|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Canaanite dogs
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
In the marginalised areas of our cities we can see at times the encouragement to racism. This is useful to the powers because while we are blaming the recent, or even the long established immigrants for our economic woes (“they only come for our jobs, our welfare benefits, our health care, our best houses, etc.”) we will not be blaming the government or the economic overlords who manipulate the system for their own gain. Black people, East European people, Chinese people, those from the Indian Sub-Continent are made into scapegoats. Proper analysis is obliterated by racist rhetoric.
So when Jesus, confronted by a Canaanite woman and her sick child, calls her “a bitch”, what was going on? (Matthew 15:21-28.)
quote:
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’ 23But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ 24He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ 25But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ 26He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ 27She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ 28Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly. NRSV
This passage has difficulties which cannot be answered easily and should not be answered glibly or be glossed over. There are big questions the answers for which would be too long for this post. Three examples might be:
Was Jesus being a fully incarnate Jew with all the exclusivism that suggested? Was He racist? Did He need to learn?
Is Jesus just using the woman as a handy visual aid for teaching purposes?
What is happening in an honour challenge and riposte situation, in contrast to how such a process worked out in the previous section?
In fact the lesson of this story is simple. Look to your solidarity with those in the same boat, regardless of ethnic origins, and then share with them your journey to salvation.
In Matthew demons symbolise, or are a natural expression of, the oppression of the Roman empire internalised by the people. Madness is an understandable response to an horrific situation over which you have no power.
In Galilee and Judea, and the surrounding regions, including the region of Tyre and Sidon, the Romans were in control. The reality of the empire was the same for Canaanite peasants as it was for Galilean peasants.
This narrative illustrates the fact that the Galileans had more in common with the peasants of the neighbouring region than they did with the Jerusalem elite. (See the previous passage in Matthew.) They share the same experience of occupation and oppression. They were possessed by (or they had internalised) the same demonic forces.
The borders were drawn up in an artificial way, simply as a process of carving up territory for those who were ruling on Rome’s behalf. The borders would have been fluid and largely porous, especially in areas away from towns. Local peasant groups depended on the same water supply and looked to the same or adjacent pastures. The borders would have carried little meaning, assuming they even knew they were there. Much of the world is still like this. (Exceptions then might have been key rivers.) The movement across borders would have been pretty free and there would have been intermarrying. See the concerns following exile in Babylon.
The effect of the narrative is to make clear that the division which matters is based on the socio-economic structure (class in today's terms) and not on ethnicity. It undermines the divide and rule policies of the Romans and their allies so that Galilean peasant is not set against “foreign” peasant, seeing instead that there can be solidarity between equally oppressed groups from different ethnic contexts. The religio-cultural division was a construct of the rulers to consolidate their power, and to cover up the structure of society which was the real basis for the conflict and which was at the root of the poverty of the people. The dominant description of reality is revealed to be false.
The people (of that region – Jew or non-Jew, or even mixed) come and are healed. The Kingdom activity continues and all the lived and experienced symbols of oppressive empire are lifted from the shoulders of the people. Salvation begins; the Kingdom arrives.
The status of the outsider woman is left in no doubt – she is one of the few to whom Jesus ascribes great faith. (One of five, all more or less excluded people, to whom Jesus ascribes faith. In contrast with the disciples, described as of little faith or faithless.) Evangelisation from the poor again.
Yes, grumpyoldman is stirring it once more. Not to cause trouble but to seek a proper interpretation based on an authentic hermeneutic. There will be quibbles about “the lost sheep…” statement (see also 10:5-6); about “demons” and healing; about Christology and whether incarnation meant fully first century Mediterranean collective/dyadic humanity or something else; about omniscience; about parallels in 1 Kings 17; about, "What's a Gentile?"; and no doubt more.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To me the overriding point of this episode is to counter the assumption that the 'people of God' were confined to a single ethnic group.
Of course faith is irrespective of class or economic status, but any suggestion that class or economic status are the primary thrust of this narrative, or indeed present at all, is pure eisegesis as far as I can see.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
For me, the primary lesson is about the richness of God's grace. The pericope also provides room to oppose supercessionism.
Jesus says, quite accurately, that it would be wrong to take food away from children and give it to a dog, even a pet dog (which is probably what kunarion means.) The woman points out that that's not what she's asking for. She doesn't want to take salvation (/grace / healing) away from the children, ie. the Jews. Grace isn't a zero-sum game. In fact, the feast God has prepared for his people (think of Psalm 23, etc.) is so rich that it overflows: crumbs fall and even a crumb is precious enough to heal.
In fact, God will have a surprise in store for the woman: she is invited to the banquet. But, I don't think that's the focus here. The focus is how richly over-flowing God's grace is, and the fact that nothing has been taken away from the Jews for it to be extended to the Gentiles.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One key point is the contrast with the disciples. They're the ones who tell Jesus to send her away. In rather colourful (and for us difficult language) Jesus effectively asks the woman whether or not he should follow the urging of his own disciples. In the process of course showing the disciples that they were wrong. If the children don't want the bread, then maybe it's right to give it to the dogs who will at least wolf it down.
We were discussing this passage the other day. Another interesting observation is that (certainly today) dogs will head for the children at the dinner table. Both because the chances of food falling are greater, but more importantly it's the children who are most likely to take bits of their food and pass it under the table for the dogs. Perhaps a call to the children to share the riches of Gods table with the "dogs". Become like little children and pass on the good food God provides.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I see this story as quintessential Matthew. As I read it, Matthew says throughout his gospel that Christ came to save the Jewish nation and they rejected Him. So God went to plan B -- He reached out to the eager goyisher beggars on the street to fill His banquet.
Further, I see Luke as specifically writing his gospel to say that Matthew was full of blue bottle soup -- the crap that has been written about Jesus to which Luke refers at the start of his gospel strikes me as a reference to Matthew. For Luke, Christ came to expand the Kingdom to all the nations. It wasn't a fallback plan, but the original point. As always, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
quote:
Crap spouted by Alan Cresswell:
We were discussing this passage the other day. Another interesting observation is that (certainly today) dogs will head for the children at the dinner table. Both because the chances of food falling are greater, but more importantly it's the children who are most likely to take bits of their food and pass it under the table for the dogs. Perhaps a call to the children to share the riches of Gods table with the "dogs". Become like little children and pass on the good food God provides.
And yet we also have "Do not give to dogs what is sacred..."
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though it begs the question of what is sacred (both what makes something sacred, and what things are sacred).
Though here we're mainly concerned with the love of God expressed through practical help to those in need (healing of the demon possessed daughter). * would say that there is nothing more sacred than the love of God, but also that's something that would be at the top of the list of things we're called to share with all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus:
Of course faith is irrespective of class or economic status, but any suggestion that class or economic status are the primary thrust of this narrative, or indeed present at all, is pure eisegesis as far as I can see.
To interpret a passage without seeing its fundamental basis in a context where economic and social status were over-riding factors, and where there was real conflict between rich and poor, rulers and ruled, oppressors and oppressed, is just as eisegetic. In other words, reading into this passage a lack of conflict comes from a particular social, philosophical and theological position.
I have a particular reading site, as do we all. I use an urban hermeneutic. I believe that such a starting point gives us essential clues which we miss by aspiring to unattainable neutrality/objectivity or a false universality about the Gospel message. (I refer to an urban hermeneutical key - reading with the marginalised from their site.) I also believe it is vital that we are self-aware when it comes to our reading sites and that we are honest about them.
We need to be aware of the provisionality of assertions about God and be ready to be wrong. Maybe being aware of the beam in my own eye. I am confident in and faithful to my reading site but I am not marginalised. (Whatever my origins in life, and my ministerial context, I am an educated middle class priest.) However, I have consciously chosen the filters I need to understand the bible with the people I have worked amongst. If the result of those filters seems eisegetic that is because in a proper dialogue between people of faith now and people and people of faith 2000 years ago, common ground is sought and common hope for salvation is discovered.
Having said all that I finish with:
You cannot read and interpret Matthew 15:21-28 (or any of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) without being aware of the social, economic, political and anthropological context. The actors on the biblical stage, including Jesus, were so interwoven with their actual context that it really should not be read out of the equation.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
We're back at the same problem, though; once it's conceded that readers approach texts with their own worldviews up their sleeves, then the primary question is not: How do we make that worldview work to our advantage when we read?, but: How do we validate the interpretations that the reading produces?
Validation is the real issue. We have to be able to support / justify in the public sphere any reading/interpretation (and application) we make. The problem I see with viewing sections of Matthew from a closed pre-determined hermeneutic is that the archaeological, sociological and linguistic analyses of conditions during Jesus' time do not support it. Those conditions may indeed have pertained to the 8th century BC Israelite hill country (Norman Gottwald's analyses have a role here), but not to the context within which Jesus roamed. We need to rely on different analyses for that.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
quote:
Nigel M:
viewing sections of Matthew from a closed pre-determined hermeneutic is that the archaeological, sociological and linguistic analyses of conditions during Jesus' time do not support it.
I offer:
Horsley, Malina, Clevenot, Herzog, Carter, Myers, Neyrey, Scott, Harland, Esler, Riches & Sim, Gottwald's look at Jesus' context, Waetjen, Kloppenberg, Sanders, Lenski & Lenski, Freyne, Glancy, Oakman, Friensy, ....
Gottwald's The Tribes of Yahweh is indeed about pre-monarchical times but is relevant because the tension between monarchy and prophet is still a serious issue in 1st century Palestine, especially in the Galilean region.
So, there are numerous studies and analyses focusing on the context of the incarnate Son of God. Or perhaps this is not a "valid validation" for Nigel M. Is it a case of accepting different authorities in this sphere? Is that being selective as a result of a pre-existing disposition as well? Is it an impasse?
I have studied Matthew at a serious level for nearly 20 years, alongside a colleague. We have looked at the book as a whole and not simply plucked out sections. From the birth narrative to the Great Commission in Galilee the context is essential and is, as far as modern scholarship has determined, as set out in my other posts. (It is a difficulty of the Ship's process in that major articles on whole Gospels would not be appropriate, except to help insomniacs!)
We have sat with people with the text over those years, and more. We have looked at the studies around (those listed above and others) which give a good (and developing) sense of what was going on in Jesus' day. These analyses support the position taken.
I also reject the word "closed". It assumes everybody else who disagrees is "open". That is errant nonsense and I tried, and failed, to deal with that elsewhere. It is also an insult, as I tried to explain a position of choosing filters but being aware of them and the provisionality of interpretation. It is about deliberately and consciously taking a path which is illuminating, and requires commitment, but involves keeping an open perspective.
I may be guilty of similar failings, but to throw the word "eisegesis" at someone, like the word "closed", as assertions rather than clear arguments is not helpful.
So Brother Nigel M, what validation (if not that listed) would be helpful?
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I think you are going to have to drill down into specific arguments supporting the sociological setting of Jesus' horizon. Yes, it is difficult to address the wide scope of an issue on the type of forum that the Ship represents, so it's necessary to focus on specific topics – preferably identifying the main, or key, issue. It's a balance between batting surnames back and forth, which doesn’t take us any further because mere assertion doesn't hack it on the Ship, and shot-gunning each and every issue in a post, which just glazes eyes on the Ship! (Yes, the Shippies are a notoriously difficult bunch to please).
Validation is, it seems to me, the key issue. When faced with different interpretations (particularly mutually incompatible ones) in an environment where interpretations mean applications and applications mean “Do what I say!”, then the Christian needs to know which one to follow.
And how does he or she do that?
Because these interpretations also impact the general public sphere (outside of the Christian community) the Christian has to provide justification that can be tested in that wider sphere. To my mind there are three useful legs of a stool here:
[1] Archaeological
[2] Sociological
[3] Linguistic
Each of these three provide insights into the context (or horizon) of a particular time. Ideally, all three will line up to provide secure interpretations of texts.
My critique of the 'urban poor' sociological approach is that it does not line up with [1] and [3] above for the time of Jesus and in his environment for working.
I'll take one difficulty here (there are plenty, but in the interests of driving between mere assertion and firing every gun the battery I'll limit it):
We could start with the Sanders (assuming you mean E. P. rather than Nancy K.) in your list. His Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) has proved to be a very useful launching pad for others in the quest for a historical Jesus, basing research on Jesus' intention and relationship to his contemporaries in Judaism. That approach – putting oneself in the shoes of the person at the time – has borne fruit in recent decades, perhaps especially in the works of N. T. Wright.
We've even had the 'marginal' attempts at sociological research into Jesus (e.g., John Meier's A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vols 1 – 4 [New York: Doubleday, 1991-2009], or John Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, [New York: Harper Collins, 1991]) that struggled to make sense of Jesus in his context. William Herzog acknowledges his debt to this work.
All this has been great and a much needed re-focussing of attention on the there-and-then as a prerequisite for any application here-and-now.
The difficulty is that many of these dippings into the sociology of those times are premised on a hermeneutical stance that forces a distinction between the parables as told by Jesus and the parables recounted by the gospel writers, as though there was no continuity between those two points on the spectrum. We then end up with rather interesting guesses as what Jesus was really about: a magician, an agrarian labourer, a wandering Cynic, a pre-Marxist Marxian, and so on.
Getting round this difficulty requires a more in-depth analysis. Fortunately there are quite a few resources from which to draw. Here's a sketch of an approach to biblical interpretation:
[1] Identify the relevant top-level worldview in operation. I haven't yet found anything higher in that hierarchy for the ancient near east than covenant as an explanation for the social relationships underpinning the texts we have in the bible. Happy to dive deeper into this as I find it supported by all three of the stool legs above. It also makes sense of all the texts we have.
[2] Authorial intention as the basis for interpretation. Not everyone's cup of tea, but again I haven't found anything as sufficiently useful as a tool to provide a way into answering issues around incompatibility of interpretations.
[3] Putting oneself in the shoes of the author and hearer at the time. Taking [1] and [2] above seriously and taking insights from the three legs of the stool (especially where they cohere), a reading is more likely to challenge one's own worldview (and presuppositions when reading). Being the 'other', as it used to be called.
[4] Philosophically, taking seriously the insights from the analytic and phenomenological strands of hermeneutic thoughts so that the human element and the linguistic element are both held in tandem. I know traditionally that these two strands have been at loggerheads, but in recent decades some very useful work has been done by, for example, Paul Ricoeur, to marry them at the level of language – particularly metaphor taken in its widest sense, to understand how language is used within a worldview, betraying it in effect while at the same time supporting it. An understanding of the rhetoric of language assists, for example, in seeing how a parable can evoke a world not at odds with that of the speaker/hearer, but in affirmation (and betrayal of the existence) of the worldview that binds both parties together.
Starter for 10...
P.S. On “closed”: From the urban poor website - “As a result this study on Matthew will be built on the assertion that the authentic view of Matthew’s Jesus comes out of economically, politically and socially marginalised people. This key – the urban hermeneutical key in the 21st century – unlocks the view of Jesus that Matthew was preserving. The marginalised urban communities of Britain offer the essential reading site from which to understand Matthew’s agenda. The view from those on the margins is the view of those for whom Matthew was written, who were those who preserved the stories for us now.” Ironically the unlocking is also a closing – it shuts the interpretation into a pre-determined cage, does it not?
[Host note: corrected typo]
[ 21. September 2014, 17:58: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The academic approach to scripture is, I'm afraid, one that goes largely over my head.
With respect, I think this academic approach to the hermeneutic of the urban poor is also likely to go straight over the heads of the urban poor.
It looks to me like an attempt to decide what the narrative should be saying to the urban poor instead of seeing what they actually think it says.
I may not have the level of academic theological training that either Nigel M or grumpyoldman exhibit, but I think I can lay a good claim to lots of work among the urban poor, and assert confidently that the ones I know are unlikely to see this passage as being primarily about economic injustice (which is not to say that other passages don't have anything to say about it).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What Eutychus said. It's obnoxious of me, but every time I read this kind of interpretation I can't help feeling like it's some kind of exploitation of the poor. That's maybe not the right word--what do we call it when it's ethnic, "appropriation"? Co-opting their experience?
I can't claim to be poor poor (just strapped like pretty much everybody), but I too have worked among the urban poor for yonks of years, and I'm fairly sure that if they overheard this kind of discussion and interpretation that we would get a) snorts, b) some indignation along the lines of "how the hell do you know what it's like to be me?" and c) "why don't you actually do something about it, like hiring one of us?"
All of which has some justice to it as well as some injustice.
I dunno, it makes me squirm. Feels like we're treating "the poor" as an object for our textual dissociation.
I'm probably being unfair about that too.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
On a different note--
"The poor" (I hate how objectifying that sounds) seem often to be the most orthodox and conservative in their use of Scripture, IMHO. More so than their richer peers. That's anecdata, of course, but I've seen a parallel when some very well-meaning people have attempted to tell my Vietnamese community how we should be feeling about issues A, B or C based on their own imaginative construction of what the war refugee/impoverished immigrant experience is like. People who in fact are NOT vets, refugees, or impoverished immigrants. And then proceeded to talk with us in a way that made it plain that they had already constructed "our" experience mentally, and that mental construct was a helluva lot different from anything we ourselves recognized.
It felt patronizing and embarrassing, as we couldn't figure out how to politely say "fuck off" to people who really believed they were of one heart and mind with us (never mind they didn't ASK us). Most embarrassing.
Has anybody actually gone among "the poor" with a recorder and asked them what they think these stories are about? Without leading questions, I mean.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has anybody actually gone among "the poor" with a recorder and asked them what they think these stories are about? Without leading questions, I mean.
Not this story (AFAIK), but here's an intriguing article by Sakari Hakkinen where he does just that with another text in Tanzania.
It's reader-response criticism, really, but he does the work of soliciting the responses.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
It's reader-response criticism, really, but he does the work of soliciting the responses.
Thanks for both the term (I note CS Lewis was a forerunner) and the link, Hart - it sounds just like one of our Wednesday evening Bible studies!
What I was going to add to what Lamb Chopped said is that one of the most intriguing things about the Bible for me is that it actually 'works' at all these different levels of criticism.
My anecdata also suggests that not only do "the poor" (or at least the uneducated) read the passage at a very straightforward level, they seem to get more extraordinary results in terms of healing, simple answers to prayer, and so on.
I can't always accept their reading of the text, but I can't really argue with their testimony.
To me the challenge is to not look down on or dismiss a "simplistic" hermeneutic, whilst also remaining intellectually honest in the way I myself approach and teach Scripture.
I may have 'become a man' and 'put away childish things', but it is those who are 'as little children' who see the Kingdom of Heaven. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 22. September 2014, 05:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It sounds like our (context: Midwestern German heritage Lutheran) Bible studies as well. And the author expresses surprise at his subjects coming up with such familiar, widespread responses, in spite of their very different culture and poverty level. I thought it very decent and honest of him to say so, when it clearly didn't support his theory!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All good stuff from the top down. I'm all over the place with this. I feel that Jesus is feeling His way, from His culture to transcendence. In His heart - pathos - He was there already, but the words - logos - make it so - ethos. Make the theory practice. The divine in Him was ahead of the human. Always.
I have accused Him of racism. Which I shake over. Yet how could He not be? Until the discourse broke that spell?
Was He just playing to a supernaturally foregone conclusion? He wasn't on the cross.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus said:
The academic approach to scripture is, I'm afraid, one that goes largely over my head.
With respect, I think this academic approach to the hermeneutic of the urban poor is also likely to go straight over the heads of the urban poor.
Lamb Chopped said:
I dunno, it makes me squirm. Feels like we're treating "the poor" as an object for our textual dissociation.
And:
Has anybody actually gone among "the poor" with a recorder and asked them what they think these stories are about? Without leading questions, I mean.
My profound apologies. I was seduced into the academic game and didn’t resist as I should. I was going to have a go at answering Nigel M’s various points but I will restrict myself to two things:
1) These interpretations (see also posts on Matthew 25 and Matthew 20) come out of marginalised urban communities in the UK. They come from a process of engagement with local groups in those communities, church and non-church. (Note they are referred to not as “poor” communities but as marginalised – pushed to the edge by others. At the same time, the people I am referring to would use neither definition of themselves, although they would be aware, to a lesser or greater degree, that they had been ill treated by society as organised by the well-off and powerful.)
The interpretations were largely the result of “dialogue sermons” – a way of preaching that always begins with the life of the local community and assumes the expertise of the people. The community issues take the lead in the preaching process.
Matthew 20:1-16 was looked at after a discussion about dock workers who were employed (or not) on a daily basis. No work meant no money for the family. The resonances with the insecurity of the workers in the vineyard sparked off an understanding of what Jesus was saying.
The racism of Jesus and the realisation that ethnic divides were less of an issue than class division came out of thinking about historic and recent immigration.
In the process the “technical theologian” – the priest or preacher - is there only to offer background information as and when it is needed. The technical theologian is there as a servant.
There were also bible studies and other discussions. There were no recorders involved but the outcomes of the discussions are offered above and elsewhere.
2) Nigel M’s “three useful legs of a stool” for assessing valid interpretations miss something vital.
The people who take the credit for the interpretation above are more interested in salvation. Does the life and teaching of Jesus bring us good news and hope? Does it lead us into liberation from those things which destroy our communal life? Do we find in the bible echoes of our struggle to be human and encouragement for our work to change things? Etc.
The complex discussion around how the meaning of the text is validated is not part of the agenda. It is to do with how God through Christ is engaged in our salvation.
So, the criticisms are fair. This is not about academia, and marginalised urban communities do not need to justify their interpretations through the kind of mechanisms which are also an aspect of marginalisation. Thank you for reminding me of this. But ...... don't patronise people in disadvantaged urban communities by assuming that they cannot handle complex discussions about biblical interpretation. The essential point is that so-called "academic" analysis has to be the servant of liberative approaches to the word of God.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
[deleted accidental copy-paste]
[ 24. September 2014, 01:27: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
Ooops! That went by accident. Please ignore. Sorry about that. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Careful what you paste, folks.
K.A. , Admin.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
In case anyone is wondering, I do agree with much of what is being desired here. For example, I think the following to be extremely useful activities:
To integrate as much of the context as we can glean (both within and without the text) to assist with interpretation
To take account of the suggestions that are available from other disciplines, though with a need to test them (to avoid, for example, importing insights from sociological studies that pertain to human interactions that don't fit in the context we are looking at)
To take seriously the text where it jars with our experience. As the OP demonstrates, it's that factor of the dissimilar which can challenge the similar in our experience and thus ask us whether what we have believed to be the case is in fact so.
I did a bit of a test on Matthew's social setting, taking into account the three legs or limbs – archaeological, sociological, and linguistic – to see what it might look like. Not very in depth, but maybe a hint at what could be done.
The three do overlap to an extent, but I started with the basic linguistic data: Matthew's Gospel, that collection of words chosen and placed in a particular order to affect an effect on an audience. We at least have that in front of our face. For current purposes I used three categories against which to list what Matthew did: his references to location, interaction, and message.
[1] Locations
These provide Jesus' geography, the places he visited. It matters not here whether Matthew was including this detail in his gospel consciously or unconsciously. Whichever it was, the mention of a location grounds Jesus into a place where archaeology can then offer information. From there sociology can chip in to offer advice on how humans at that place might of functioned and interacted.
Examples of location in Matthew include:
Bethlehem (for the birth of Jesus) – Matt. 2:1
Egypt (the flight) – 2:13-15
Nazareth in Galilee (return from Egypt) – 2:19-23
Jordan River in the Judean wilderness (baptism of Jesus) – 3:13
Wilderness proper (temptation) – 4:1
Capernaum in Galilee (back to set up a new home after John Baptist was arrested) – 4:12f
Ancestral home (Nazareth) – 13:54
Gennesaret, the farming plain to the south of Capernaum – 14:34
The administrative district of Tyre and Sidon – 15:21
I'll stop there because it brings us up to the passage that is the topic of this thread.
It's worth latching onto Capernaum as an example of an approach here. Matthew notes that Jesus set up a home there. Capernaum was his home town (Matt 9:1) a oppsed to his ancestral home (Nazareth). A fair bit of archaeology has been done at that site, with reports scattered over a range of journals, but summary analyses are available, e.g. by Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence, Google preview here.
So what we have from the archaeological and linguistic evidence thus far is that Jesus was a man of means. He set up shop in a typical Jewish settlement of medium size, not much impacted if at all by Greek or Roman architecture. Nevertheless, the Gentile presence was not far away.
[2] Interactions
Who did Jesus interact with, according to Matthew? Social groups include:
Royal advisers who come to worship Jesus and offer rich gifts (Matt 2:1-12)
Inner circle of followers – fishermen (4:18-22), a tax collector (9:9), etc.
Jesus taught in synagogues – he was already accepted as trained teacher (4:23-25; 7:28f; 9:35)
People interested in Jesus from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan River (4:25); a subset possibly of this are the townsfolk who come out to Jesus (14:13)
Experts in the law – interpreters (8:19)
Local ruler (9:18)
Pharisees (12:38; 15:1)
Jesus' family (12:46ff)
And so on.
A point worth noting here is that according to Matthew's gospel Jesus latched onto self made disciples, involved in family businesses. From sociological suggestions, these are articulate (probably conversant in at least 2 languages) individuals engaged in meaningful employment.
Another point is that Jesus appears to have been trained as an expert in the law himself; he was well versed in the arts of debate at the time and he knew his Jewish scriptures. The real difference was that he spoke with authority whereas his peers seemed to have expressed their views in what would become the more established way after AD70 - “Rabbi 'x' says this, Rabbi 'y' prefers that, and Rabbi 'z' the other.” No firm conclusion for the people to take away and live by.
So both Jesus and his disciples were articulate and skilled. They lived in a settled environment where trade was possible. Not super rich (not perhaps even rich), but as close as possible to a middle class as possible before that term was invented.
[3] Message
What was Jesus' message? Matthew tells us the theme: “Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven(/God) is near” (4:17; 10:7). This has roots in Jewish expectations, though not the end of the world kind. It was intensely political and therefore dangerous for the Jerusalem authorities, albeit possibly tolerable in Galilee at a nice distance!
It seems to me, just from this very short attempt at bringing together some themes, that there is a picture Matthew has drawn (again, whether intentionally or not). It is of a Jewish character named Jesus, trained in interpretation (possibly in Jerusalem during his upbringing among those he would later engage with?), who takes the view that it is possible to be authoritative about interpretation and meet the need of the audience, who gathers around him a crew of small to medium sized enterprise businessmen to learn a new skill. Jesus sets up shop in a Jewish village and even though he is in an eclectic part of the world he aims his message at the Jewish community.
To me it feels more of a stable environment where trade was possible, homes could be built, plans made. Yes there was a strong national leader in charge with Roman military and cultural backing. But what Rome needed was peace and stability so that the trade routes were protected, not carnage and slaughter with destruction of homes and the creation of a truly marginalised population. It's this that opens up the question I have on the context. Perhaps it would help to stand this context up against one that was much less stable, that of exile for example, or the outcome from the Jewish wars of 66-70AD and later. In Jesus' time it feels much more Jesus' context just doesn't feel like one where brutality pervaded and soldiers ran amok. I agree there is a distinction between the ruling parties (religious/political) and the rest of the population, but there doesn't seem to be the archaeological or sociological evidence to support the view that the bulk of the population was quite so marginalised.
It's into this type of framework that we then need to fit Jesus' message, couched as it is in the rhetoric appropriate to the place and time.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
grumpyoldman
Apprentice
# 18188
|
Posted
OK. I was hoping someone else would respond as I have apologised already for playing the academic game. I will keep it as brief as possible.
I would remind readers that the original interpretation came out of the reflections of people in inner city parishes. The story connected with their reality and helped them to live salvation. It seemed worth sharing.
Nigel M’s last post is full of unsupported assertions, based not on evidence but on presuppositions and anachronisms. Where the biblical text is quoted it is followed by unfounded conclusions.
quote:
Matthew notes that Jesus set up a home there (Capernaum).
Katoikeo (κατοικέω) means to dwell, reside, settle. Capernaum was a place of one storey, multi-family houses. (R Horsley: Galilee.) He wouldn’t have “set up a home”; it is more than likely he lived with relatives, as a “cousin” in someone else’s patriarchal group. Sociologically, kinship was crucial in determining much about life in the community. (Reed, in the book referenced by Nigel M, notes with reference to Jerusalem visits that it was usual to stay with relatives.)
quote:
So what we have from the archaeological and linguistic evidence thus far is that Jesus was a man of means.
How on earth was this conclusion reached? Where is the evidence? None quoted. Reed’s book does not offer any concrete evidence about this. As noted, the Greek in Matthew states that Jesus went to Capernaum to live, not to buy or build a house. If he had means, where did those means come from? Don’t assume that Joseph was a small businessman. He was a tekton – more likely a joiner and a day labourer on the construction sites. (Se Crossan, Reza Aslan, Malina, etc.)
quote:
Who did Jesus interact with, according to Matthew?
Why list the small number of interactions with the elite groups who came out from Jerusalem (i.e. the power centre) to challenge Jesus? Those exchanges are usually honour challenges and are completely different from Jesus’ day to day contacts. Most of the time he is engaged with “the crowds” (50 references in Matthew) and with outcasts, tax collectors, sinners, sick, dying, dead, etc. Jesus did not mingle with the elite; the elite came to confront him.
quote:
A point worth noting here is that according to Matthew's gospel Jesus latched onto self made disciples, involved in family businesses.
Anachronistic and inaccurate; based on modern western presuppositions being read back. For better research on the nature of fishing and the structural relationships between the different groups see K C Hanson; The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition; Biblical Theology Bulletin 27 (1997) 99_111 © 1997. The structure of the fishing economy did not reflect the 21st century free market model. Those who did the fishing (an industry highly controlled by those in power) usually did not own the boats and certainly did not have a business.
What about Jesus’ “interpretive” authority?
First it was more than interpreting, it was based on his actions. It was also an authority exercised over symbolic and actual spaces. (Chapters 8-9 of Matthew contain a section where Jesus, through his actions, asserts his authority over the temple, Rome, demons, the household and kinship structures, the cosmic powers, the scribes, non-Jewish territory, and more.)
Second it was an authority recognised by the people, the crowds, the ochlos. At the beginning and end of the episodes in 8 and 9 referred to above Jesus’s authority is recognised by the crowds; their acknowledgement frames the rest. Jesus came from the northern region and the Little Tradition, the place of the prophets. The scribes, representing the centre, along with the temple and the Great Tradition, would have been opposed to the practice and understanding of the people. That is why Jesus has authority over and against the scribes; Jesus was on the side of the mass of ordinary people.
quote:
…. there doesn't seem to be the archaeological or sociological evidence to support the view that the bulk of the population was quite so marginalised.
The cultural anthropological and sociological evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority (around 90% of the population) were marginal peasants. Then there were the marginal urban dwellers in the larger cities. Furthermore, the sociological differences between then and now mean that the modern presuppositions Nigel M imposes are not valid.
To cite one source, Marcus Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1455/2749
Borg cites Lenski – p966 – who defined clearly the economic strata of 1st century Palestine. See Lenki’s work on this.
Also worth a look is Dennis C Duling, Canisius College, Buffalo (NY) who wrote a paper on Matthew and Marginality.
I would offer more if wanted.
Nigel M’s whole post has too many “hints” and “suggestions”, is short on evidence, and is loaded with modern presuppositions anachronistic to the Galilee and Judea of Jesus. A read of Richard L Rorbaugh: The New Testament in a Cross-Cultural Perspective would unpack the misapprehensions further.
I assert:
It is important to understand the sociology and cultural anthropology of the time.
There is a need to take into account the different understanding of self and the dyadic nature of personhood.
As has been noted, kinship is crucial in the times of Jesus.
There are things going on in the interactions which are to do with Honour/Shame.
Be aware of the starting points of the characters and whether they come from the Great or the Little Tradition.
Take account of the anthropology which has identified Hidden and Public Transcripts.
Look at Malina: The New Testament World, or Kenneth C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman: Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts
Nigel M tries to paint a picture of a nice, well to do, suburban Jesus, with independent means, mixing with his social peers who would be small businessmen, teachers, lawyers, rulers and Pharisees. As a backdrop there seems to be a peasant population living adequately from the land and not particularly marginalised. Then he says:
quote:
It's into this type of framework that we then need to fit Jesus' message, couched as it is in the rhetoric appropriate to the place and time.
Nigel M’s description of Jesus, his associates and his context does not stack up. There is no point in trying to fit Jesus’ message into it. It is clear that he will not be convinced about the Jesus perceived by urban, working class and definitely marginalised people. But the distanced, abstracted, academically superior and financially secure Jesus, the anachronistic bourgeois Jesus, is not for the victims of today’s economic and political structures. Such a Jesus for them is part of the problem.
I apologise again for writing like this at length. I promise not to add anything more to this thread because this kind of debate detracts from the getting to grips with passage in the original post.
--------------------
The Gospel is the same for everybody. However, the poor hear it as a promise; the rich hear it as a threat.
Posts: 18 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Fantastic! I was expecting this – now we can really get going into the text. And it's essential that people do get to grips with the text because not doing so risks insubstantial interpretations and the life applications that result. Academia is not therefore the type of game you assert, grumpyoldman; you can do better than that! Come on!
I'll pick up on Matthew's use of the verb kataikeo (= κατοικέω) in 4:12f so that we limit things. The rest can come later. The launching passage reads (in the NET version):
quote:
Now when Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, he went into Galilee. While in Galilee, he moved from Nazareth to make his home [= κατῴκησεν] in Capernaum by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali...
Matthew uses the kataikeo verb four times in his gospel. The three other uses are at:
2:23 – where Joseph decided not to settle in Judea, but rather went to the territory named Galilee and lived in Nazareth (καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ). The main actor is Joseph, who moves and settles/lives there. As noted in my last post, this becomes the 'father's house' – the new ancestral home – as Matthew describes it in 13:54 - “Then he came to his father's place (...εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ) and began to teach the people in their synagogue.”
12:45 – where Jesus describes the state of wandering evil spirits who eventually return to their formal dwelling (= οἶκος) and settle there (= κατοικέω).
23:21 – where God is described at dwelling in the temple (“whoever swears by the temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it”).
Accepting that kinship and the wider hierarchical family was important in the setting, nevertheless Matthew's focus is on moving away from the places where kin would be found. Joseph moves away from Judea, Jesus moves away from Nazareth. Both make a home. This does not have to mean 'build a new house' and Mathew distinguishes between the physical house (= οἶκος) and the act of 'housing' (for want of a better word) in a house (= κατοικέω). Matthew also makes the point that the one thus 'housing' is the one pulling the punches: the evil spirits and God dwell in the building, but they are not mere dwellers in the home of a relative higher up the hierarchical social chain. That's Matthew's idiolect – his linguistic usage. It is therefore more likely that when he records Jesus as 'settling' in Capernaum, he is describing Jesus making a residence as the elder, the 'father', the one who pulls the punches in the family.
Wider than Matthew, the use of κατοικέω elsewhere supports this point. Herodotus in his The Histories (7.164) uses it in the sense of to colonise – to have overall control over. The verb does not, therefore, have to be limited on each and every occasion to a simple sense of 'settle' as you would like to wish.
If Matthew's use is in the sense I suggest, based on the linguistic context in which it is found, then Jesus must have been a man of sufficient means. By 'sufficient' I mean sufficient to afford a relocation and taking up a residence in a home where he would be the boss. Joseph's tekton status (Matt. 13:55) was sufficient to afford his relocation and settlement, so I wouldn't so quick to underestimate his status. Be careful how you use Crossan in this regard; Crossan is seeking to swing a pendulum away from the concept of Joseph (and possibly Jesus) being middle class artisans. It's not possible though, to divorce Joseph so spectacularly from his environment in Nazareth where a tekton (understood throughout Greek literature as skilled craftsman) lived so close to the work available in the area, not least Roman rebuilding of Sepphoris.
The evidence is there, grumpyoldman.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
Katoikeo (κατοικέω) means to dwell, reside, settle. Capernaum was a place of one storey, multi-family houses. (R Horsley: Galilee.) He wouldn’t have “set up a home”; it is more than likely he lived with relatives, as a “cousin” in someone else’s patriarchal group. Sociologically, kinship was crucial in determining much about life in the community. (Reed, in the book referenced by Nigel M, notes with reference to Jerusalem visits that it was usual to stay with relatives.)
Hi Grumpyoldman. I understand that Kerygmania is for discussion of the Bible, but I am not as well versed on what's going on in the Bible with regard to the historical background as many others here. So I am wondering - would it be possible for you to point me to the right place where the Bible says that Jesus lived with his relatives as a "cousin" figure in someone else's patriachal group? It would be very helpful to me and perhaps to others as well to read the context of your assertion so we have something to work with. Many thanks.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Joseph's tekton status (Matt. 13:55) was sufficient to afford his relocation and settlement, so I wouldn't so quick to underestimate his status. Be careful how you use Crossan in this regard; Crossan is seeking to swing a pendulum away from the concept of Joseph (and possibly Jesus) being middle class artisans. It's not possible though, to divorce Joseph so spectacularly from his environment in Nazareth where a tekton (understood throughout Greek literature as skilled craftsman) lived so close to the work available in the area, not least Roman rebuilding of Sepphoris.
I may get shot down in flames for this by someone who actually knows Greek, but surely the definite article before 'carpenter' in 'Isn't this the son of the carpenter?' (ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός) would imply that Joseph's status as a carpenter was unique and known to the audience - given that it's the first appearance of the word 'carpenter' in that passage.
He wasn't just a carpenter, but the carpenter (yes I know Greek doesn't have an indefinite article). Which would hardly be consistent with the idea that he was a day-labourer, since by definition day-labourers are a class of people that there are lots of.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Getting back to Jesus' comment about Canaanite dogs and the woman's reply, I rather think we've got a bit of banter here.
The woman asks for help and Jesus relies with a 'well-known-phrase-or-saying' that I'm sure the woman will have heard before.
Jesus, I suspect 'quoted' this with a twinkle in his eye - seen and appreciated by the woman - that is entirely lost on the printed page.
(on that point alone, we've all got into trouble when we've texted something or written something on the ship and we thought we were being funny and actually it came across as harsh. Emoticons are a great help but I don't think Matthew knew any!)
Anyway...
Jesus quips 'ah, but don't you know I can't give the dogs anything!'
And she replies, rather smartly I feel, 'Ah yes, but even I can have some crumbs!'
Jesus appreciates the come-back, thinks it's a great answer to the received prejudice he has just echoed and his immediate response is, 'what a great answer! You've got a great faith there, your daughter is healed! No question, no problem!'
I really don't see Jesus being racist or prejudiced or anything.
Why? Because that would be so out of character; and secondly, what would Matthew gain by recording Jesus as a racist? It does nothing to enhance the teaching of his Gospel.
Sop, this is just a 'playful' interaction between Jesus and this woman - in much the same way as the banter between him and the woman at the well was bordering on the playful as well - asking the woman for a drink of water could have been seen as mockery!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
He wasn't just a carpenter, but the carpenter...
I suppose in Nazareth he may have been the only one with those particular skills, hence the definite article. It would be a bit like there being only one priest, or baker, or candlestick-maker in the village, so that person acquires the honour of being definitely referred to. As you say, not consistent with referring to someone who was one among many with the same skills.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Actually, I think the idiom is best translated by "isn't this the carpenter's son" with the import being 'the one who is the son of a carpenter' rather than the force of the definite article focussing on the carpenter (i.e. out of a number of itinerant rabbis, this is the one whose father is a carpenter) possibly with the implication that his background is in "trade" rather than in learning, so attempting to discredit him.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
But in the Greek there are two articles - one in the nominative agreeing with 'son' and an embedded one in the genitive that goes with 'carpenter'. Which to me suggests that both Jesus and Joseph were unique.
I may be misunderstanding how Greek grammar works, though.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
I really don't see Jesus being racist or prejudiced or anything.
Why? Because that would be so out of character; and secondly, what would Matthew gain by recording Jesus as a racist? It does nothing to enhance the teaching of his Gospel.
I agree with you, Mudfrog, in that whatever one is supposed to conclude from this incident it is not meant to reflect negatively on Jesus. What leads me to reject the idea that Jesus was racially prejudiced is that earlier in the same gospel there is the healing of the centurion's servant in which he concludes: "I assure you that many will come from the east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of heaven. But those who should be in the Kingdom will be thrown into darkness..." (Matthew 8:5-13).
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
Is Jesus just using the woman as a handy visual aid for teaching purposes?
This seems more likely to me.
quote:
In Matthew demons symbolise, or are a natural expression of, the oppression of the Roman empire internalised by the people. Madness is an understandable response to an horrific situation over which you have no power.
I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean that Roman oppression caused demonic possession?
quote:
They were possessed by (or they had internalised) the same demonic forces.
Well, I think that it's likely that the demons of the time are the same ones we have now, unless they're somehow local like a particular wood nymph or lake sprite or human ghostly haunting.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
For me, the primary lesson is about the richness of God's grace. The pericope also provides room to oppose supercessionism.
Jesus says, quite accurately, that it would be wrong to take food away from children and give it to a dog, even a pet dog (which is probably what kunarion means.) The woman points out that that's not what she's asking for. She doesn't want to take salvation (/grace / healing) away from the children, ie. the Jews. Grace isn't a zero-sum game. In fact, the feast God has prepared for his people (think of Psalm 23, etc.) is so rich that it overflows: crumbs fall and even a crumb is precious enough to heal.
In fact, God will have a surprise in store for the woman: she is invited to the banquet. But, I don't think that's the focus here. The focus is how richly over-flowing God's grace is, and the fact that nothing has been taken away from the Jews for it to be extended to the Gentiles.
Well said! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps a call to the children to share the riches of Gods table with the "dogs". Become like little children and pass on the good food God provides.
Awesome! I had not thought of that but it makes sense.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Further, I see Luke as specifically writing his gospel to say that Matthew was full of blue bottle soup -- the crap that has been written about Jesus to which Luke refers at the start of his gospel strikes me as a reference to Matthew.
I think both Gospels are true.
quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
a false universality about the Gospel message
How can the Gospel not be universal?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
With respect, I think this academic approach to the hermeneutic of the urban poor is also likely to go straight over the heads of the urban poor.
Or, indeed, most people--which kind of misses the point of the Gospel being told to all people. It doesn't mean that there were not social, historical, and cultural aspects to those events that we would do well to try to understand, but it needs to not miss the basic points of the Gospel and Who Jesus is and our relationship with Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
It's reader-response criticism, really, but he does the work of soliciting the responses.
Thanks for both the term (I note CS Lewis was a forerunner)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Lewis Experiment in Criticism also
quote:
What I was going to add to what Lamb Chopped said is that one of the most intriguing things about the Bible for me is that it actually 'works' at all these different levels of criticism.
Definitely!
quote:
My anecdata also suggests that not only do "the poor" (or at least the uneducated) read the passage at a very straightforward level, they seem to get more extraordinary results in terms of healing, simple answers to prayer, and so on.
Amen!!
quote:
To me the challenge is to not look down on or dismiss a "simplistic" hermeneutic, whilst also remaining intellectually honest in the way I myself approach and teach Scripture.
I may have 'become a man' and 'put away childish things', but it is those who are 'as little children' who see the Kingdom of Heaven.
Double amen!!
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
who takes the view that it is possible to be authoritative about interpretation
... um... of course He would. He is the Authority.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Getting back to Jesus' comment about Canaanite dogs and the woman's reply, I rather think we've got a bit of banter here.
...
Sop, this is just a 'playful' interaction between Jesus and this woman - in much the same way as the banter between him and the woman at the well was bordering on the playful as well - asking the woman for a drink of water could have been seen as mockery!
This makes the most sense to me as well.
[ 20. October 2014, 17:32: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I really don't see Jesus being racist or prejudiced or anything.
Why? Because that would be so out of character; and secondly, what would Matthew gain by recording Jesus as a racist? It does nothing to enhance the teaching of his Gospel.
That is the very nub of the problem, as far as I can see. We instinctively feel "Jesus couldn't have meant that - that's not like him."
BUT - what if part of the story is about showing how even Jesus had to grow? He had inherited the social biases of his time and needed the woman to make him see things differently. And the miracle of this story is that Jesus (unlike almost all his compatriots) actually changed.
Or you could read the story as Jesus the tired and worn out one, who just wanted some anonymity and peace, got snippy with this pushy and demanding woman. But when she pulled him up on it, he responded.
Too often, we read the gospel stories through the lens of "Jesus the perfect Divine One", which cuts off any possibility of Jesus being the one who needed to change his ideas or attitudes. But is that really the right lens to read the gospels through?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sop, this is just a 'playful' interaction between Jesus and this woman - in much the same way as the banter between him and the woman at the well was bordering on the playful as well - asking the woman for a drink of water could have been seen as mockery!
There is a lot to be said for this approach. Indeed, I have preached on this passage from such an angle. And yet I still have nagging misgivings about it. If this really were a playful exchange, why doesn't Matthew tell us so? We have to make up the knowing wink and the smile on Jesus's face. I'm not saying it isn't the "right" interpretation of this passage - just that it requires us to put things into the story that simply aren't there.
For me, one of the key aspects of this passage (regardless of whether you interpret it as Jesus being offended or Jesus having a game with the women) is that the woman outwits Jesus. So often in the gospels, we see Jesus outwitting others - stepping around their tricky questions and avoiding the traps that have been set for him. Here we have someone - and a woman, to boot - whose wits were faster than his.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Surely--and he's delighted by it! Which is one reason I lean away from the "he meant to be racist" interpretation. If so, he would not have welcomed the one-upping by someone from the despised group. The fact that he did welcome it suggests to me that he was -- playing? testing? bantering? I don't know, but certainly not downright serious.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Too often, we read the gospel stories through the lens of "Jesus the perfect Divine One", which cuts off any possibility of Jesus being the one who needed to change his ideas or attitudes. But is that really the right lens to read the gospels through?
Um... yes. Because He is the perfect Divine One.
It may not be the only "lens" to read the Gospels through--surely, there are cultural and historical things to take into account to understand them better--but if we try to leave out His Incarnate Godhood, then I think we're missing the point--on all manner of levels.
Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, as Hebrews 13:8 tells us. That needs to be taken into account when trying to make sense of passages like this one.
[ 21. October 2014, 05:55: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, as Hebrews 13:8 tells us. That needs to be taken into account when trying to make sense of passages like this one.
While this is true, we have to pair it up with the statement in Luke 2.52 that Jesus increased in wisdom stature. So although in his Godhead Jesus is undoubtedly all-wise, in his humanity he was subject to some human limitations and experiences.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, as Hebrews 13:8 tells us. That needs to be taken into account when trying to make sense of passages like this one.
While this is true, we have to pair it up with the statement in Luke 2.52 that Jesus increased in wisdom stature. So although in his Godhead Jesus is undoubtedly all-wise, in his humanity he was subject to some human limitations and experiences.
Exactly! This may be a slight tangent on the topic, but it raises the question about what we mean by Jesus being both fully human and fully God. For me, to be fully human means that, like all of us, he had to grow and learn. Increasingly, I have no difficulty in seeing in Jesus the limitations of a fully human being - partial knowledge; a need to learn to rise above the assumed cultural barriers of his time, and so on.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
While this is true, we have to pair it up with the statement in Luke 2.52 that Jesus increased in wisdom stature. So although in his Godhead Jesus is undoubtedly all-wise, in his humanity he was subject to some human limitations and experiences.
I agree--though I would not include something actually morally wrong, like looking down on someone that way or caring about them less, as one of those limitations. He was and is wholly without sin.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Although it may well be the case that Jesus needed to “rise above the assumed cultural barriers of his time”, it is not at all clear that is relevant to the interpretation of Jesus’ confrontation with the Syro-Phoenecian woman.
1. As I pointed out in my previous post, Jesus had no problem earlier in Matthew’s gospel in commending the faith of the Roman Centurion and healed his servant without further ado. Thus, by the time he met the Syro-Phoenecian woman in a similar context he had already demonstrated his rejection of ethnic discrimination.
2. Matthew’s gospel, as with the other gospels, is not meant to be an objective biography, but to demonstrate, in his case, that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 1:1). It is doubtful, therefore, that this incident was intended to suggest Jesus was ever prejudiced against gentiles. Indeed, for all it is suggested this gospel was addressed to Jews, it is the one synoptic gospel that includes the Wise Men.
3. It follows from 1 & 2 that any interpretation of this incident needs to recognise that Matthew included this story only to show Jesus in a positive light, and it is that purpose which we need to detect for the purposes of interpretation.
To my mind raising such issues as Jesus “growing in wisdom and stature” , “Jesus the same yesterday, today and tomorrow”, and Jesus being “wholly human” , however important in themselves, are hardly relevant or needed to address this passage. I also think it dangerous to apply assumptions relating to the contemporary discourse on “racism” , particularly if they are not needed.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
