« Optimism. | Main | The Age of Stupid. »

September 22, 2009

Comments

Wes Ellis

Great stuff... But I just want to mention that I think there is a danger even in saying that the text "is reporting theology." It's misleading only because one might begin to think that the text of scripture does theology for us. The truth is, though the authors are asking some theological questions and may at times offer theological responses, the text usually leaves the hard work of doing theology in our hands. just as the authors never meant to do history the way we do, they also never meant to do theology the way we do. It's up to us to harmonize culture, context, politics, etc.

Mike

Agreed. I think DeConick was trying to communicate the reality that the text is more "theological" in its approach to history. I think the book of John is a good example. For John, of overriding importance is to portray Jesus as our Passover lamb. This shapes his "historical narrative," as he has Jesus dying not after the Passover meal, but while the traditional Passover lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal. Hence, for John, the Last Supper was not a Passover celebration [as it is with the Synoptic writers]. In the end he has Jesus dying a day earlier than the Synoptic writers. His theological portrayal takes precedent over presenting an accurate "historical narrative."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Connect

Facebook Twitter

Connections

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31