Lips Of Jesus Research Articles

Finding Jesus in the Psalter

Abstract A Christological reading of the Psalter in which individual psalms are viewed as primarily the prayers of Jesus is evaluated. This recent evangelical tradition of interpretation goes as far as to assert that the Psalms are only secondarily our prayers. However, while the portrait of David the chief psalmist anticipates Jesus Christ as the ideal Davidic king, this does not require that everything in every psalm be applied to Jesus. When David confesses his sins and failings, these words cannot be placed on the lips of Jesus. It remains nonetheless legitimate for believers to make use of the Psalms and apply much of their content to themselves, for, especially in Books IV and V of the Psalter, David sets an example of devotion to God which others are meant to emulate. As well, a Christian rereading of the Psalter sees the God of the psalmist as the Trinity, so that what is said about God can be applied to Jesus Christ.

Whose “Mercy”? What “Sacrifice”? A Proposed Reading of Matthew’s Hosea 6:6 Quotations

Abstract On two occasions, Matthew places the words of Hos 6:6a, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” on the lips of Jesus (Matt 9:9–13; 12:1–8). This essay proposes a new reading of the Hos 6:6a quotations in those Matthean contexts. Rather than reading ἔλεος (“mercy”)— in the sense of either human compassion or covenant faithfulness—as what the Pharisees lack (and Jesus has), ἔλεος may denote the covenant faithfulness that the tax collectors and sinners (9:9–13) and disciples (12:1–8) have toward Jesus. Θυσία (“sacrifice”), then, would represent the sacrificial system, which was the other means, besides covenant faithfulness to Jesus, to receive forgiveness and divine reconciliation.

“Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ”

Scholars have overlooked a direct parallel between Luke’s pericope of the Walk to Emmaus (24:13-35) and two Aesopic fables. This article investigates the parallel, which appears as a quotation on the lips of Jesus, and the direction of its literary dependence. Analysis of both internal and external evidence commends understanding the fables to reflect Luke due to its well-known status, but none of the arguments are definitive. The evidence also allows the possibility that Luke portrayed Jesus quoting Aesop, perhaps as an ironic hermeneutical critique. Both explanations for the direction of dependence are satisfactory in their own ways, and may only be resolved with further analysis or the appearance of more textual evidence.

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium describes the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life.” It is not hard to imagine then, that this subject of principal importance is still being debated two millennia after its institution. Even when it was taught from the lips of Jesus himself, there were many disciples who grumbled saying: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (Jn 6:60) Unfortunately, this is still the case today. There are some among the faithful who no longer believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and others who simply misunderstand what is meant by “real presence.” In an attempt to shed light on this central Catholic teaching, this paper will begin by briefly highlighting the scriptural foundations of the Eucharist. Then, using broad strokes, the historical development of the Eucharistic doctrine will be explored. Finally, this paper will examine and dispel some of the more modern misconceptions that shroud the reality of the Real Presence.

Janowe rozumienie pracy Boga i człowieka. Studium zastosowania terminów ἐργάζομαι oraz ἔργον w czwartej Ewangelii

The article deals with the concept of work as reflected in the Fourth Gospel, encompassing the two cognate lexemes ἐργάζομαι and ἔργον. The analysis is organized according to the subjects who are performing a given work, to wit: the Father, the Son, Jesus’ disciples (including Abraham) and, finally, the people hostile toward God, designated in the Gospel by the general term world. Interestingly enough, both of the studied lexemes appear in John’s Gospel only on the lips of Jesus. Additionally, as it turns out, the Johannine concept of work covers a whole range of meanings: the activity of the Father and the Son (who give life and perform judgment), the salvific mission of the Son, Jesus’ teaching and his obedience to the Father’swill, miraculous healings, human deeds in general (both good or bad), disciples’ fulfillment of God’s will, meaning primarily their faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. In a nutshell, the very essence of the work of the Father and the Son (and continued by Jesus’ disciples) can be encapsulated in the concept of salvation.

Lion and Human in "Gospel of Thomas" Logion 7

Logion 7 (NHC II, 2, 33:23-29) has challenged interpreters of Thomas's Gospel since the text first became available scholars.1 In the only sustained treatment that the has received, Howard Jackson characterizes Gos. Thorn. 7 as [a]mong the hardest of the 'hard sayings' that the [Gospel of Thomas] sets upon the lips of Jesus.2 In its Coptic version, divided into clauses, it runs:3 1. Jesus said, 2. Blessed is the lion that the human eats, 3. and the lion becomes 4. And cursed is the human that the lion eats, 5. and the lion will become human. No parallel may be found attributed Jesus in any canonical or noncanonical Gospel or the agrapha.4 Although it is attested in at least two recensions of the Gospel of Thomas, Coptic (NHC II, 2) and Greek (P.Oxy. 654), its isolated transmission in Gospel of Thomas has rendered the logion frustratingly enigmatic. And it is enigmatic indeed. The logion shares little in the way of thematic motifs with other sayings in the Gospel of Thomas tradition. The motif of the lion so dominant in Gos. Thorn. 7 does not occur elsewhere in the Gospel of Thomas, or even in other Thomas traditions preserved in the Nag Hammadi codices or elsewhere.5 More broadly, concern over eating is shared with only one other logion, Gos. Thorn. 11: Jesus said, This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. And the dead (elements) will not die. In the days when you (plur.) used ingest dead (elements), you made them alive. When you are in the light what will you do? On the day that you were one, you made two. And when you are two, what will you do?6 Even here it is not entirely clear what the connection may be between the two sayings.7 The enigma of Gos. Thorn. 7 has left it in a state of exegetical neglect in comparison with the attention received by other passages with parallels in the Synoptic Gospels or in extrabiblical testimony.8 In the following pages I offer a new reading of Gos. Thorn. 7. Since Gos. Thorn. 7 exists in relative isolation in the Gospel, I WUl avoid predicating my reading on any a priori theory of the Gospel's compositional or redactional history, its theological coherence (or lack thereof), or its social location or liturgical use. Rather, the present paper takes up the very reasonable charge tendered by Francis Fallon and Ron Cameron to analyze in depth the originally discrete sayings in the text.9 In short, I argue that the key understanding Gos. Thorn. 7 as a discrete may be found in early Christian discourse about the resurrection. That is say, the allegory of lion and human in Gos. Thorn. 7 represents at least one strand of Thomasine reflection on the general resurrection. I will first discuss as briefly as possible the previous attempts place the logion theologically and literarily, and then move on my own analysis of this of the living Jesus. I. PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO GOSPEL OF THOMAS 7 Yet, for a variety of reasons, the commonsense emendation of early commentators has failed convince the majority of the Gospel's students.11 On the one hand, the proposed emendation renders the supposedly obscure saying almost tautological. It is hard imagine what hidden meaning such a commonplace truism about digestion would hold for readers of the Gospel of Thomas, faced tiiroughout with paradoxical logia of the living Jesus. In this respect, NHC II, 2 certainly preserves the lectio difficilior. Even clearer are the text-critical reasons for preserving the original reading of Gos. Thorn. 7 as preserved in NHC II, 2. The reason for the supposed error is not entirely clear, purportedly either due a copyist's or translator's error, and Jackson has effectively countered the arguments for emendation.12 The subsequent critical edition of the Coptic and Greek witnesses by Bentiey Layton and Harold Attridge has shown without any doubt that the text should not be emended and must be understood as it stands. …

Speaking Up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for 'Man' in the Time of Jesus?

Biblical scholars have offered a number of competing theories concerning the best linguistic explanation of the expression ó υιος του ανθρωπου ('the Son of Man') which occurs on the lips of Jesus 82 times in the Gospels. This article argues that— contrary to the claims of many scholars—the Aramaic expression was not in fact a generic term for 'man', although this term was used on occasion in the absolute state as a way of referring to 'a man/someone' when the contextual register required it.

The Nontitular Son of Man: A History and Critique

The expression ⋯ νἱ⋯σ το⋯ ⋯νθρώπον, found primarily in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, has been the object of a centuries-long investigation that has sought to determine its meaning and origin. Patristic and medieval authors understood the phrase as a title of Jesus meaning ‘the Son of the human’, with ‘the human’ referring to either Mary or Adam. With the renewal of learning in the Renaissance and Reformation, interpreters began to examine the phrase in light of its Semitic background, tracing it to Hebrewben adamor Aramaicbar enasha. A host of new interpretations arose. While most scholars continued to view the expression as some sort of title, others saw it as a nontitular idiom. Three possible idiomatic senses of the expression were investigated: the circumlocutional sense (‘this man’ = ‘I’), the generic sense (‘man’ in general), and the indefinite sense (‘a man’, someone). These nontitular interpretations, part of the debate since 1557, have become more prominent in the last 25 years and form an important feature of the current discussion.

The Nontitular Son of Man: A History and Critique

The expression ⋯ νἱ⋯σ το⋯ ⋯νθρώπον, found primarily in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, has been the object of a centuries-long investigation that has sought to determine its meaning and origin. Patristic and medieval authors understood the phrase as a title of Jesus meaning ‘the Son of the human’, with ‘the human’ referring to either Mary or Adam. With the renewal of learning in the Renaissance and Reformation, interpreters began to examine the phrase in light of its Semitic background, tracing it to Hebrew ben adam or Aramaic bar enasha. A host of new interpretations arose. While most scholars continued to view the expression as some sort of title, others saw it as a nontitular idiom. Three possible idiomatic senses of the expression were investigated: the circumlocutional sense (‘this man’ = ‘I’), the generic sense (‘man’ in general), and the indefinite sense (‘a man’, someone). These nontitular interpretations, part of the debate since 1557, have become more prominent in the last 25 years and form an important feature of the current discussion.

The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission

The importance that Matthew attached to the gentile mission is clear from the climactic position in which he has placed the universal mission mandate. From this, however, it cannot be inferred that all the members of the evangelist's community were in agreement on this issue. Indeed, Matthew's inclusion of a particularist form of the mission mandate in his Central Section suggests that the gentile mission was controverted at the time of the gospel's composition. A consideration of the development of Christianity's relationship to Judaism before and after the year 70 provides an opportunity to test this conclusion, insofar as the turning to the gentiles was connected with the separation from Judaism. The teaching and practice of the historical Jesus provided the post-Easter community with no clear directive with regard to missionizing gentiles. His attitude of "expectant universalism" could be taken to authorize the gentile mission, since in Jesus' coming the endtime had arrived, but it also could be understood to exclude it, since only if impenitent Israel were converted could the kingdom of God be revealed and the eschatological pilgrimage of the gentiles take place. The first missionaries to the gentiles were the Hellenists, who were suited to this task both by their use of Greek and by their attitude towards the ritual law, which may have been derived from community tradition concerning Jesus' stance on this matter. The actual catalyst for the admission of gentiles to baptism-without circumcision-may have been the appearance of charismatic phenomena among the "friends of the synagogue" of the Hellenists. Paul's radical rejection of the law as a way of salvation led to serious misunderstanding with the Jerusalem leaders in the attempt to resolve the controversy over the circumcision of gentile converts in Antioch. These leaders saw in Paul's missionary successes a sign that God was raising up from the gentiles a new people to his name, and on this basis they withheld their support from the Judaizers. For Paul, on the other hand, the agreement to separate missions and the acceptance of the collection for the Jerusalem poor was a sign of the leaders' recognition of the ΧΟνωνία between Jews and gentiles in the one people of God. It was on this basis that he opposed Cephas in Antioch for respecting James' insistence that Jewish Christians observe the kosher laws and abstain from table fellowship with gentile Christians. Neither Peter nor Barnabas could accept Paul's view of the matter, which amounted to an attempt to force Jewish Christians to live as gentiles, abandoning the law as a way of salvation. At this point Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity seem to have gone their separate ways, although Peter did not ally himself unambiguously with either extreme. A sign of Jewish Christian fidelity to the law after Antioch is to be found in the "apostles' decree," which demands of gentile Christians living in predominantly Jewish (or Jewish Christian) localities that they refrain from the same four things that are forbidden to "sojourners" in the Holiness Code. No observant Jewish Christian community living in Palestine during the two decades prior to the outbreak of the Jewish War had occasion to embark on a mission to gentiles, and the character of Matthew's special tradition points to just such a community. As a result of the Jewish War the Matthean church settled in a Greek-speaking area, probably Syria, where the gentile mission was already established. But the immediate catalyst for turning to the gentiles was the campaign of vilification and persecution to which the community was subjected by post-70 Pharisaism, which was no longer satisfied with merely halakic conformity on the part of Jewish Christians. However, the decision at Jamnia seems not yet to have been taken, and some of Matthew's community, in hope of a reconciliation, held back from the fateful step of the gentile mission. Such a step would not have meant the incorporation of gentiles into a Jewish Christian community but rather a definitive break with Judaism, and this is why the issue of circumcision, which had been the center of controversy in connection with earlier gentile conversions, does not arise in Matthew's gospel. The evangelist represents those in his community who believed that the time had come to move in a new direction, but in his initiative he was unable to appeal to the example of Peter, whose authority lies behind the special tradition of the community. Rather, by placing the universal mission mandate on the lips of Jesus as he addresses the Eleven Disciples in the gospel's final scene, the evangelist uses a "deus ex machina" to gain acceptance for the gentile mission and to heal the divisions within the community which had arisen over this issue.

The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission

AbstractThe importance that Matthew attached to the gentile mission is clear from the climactic position in which he has placed the universal mission mandate. From this, however, it cannot be inferred that all the members of the evangelist's community were in agreement on this issue. Indeed, Matthew's inclusion of a particularist form of the mission mandate in his Central Section suggests that the gentile mission was controverted at the time of the gospel's composition. A consideration of the development of Christianity's relationship to Judaism before and after the year 70 provides an opportunity to test this conclusion, insofar as the turning to the gentiles was connected with the separation from Judaism. The teaching and practice of the historical Jesus provided the post-Easter community with no clear directive with regard to missionizing gentiles. His attitude of "expectant universalism" could be taken to authorize the gentile mission, since in Jesus' coming the endtime had arrived, but it also could be understood to exclude it, since only if impenitent Israel were converted could the kingdom of God be revealed and the eschatological pilgrimage of the gentiles take place. The first missionaries to the gentiles were the Hellenists, who were suited to this task both by their use of Greek and by their attitude towards the ritual law, which may have been derived from community tradition concerning Jesus' stance on this matter. The actual catalyst for the admission of gentiles to baptism-without circumcision-may have been the appearance of charismatic phenomena among the "friends of the synagogue" of the Hellenists. Paul's radical rejection of the law as a way of salvation led to serious misunderstanding with the Jerusalem leaders in the attempt to resolve the controversy over the circumcision of gentile converts in Antioch. These leaders saw in Paul's missionary successes a sign that God was raising up from the gentiles a new people to his name, and on this basis they withheld their support from the Judaizers. For Paul, on the other hand, the agreement to separate missions and the acceptance of the collection for the Jerusalem poor was a sign of the leaders' recognition of the ΧΟνωνία between Jews and gentiles in the one people of God. It was on this basis that he opposed Cephas in Antioch for respecting James' insistence that Jewish Christians observe the kosher laws and abstain from table fellowship with gentile Christians. Neither Peter nor Barnabas could accept Paul's view of the matter, which amounted to an attempt to force Jewish Christians to live as gentiles, abandoning the law as a way of salvation. At this point Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity seem to have gone their separate ways, although Peter did not ally himself unambiguously with either extreme. A sign of Jewish Christian fidelity to the law after Antioch is to be found in the "apostles' decree," which demands of gentile Christians living in predominantly Jewish (or Jewish Christian) localities that they refrain from the same four things that are forbidden to "sojourners" in the Holiness Code. No observant Jewish Christian community living in Palestine during the two decades prior to the outbreak of the Jewish War had occasion to embark on a mission to gentiles, and the character of Matthew's special tradition points to just such a community. As a result of the Jewish War the Matthean church settled in a Greek-speaking area, probably Syria, where the gentile mission was already established. But the immediate catalyst for turning to the gentiles was the campaign of vilification and persecution to which the community was subjected by post-70 Pharisaism, which was no longer satisfied with merely halakic conformity on the part of Jewish Christians. However, the decision at Jamnia seems not yet to have been taken, and some of Matthew's community, in hope of a reconciliation, held back from the fateful step of the gentile mission. Such a step would not have meant the incorporation of gentiles into a Jewish Christian community but rather a definitive break with Judaism, and this is why the issue of circumcision, which had been the center of controversy in connection with earlier gentile conversions, does not arise in Matthew's gospel. The evangelist represents those in his community who believed that the time had come to move in a new direction, but in his initiative he was unable to appeal to the example of Peter, whose authority lies behind the special tradition of the community. Rather, by placing the universal mission mandate on the lips of Jesus as he addresses the Eleven Disciples in the gospel's final scene, the evangelist uses a "deus ex machina" to gain acceptance for the gentile mission and to heal the divisions within the community which had arisen over this issue.

On the Evidence for the Creative Role of Christian Prophets

It has become almost a commonplace in New Testament scholarship to attribute to Christian prophets in the early Church a creative role in respect of sayings which the Gospel tradition presents as dominical utterances. The authority, among modern scholars, for this view is to be found in the formcritical analyses and conclusions of Rudolf Bultmann. Christian tradition, he affirms, took over certian Jewish materials and put them on the lips of Jesus (e.g. the Marcan Apocalypse): the Christian community also revised or reworked elements from older traditions (e.g. the interpretation of the Sign of Jonah in connection with the person of Jesus, Matt. xii. 40) and even formed logia which reflect its own interests and concerns. Such logia are ‘inauthentic’ (in the sense that they are not genuine dominical sayings) and, according to Bultmann, they may originally have gained currency as utterances of the Spirit in the Church, without their ascription to Jesus being initially intended. Sayings like Rev. xvi. 5 (in which the risen Christ speaks) and Rev. iii. 20 show clearly the process of the creation (or, reformulation) of such logia (den Prozeβ der Neubildung solcher Herrenworte). These sayings would only gradually (erst allmählich) have been regarded as prophetic words of the historical Jesus. ‘The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncements of a past authority, but sayings of the risen Lord who is always a contemporary for the Church.’

Koch on Apocalyptic

‘(Jesus’ audience) thought that the Kingdom would be a place like the old kingdom of David, with armies and a king’s throne. Jesus knew that it was not a place, but the action of God ruling over our hearts.’ So John Hargreaves, though it is perhaps unfair to pick on him, for similar pronouncements can be found in hundreds of popular, and indeed scholarly, theological writings. It is the way most of us were brought up to think. Perhaps it is the right way of thinking, but there are, I think, increasingly good reasons for feeling unsure about that. When the Jews talked about ‘the kingdom’ (without further qualification) they certainly were not thinking of some invisible operation: they meant the Roman Empire. The ‘Kingdom of God’ on the lips of Jesus may well have referred to something equally tangible—to a world order, not a concept. He may well have been speaking not of the invisible activity of ‘grace’ in the ‘soul’, but of a kingdom, however spiritual, with visible, material attributes. A recent writer on the Fourth Gospel, for instance, has interpreted the scene before Pilate in these terms:Jesus’ kingship is not ‘unworldly’. Instead one of the characteristics of the Johannine treatment of the trial and of the events that lead up to it is that the political implications are emphasized. In 11, 48 a specifically political motivation is injected into the plotting of the Jewish authorities. John alone mentions the presence of the Roman soldiers (he spaira kai ho chiliarchos) at the arrest of Jesus. In the trial itself, the political-realistic element is introduced by the Jews at 19, 12: ‘If you release this man you are not Caesar’s friend; anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar’.

The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Son of Man and the Problem of Historical KnowledgePeter C. HodgsonPeter C. Hodgson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 41, Number 2Apr., 1961 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/485320 Views: 16Total views on this site Copyright 1961 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Koch on Apocalyptic

‘(Jesus’ audience) thought that the Kingdom would be a place like the old kingdom of David, with armies and a king’s throne. Jesus knew that it was not a place, but the action of God ruling over our hearts.’ So John Hargreaves, though it is perhaps unfair to pick on him, for similar pronouncements can be found in hundreds of popular, and indeed scholarly, theological writings. It is the way most of us were brought up to think. Perhaps it is the right way of thinking, but there are, I think, increasingly good reasons for feeling unsure about that. When the Jews talked about ‘the kingdom’ (without further qualification) they certainly were not thinking of some invisible operation: they meant the Roman Empire. The ‘Kingdom of God’ on the lips of Jesus may well have referred to something equally tangible—to a world order, not a concept. He may well have been speaking not of the invisible activity of ‘grace’ in the ‘soul’, but of a kingdom, however spiritual, with visible, material attributes. A recent writer on the Fourth Gospel, for instance, has interpreted the scene before Pilate in these terms:Jesus’ kingship is not ‘unworldly’. Instead one of the characteristics of the Johannine treatment of the trial and of the events that lead up to it is that the political implications are emphasized. In 11, 48 a specifically political motivation is injected into the plotting of the Jewish authorities. John alone mentions the presence of the Roman soldiers the spaira kai ho chiliarchos) at the arrest of Jesus. In the trial itself, the political-realistic element is introduced by the Jews at 19, 12: ‘If you release this man you are not Caesar’s friend; anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar’.