Faculty of Theology
Department of New Testament Studies
Selected Highlights from Research Findings
Part of the difficulty of dealing with the Christology of John is the question of how the kurios references should be interpreted in terms of Jesus. Kurios is the Greek word for God, Lord and master. Some scholars assume that kurios does not have the same central significance for John as it does for Paul. Hence, the important role of the kurios terminology in John’s Gospel is sometimes either overlooked or underplayed. With the discovery of the Genesis Apocryphon at Qumran, it became clear that kurios was not only used as a polite term to address people in authority, but also without linguistic distinction in terms of God. The first Christians also transferred to the risen Jesus the respectful address as ‘my Lord’, and thus gave the resurrected One this designation. One can expect that the term kurios would never be read in a simplistic manner by post-Easter Christians whenever it is used to refer to Jesus. Even when characters mistook Jesus’s identity, addressed him politely as kurios and misunderstood the metaphors and imagery on the surface level, a Christological undertone remains present from the reader’s point of view, encloaked in irony. Although the characters in the narrative might find themselves in a situation of mistaken identity when it comes to the true nature of who Jesus really is, both the author and the reader are looking back at the situation with deeper knowledge and insight. From their perspective, addressing Jesus as kurios in different situations by those characters is the ironic confirmation of His identity, without the characters themselves knowing who He is. There are thus some reasons to believe that the narrator might have intended a double meaning in his use of the term kurios. The narrator’s use of techniques, such as misunderstanding, irony and mistaken identity, masterly reveal the true identity of Jesus as a divine being, bringing out the true meaning and succeeding in explaining more fully the matter he is actually dealing with. From the perspective of a post-Easter reader, when characters address Jesus as kurios, it is an ironic situation. Although the character’s intention is to address Jesus politely as a human being, the reader knows the Christological meaning of the term. One can assume that the narrator might have intended the use of kurios ironically as recognition and confession of Jesus’s identity. There is a progressive revelation of the true identity of Jesus, which finds its climax in Thomas’s confession when he uses this term (20:28). By the time that John’s Gospel was written, it was a loaded term that could not have been detached from the established Christological sense that it gained after the Easter event. Firstly, its divine connotation was made in the LXX where it was used for Yahweh. Secondly, the use of kurios as a form of address elsewhere in New Testament literature confirms the Christological meaning that it gained through early Christian tradition. The reader knows more and reads the narrative behind the shoulder of the first intended reader. This is a post-Easter book that emphasises the divinity of Jesus. They address him as kurios without knowing that he is (“I am”) indeed The Kurios. As readers move from one level of understanding to another, they are undergoing a social transformation. Jesus is pictured against the backdrop of being the Logos who came into the world. No one can see God, but Jesus is actually the revelation of God (14:9-11). The narrator leads the characters and the reader towards recognition that Jesus is the Lord. He presents himself as the fulfilment of the human need for the ultimate relationship with God. Skilfully utilising misunderstanding, irony and mistaken identity, John moves the reader towards orientation with regard to Jesus, the incarnate Son of God
Contact person: Prof GJ Steyn.
The focus of this study is particularly on the methods that were applied in using Scripture by the unknown author of Hebrews. He made use of a diverse range of techniques when interacting with and presenting his Old Testament material. This includes a catena of explicit quotations, expansions on existing quotations from the tradition, a hymnic reworking of quotations, and his own added commentary (Midrash) on quotations, paraphrases, references and allusions. Although this unknown author selected a large number of passages from the early Jewish (Dead Sea Scrolls and Philo) and early Christian (Pauline) traditions, it is clear that some of these found their way into his document due to his own contribution. There is good reason to believe that the quotations formed the backbone or original structure for the author’s argumentation in the book of Hebrews. They are clearly presented in two sets of seven pairs each. The first set consists almost exclusively of hymnic texts, whereas the second set alternates consistently between a quotation pair from the Torah and a Prophet, and a quotation pair from the Torah and a Psalm. Some further observations surfaced during the researchers’ survey. The exegetical methods seem to be close to those used in the Jewish traditions. The midrashic sections of the document and the use of messianic texts mirror a profile that is closer to that of Qumran. The absence of allegory is striking and also differs from Philo in this sense – although both were using the same texts for their Torah quotations. Most of the themes discussed in Hebrews are linked to ‘promise texts’. Hebrews 11 should be read alongside this tendency. Not only the two sets of seven explicit quotations, but also the midrashic sections and the history list of Hebrews 11 are all well planned and well structured. The catena of Hebrews 1, with its seven quotations, seems to be closer to a mystical tradition. The conflated quotations show tendencies of parallelism, symmetry and hymnic inclinations. (Is this perhaps pointing to liturgical traditions? What role did knowledge of the Jewish festivals play here?) The unknown author of Hebrews is a skilled exegete who creatively used and interpreted his Scriptures. The book presents itself not as a discourse with random ad hoc phrases and quotations from memory, but rather as a well planned, well structured and well thought through exposition, based on a thorough knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures
Contact person: Prof GJ Steyn.
The parables of Jesus are creative and powerful ideological symbols of the kingdom of God. This definition of Jesus’s parables is based on a number of presuppositions. All knowledge is ideological in that it represents the vested interests and viewpoints of particular social groups in specific situations. This is also true with regard to Biblical texts: the ideas they communicate are related to and are expressions of the specific interest, perspectives and goals of the groups or individuals from which they emerge. Ideology refers to the articulation of a social group’s views and values that legitimate and reinforce or challenge the present order and practice against competing groups. Ideology, therefore, relates to a social construction of reality. Ideology is expressed by means of social and metaphysical core values. Core values manifest in social norms in order to give meaning to the activity of the group, its identity and ethos. In the first-century Graeco-Roman context, the concept ‘kingdom’ denotes ‘Empire language’, which had the connotation of the maintenance of patronage and power, and marginalisation of clientele. For Jesus, the kingdom of God was a core value. The parables of Jesus articulated the kingdom of God, which subverted the ideology of power in symbolic terms. Understood as such, the parables of Jesus are symbols of the kingdom of God. The parables of Jesus are diaphoric symbols. A parable juxtaposes two contrasting entities (diaphors), and thus has the power to create something new. The main function of the parable is not simply to instruct, but rather to challenge. This challenge is provided by juxtaposing two conflicting views on reality (God as merciful and just patron of the kingdom vis-à-vis the Holy God as patron of the temple) so as to provide new insight. Jesus’s use of parables as symbols of the Kingdom of God also relates to the distinction made by the sociology of knowledge between a symbolic universe and a social universe. The term ‘symbolic universe’ refers to an all-embracing frame of reference that, through symbols and language, defines and creates a ‘world’, that is, real worlds or textual worlds. The term ‘social universe’, on the other hand, refers to the way in which the understanding of a symbolic universe precipitates in a specific arrangement of social institutions (economy, politics, religion and kinship). One’s understanding of the symbolic universe (God), thus leads to a certain ordering of society. Graeco-Roman Empire ideology is comparable to Judean/Israelite Temple ideology. Temple ideology resulted in an understanding of the politics or ideology of exclusiveness (the separation between socially and religiously ‘pure’ and ‘impure’). Jesus’s understanding of his heavenly Father in terms of the Kingdom of this Father is expressed in parabolic language. Jesus’s understanding of his heavenly Father as just and merciful resulted in a politics of open commensality and inclusivity. The social universe depicted in the parables of Jesus, therefore, subverted the social universe as advocated by the Temple and the Graeco-Roman Empire. The parables of Jesus thus challenged people to adhere to a different ideology with regard to the God of Israel. Findings thus far are that the parables of Jesus are (ideological) symbols of the kingdom, that Jesus was against any kind of violence, that Jesus advocated generalised reciprocity, that the Jesus of the parables can be typified as a social prophet, that the parables are not theocentric, and that Jesus sided with the marginalised and criticised the system of patronage
Contact person: Prof E van Eck.
In this research, Prof Andries van Aarde investigates the consequences of violence that deprive people of both dignity and freedom. He uses the five categories identified by the philosopher Fanie de Beer, an extraordinary honorary professor in the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria, to define the impact of violence. These are: a crisis of being and existence, which amounts to the destruction of a person’s being, a crisis of meaning and value, which amounts to a person becoming a no-thing, a no-being, a worthless being, in other words it destroys his or her worth, a crisis of language, referring to ‘cursing’, which leaves people ‘speechless’, an ‘us’ crisis, which means the ‘loss of love’ and a loss of the togetherness that binds people together in a social context, and a life crisis, which amounts to people taking their own lives in ‘utter desperation’. Violence manifests in so many forms and degrees that reflection on the problem could leave one with a feeling of desperation. Crime, rape, the mistreatment of children and xenophobia are threatening to not only quench the soul of people trying to be a living being in South Africa, but also to extinguish the rainbow nation’s light. Addressing the problem calls for a drive that transcends the interests of political groups and requires multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary input from thinkers and doers from almost all scientific fields. He asks the question whether or not Christianity can play a role in breaking the cycle of violence in the country, citing the spiritual journey of the apostle Paul as an example of how love can overcome hate. Paul linked the concept of ‘tolerance’ to future hope – as he also did in his last letter to the Romans (Romans 5:3). In his last letter, however, also writing from Corinth almost a decade later, his thoughts on the matter were radically different from when he had written his letter to the Thessalonians a decade earlier, also from Corinth. At that earlier stage, his thinking had been that the love for one another in the inner group would earn the respect of the outside group: those outside the Christian faith community (1 Thessalonians 4:12). However, he found it impossible to show love to the outside group: those who were so murderous and who had shown so much violence and hostility towards his people, to himself, the earlier prophets and also towards Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16), but to deliver them unto the apocalyptic vengeance of God’s wrath. During Paul’s spiritual life journey, a change in attitude set in as far as the initial undisputed distance between an inner group and an outer group was concerned. What has happened here? It appears as if ‘tolerance’ was given a new definition, because ‘hope for the future’ had been internalised. In obedience to the philosophy of Christ to turn the other cheek, Paul implemented this in his own life, not because he was motivated by tradition or good manner, but because he wanted to transform himself into a role model for others to follow. Within the Pauline paradigm, faith, love and hope are gifts from God. When you have internalised those in such a manner, you would unlimitedly grant life to others, and as God, the Spirit and Jesus did, you will begin to turn the other cheek, rather than take revenge through violence and murder. What is the appeal? Perhaps love can conquer hubris. Strong moral leadership – by the President and the people of South Africa – can make a difference when Christians truly internalise tolerance and hope for the future. He appealed to churches to continue to speak out against violence, to stand with those who are wronged, and to rise up in outrage and compassion against injustice and suffering, even if it causes embarrassment to those in power
Contact person: Prof AG van Aarde.
|
