Jesus as the HIDDEN yet authoritative Messiah,
Son of Man, and Son of God.

As we examine the fourth of the five stories,
the plucking of the grain on the Sabbath, the last thing we should do is treat it like a vi-deotapedreplay of a debate among various Palestinian Jews in the year A.D. 28. It is, first of all, a Christian composition promoting Christian theology.

To what extent it may also preserve memories of an actual clash between the historical Jesus & Pharisees
can be discerned only by analyzing the Christian text we have before us. Such a text will not allow us to see simplistically here only a record of halakhic controversies (although the fact that it allows us to see this ALSO is of enormously precious importance).
DB's dissent from others is only in their mobiliza-tion of the term "Christian" here as a term in opposition to
"various Palestinian Jews!"

He would like to present a reading based on his views expressed until now in which both the halakhic controversy
& its apocalyptic radicality go back to the same
Palestinian Jewish milieu.

The point is surely not - as certain interpreters give it - that David violated the Law & God did not protest,
so therefore the Law is invalid and anyone may violate it. Rather, it is that David, the type of the Messiah, enjoyed sovereignty
to set aside parts of the Law, and so too does Jesus, the new David, the Messiah. This is not an attack on the Law
or on alleged pharisaic legalism but an apocalyptic declaration of a new moment in history
in which a new Lord, the Son of Man,
has been appointed over the Law.

Paying attention to the Danielic allusion implicit in every use of the phrase "Son of Man,"
one can see that in all those situations the Markan Jesus is making precisely the same kind of claim on the basis of the authority
delegated to the Son of Man in Daniel as he does
in Mark 2:10?

For him,
it is not so much the Messiah as king
that is at issue but rather the Son of Man
as carrier of divinity
& divine authority
on earth
...

Het
aanlokkelijke verrassende
verbazingwekkende & vreselijk boeiende aan inzicht in tijd,
ruimte & geest die eeuwen & diverse locaties wil ont-dekken & verder blootleggen,
is vooral ook de actualiteit ervan voor alle mensen 'waar & wanneer dan ook':
het zo levendige, kleurrijke, intri-gerende & verhelderende
van woordconcepties, interpretaties,
vertalingen &
associaties!

In die zin sluit het aan
bij Bud, Soc &
'New Ages'
~~
22 jan 2013 - bewerkt op 22 jan 2013 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 80 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende