postmodernbible

More Pre-existent Son!

In my travels in the blogosphere, I noted the following link to Mark Goodacre's comments on the discussion of the book at his SBL section...sadly the link section of Typepad isn't working today...so here is the url:

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2006/11/sbl-day-3-sunday.html

Pete

Pre-existent Son

I’ve just finished reading Simon Gathercole’s new book: The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christol ogies of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I enjoyed the book – although found it frustrating in places. Coming from a Johannine perspective, I was pleased to see the possibility of convergence between Synoptic and Johannine Christologies, although clearly that is not the overall goal of the book and in the last pages, Gathercole steers away from this.

SPOILER: I’m going to go into some details in what follows, so if you haven’t read it, you might want to so my views don’t prejudice your reading!

There are some basic issues that will frustrate other NT scholars – basically the lack of engagement with any layering of the texts.  Despite the subtitle hinting at reconstruction, or at least some elementary attempt to recover that which is buried/lost, Gathercole has determined to deal with the text as we have it.  As such, there is little discussion about whether specific texts belong to a specific redactional level or whether they are to be regarded as authentically Jesus, or whereabouts their original sitz im leben might be.  Everything is creamed off the surface presentation of the Gospels.  Gathercole is up front about this – “it is an analysis of the Gospels as they stand” (p17).  So, the actual thesis of the work is “that the preexistence (sic) of Christ can be found in the Synoptic Gospels”.  Some might want to add – in the final redactional layer.  Others might want to go further and say that, since a good deal of the texts which Gathercole explores, sometimes in great deal, sometimes with annoying superficiality, are attributed to Jesus, that Jesus understood himself to be pre-existent.  That is a statement which the book steers away from stating openly, although the discussion of active pre-existence rather than inactive, ideal pre-existence and the emphasis Gathercole places on the “I have come + purpose” saying and on the Jerusalem lament (Matthew 23:37 et parr) would suggest that this is indeed something with which Gathercole would agree – i.e. that not only was the son pre-existent but that he was actively pre-existent and knew during his ministry that he had been pre-existent. 

That level of certainty raises a whole load of issues about docetism…and Gathercole is quick in the final chapter to attempt to shut the door before those criticisms come in.  He does this well – exploring the concepts of how pre-existent divinity and contigent humanity might come together in one flesh.  But I am not so sure he is successful in this.  But to be fair that isn’t his job.  As a NT scholar he is supposed to be telling us what the texts mean and then he can leave the problem of how this can be to the systematicians and theologians to some extent.  We have been ruled too long by those who have told us that the text must mean ‘x’ because that is the only logical reading when it has been obvious that this is the wrong reading (John 1:16?)!

The book is structured as follows:

Introduction

Here he explores the consensus approach to Synoptic Christologies and Pre-existence.  Some initial battles with Jimmy Dunn, Felix Christ and Hammerton-Kelly which will be returned to throughout the book.  Gathercole aligns himself closely to the “Early High Christology Club” represented by Bauckham and Hurtado (p15).

Part One: Prolegomena

Here Gathercole explores the some initial arguments which will back up his main argument already heavily trailed as something to do with the “I have come” sayings.  (Gathercole likes to tell you what he is going to say, then to say it, and then to remind you what he has said.  This makes everything nice and clear, although it undercuts some of the power of his argument and tends to be a little annoying at times!).  First he explores pre-existence in Paul, Hebrews and Jude as examples of the maxim that the earliest forms of Christian expression had high Christologies and that pre-existence was part of the theological furniture of the early Church.  In such a setting, he will argue, pre-existence in the Synoptics makes great sense.  Secondly, Gathercole explores the transcendence of Jesus in the Synoptics – i.e. that Jesus transcend the heaven-earth divide, the God-creation divide and even space itself!  There are some pretty weighty arguments here and I can already hear a good deal of sceptics talking about the need to demythologise the texts!  In fact, I think I found this section to be the most woolly.  I agree with most of it and don’t have a problem.  But I felt that it was just too straightforward!  Perhaps that’s my problem or I was having a bad day when I read this section!

Part Two: Advent and

Mission

This section carries the main argument that Jesus’ use of “I have come” + purpose signifies pre-existence.  In the first chapter of this part of the book, there is some considerable discussion of the ‘coming’ sayings in other literature and also the development of this phrase into an almost-consistent formula.  In Chapter 4, Gathercole rounds on the work of other scholars who have explored these sayings and notes their weaknesses and inconsistencies. After discussing a whole host of conflicting studies and various views, Gathercole’s conclusion is: “Neither previous arguments for pre-existence, then, nor the alternative views discussed above have sufficient warrant to be accepted” (p110), “None of the other scholarly opinions can be considered plausible” (p.113). This seems a little harsh to me – almost a kind of razed earth approach – cut everyone else down so that my argument is the only one left with any credibility. I would have thought there were more conciliatory ways of doing Biblical Studies! Chapter 5 moves to Gathercole’s own thesis that the “I have come” + purpose formula is closest to announcements made by angels about their own comings from heaven.  Here begins some of the books exegetical work.  So typically, Gathercole will list a saying and then give about a page or so to exegete the text.  I was at times a bit disappointed since Louis Martyn talks on the back cover that the book is ‘thoroughly exegetical’.  In fact, because of the sheer number of texts which Gathercole wants to marshal for his argument, he cannot fully exegete them all without this work being much much longer.  But I have to say that I wanted more in depth study of the text, more exploration of the Greek and some harder evidence of literary continuity/comparison between some of the passages cited.  Chapter 6 is the heart of the book – A New Reading of the Synoptic “I Have Come” Sayings. We now have the exegesis of a whole list of sayings with reference to their parallels:

Mark 1:24//Luke 4:34

Matthew 8:29

Mark 1:38 (cf. Luke 4:43)

Mark 2:17//Matthew 9:13//Luke 5:32

Matthew 5:17

Luke 12:49

Luke 12:51//Matthew 10:34

Matthew 10:35

Luke 12:49-51//Matthew 10:34-35

Mark 10:45//Matthew 20:28

Luke 19:10

…as well as supporting evidence from the parables!

Now a quick glance shows that not all these follow the same formula.

Mark 1:24//Luke 4:34 – demons saying Jesus has come…

Matthew 8:29 – demons saying Jesus has come here…

Mark 1:38 (cf. Luke 4:43) – Jesus says “That is why I have come/was sent”

Mark 2:17//Matthew 9:13//Luke 5:32 – “I have not come to…but to”

Matthew 5:17– “I have not come to…but to”

Luke 12:49 – “I have come to…”

Luke 12:51//Matthew 10:34 – “I have come/I came to bring…”

Matthew 10:35 – “I have come to”

Luke 12:49-51//Matthew 10:34-35 – again!

Mark 10:45//Matthew 20:28 – “Son of Man didn’t come to…but to…”

Luke 19:10 – “Son of Man came to…”

And even when they do, there aren’t that many, really.

But overall Gathercole’s argument here is spot on – these “I have come” + purpose statements do indeed seem to suggest more than geographical or situational reality. i.e. Jesus seems to be saying more her than “I have come from

Nazareth

to…” or “I have come into your situation to…”. There does seem to be a transcendence to what is being said – although I am not so sure the argument is as copper-bottomed as Gathercole suggests it is – why is it immune from someone doing a daisy-cutter on him like he has done to everyone else? The next chapter continues with an exploration of other contributory themes which seek to reinforce the main these.

Part Three: Jesus, the Incarnation of Preexistent Wisdom

Gathercole is not happy with a straightforward link between Wisdom and Jesus and spends a good deal of time unpicking a full-blown Wisdom Christology and prefers the suggestion that some Wisdom motifs are used by this does not necessarily entail pre-existence.  I think the issue here, not quite spelled out, is that if a full blown Wisdom Christology were accepted in the Synoptics, then this would suggest ideal, non-active pre-existence as per Hammerton-Kelly and co. rather than Gathercole’s preferred real and active pre-existence.  Chapter 9 explores Matthew 23:37 – a key verse for Gathercole’s whole argument.  I am glad that he didn’t make this the only verse on which to hang his argument.  I think everything is done and dusted by this point in the book and so this chapter just seems to be gilding the lily!  To suggest that the

Jerusalem

lament means that Jesus has always been lamenting over

Israel

because Matthew and Luke haven’t said he has been there yet seems even to me as a bit of special pleading.  We don’t know whether Jesus has been to

Jerusalem

before (how about as a kid – Luke 2:41ff?) and there is nothing to suggest that his lament could not have been ideal rather than real – i.e. in his head rather than stood on the mount of olives.  I can see the imagery of the bird and the wings, I can sympathise with the concept of God lamenting over

Jerusalem

.  I just can’t seem to click with the concept of Jesus at that moment speaking of a temporally transcendent lament over Israelite history per se.  But then…

Part Four: The Titles of Jesus in Matthew, Mark and Luke

In this part of the book, Gathercole explores some key titles – Messiah/Anatole (good chapter which really does contribute well to the whole work!); Lord (brief chapter and limited really!); Son of Man (no interaction with Casey at all apart from a couple of footnotes!!!  I understand the need to focus on the finished form, but surely the Gospel writers would have had more of a sense of Son of Man than just its apocalyptic references – look at the various ways the Caesarea declaration is dealt with!); Son of God (straightforward…).

The final chapter (14!) explores, very very briefly, some contemporary theological issues which Gathercole realises are raised by his approach and these are carried over into the conclusion as well with some explorations of the implications for Synoptic/Johannine and internal Synoptic repercussions.

Overall the heart of the book is in the exegesis chapters.  As I said, I was happy with this line before I came to the book and so was pleased to see my own views reinforced by some good exegesis and a new line of argument which I hadn’t expected.  I was even more pleased to realise the implications for Synoptic-Johannine relationships.  I think that John’s Gospel has been pushed into the margins too much and this work will correct that to some extent.

One thing that Gathercole does is to let us know he has argued a point more fully elsewhere.  So the next thing I need to do is hunt down the other places and then I might have a more robust understanding of Gathercole’s complete argument.  At the moment, in places, it feels like I have been told that a conversation has happened somewhere else.  I wish I had been there!  So I better read up and get there!

No doubt, I have been overly harsh about my reading of certain sections of the book.  Although I note that one of the few online reviews (http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/search/label/book%20review) says some similar things (but much better!)  And I agree with Shenck that Simon's grasp of the German literature is phenomenal. I am looking forward to seeing other reviews of it elsewhere in the near future! Overall - a great book – read it - be frustrated with it - argue against it! But in the end, I think that basically Simon is spot on - pre-existence was not a marginal concept in the early church it was right in the centre of earliest Christianity. Although even writing that makes my redaction critic hairs stand on end!

Pete

Shakespeared Out!

I know that anyone will be ready to tell me that you simply cannot be Shakespeared Out!  Not only is that an abomination of the English language but you just cannot have enough of Shakespeare. 

Well, last week we went to see the new Sam West production of "As You Like It" at Sheffield's Crucible and then tonight we went down to our local theatre in Chesterfield ("The Pomegranate"!) to see Emily perform with her year group from school in the Shakespeare School's Festival - also doing "As You Like It" but in an abbreviated 30 min performance.

Let's start with the school performance.  A stunning presentation - although you miss so much by cutting a 3 hour play down to 30 minutes. The main content of this gender-bending, and at times quite disjointed play, was all there - as well as the main characters and I thought the kids played it very well indeed.  We were also treated to 30 min performances of "The Taming of the Shrew", "Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Winter's Tale".  I was very pleased to see the latter since I haven't seen "Winter's Tale" before and it gave me a good hint at what the play is about.

I was a little shocked by someone from an Arts company coming on at the end to sum up the performances and suggest to these budding thespians that Shakespeare was incomprehensible and he never did understand most of the plays.  Not sure if this was the best comment to make in front of over a hundred students whp had just attempted their first Shakespeare performance and who will all be taking exams in the near future about their understanding of the plays!  Oops!

The Crucible production of "As You Like It" was spectacular.  Sam West is a gifted man and his productions this year at the theatre have been awesome - we've been to see "Much Ado About Nothing", "Fiddler on the Roof" (stunning!) and now AYLI.  The production had a good solid cast - with Eve Best as Rosalind and Sam Troughton (Much in Robin Hood) as an excellent Orlando.  The production mixed surrealism with humour and also a stunning spin on the police state.  I loved what they did with the lighting, with the moon - a massive helium filled light floating at the back of the stage changing colour with the mood of the performance - for most of the second half casting shadows over a huge polystyrene dove!!!  The minimalist representation of the forest was so good and there were crazily daft bits - like Red Riding Hood dancing across the stage.  Sheffield Theatres provide a good deal of exploratory material for schools which gives some interesting insights into the play and the production...here's the link.

The production is in Sheffield until the end of February and then moves to Stratford as part of the Complete Works Festival...what an opportunity...we are going to try and get to see it again.

Of course, "As You Like It" is a good 'postmodern' play with its emphasis on what really is marriage about and also its gender-bending love affairs - with the posibility of a Celia-Rosalind relationship apparently matched by a Ganymede/Orlando flirtation - in this production they do kiss and this is beofre Orlando knows that Ganymede is really Rosalind in disguise (or does he?).  Add to that the strange relationship between Touchstone and Audrey, Silvius and Phoebe (again a lesbian affair here between Ganymede/Rosalind and Phoebe - not the mocking line - unless you want a woman as you Lord) and an amazing performance by Daniel Weyman as Jaques the antifool (in high heels and a woman's neglige!) - the whole experience was a rich offering.

Some of the people I went with found the play too difficult to get into!  But having said that, we took out two boys, Sam (12) and Edward (8) and they loved the whole experience, although it was a long night for them.  I am not sure what they liked the most and whether they followed the whole thing.  But as I hear more from them, I am amazed at how much of the Shakespeare they followed and understood.  I am not sure that Shakesperean English is all that difficult to get into - although I must say that my own ears had not adjusted to the play until about 30 mins in - after that I was absorbed!

Two interesting things from this month of Shakespearean experiences...

1. Biblical allusions abound in the texts - especially in "As You Like It" - I'd like to explore that a little more fully and have taken down the Shakespeare volumes to have a closer look.

2. Shakespeare seems to have this odd thing of promising revolution and then providing conformity!  So, just when you think that Merry Wives is going to turn into a good advert for 'modern' concepts of love-marriages as opposed to fixed or societal marriages (an important discussion to be had in contemporary society not only Elizabethan!), or for the possibility of social mobility as opposed to the conservatism of late-feudal hierarchy/serfdom, we end with a silly poem about Epicurus and everyone putting up with their lot.  Again, "Taming of the Shrew" ended with a banal reminder of what being a wife is all about - in purely conservative tones - the kind that just doesn't fit today's world, or seem to fit into Shakespeare's characterising of his couples - how many Shakespearean couples actually fit into the pattern of marriage which Kate suggests is best at the end of "Taming"?  I am not sure where all this conservatism comes from...need to look into that.

Anyhow, I love Shakespeare and I have loved seeing so much of it recently.  In March we're going to the new Courtyard Theatre at Stratford (had a brief look in it when we went to see Merry Wives - it looks fantastic!) to see King Lear - can't wait!

Pete