More than a Narrative (The Gospel According to Matthew).
I thought the first aspect of commentary I would do would be concerning the significance of the Books title, "According to Matthew", or "The Gospel According to Matthew" in the original Greek/Aramaic.
I wanted to say that I think this is much more than "A narrative". And here is the wiki link to that literary concept if you want to brush up on what I'm getting at here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative
I'm mentioning it here because I think some people, namely fans of Biblical Higher Criticism, and most notably today postmodern / emerging evangelical Christians, have really trivialized certain aspects of the Bible. So for instance, "telling stories" as a way of doing sermons, teaching is all the rage now; because that is a way that gets around some of the problems that they see with modernity (reductionism, scholasticism and the alike). They also note that Jesus told stories as a way of showing spiritual truth and so on.
I don't have a problem with that. But many times the term "telling stories" is done in a way that lowers the bar. Not all stories are equal, some stories are greater, more authoritative, have more testimony around them, and make much greater claims then others. So what bugs me is many times the gospel "narratives" are talked about in the same exact vein as a person "spinning a yarn" to make a point, or some other literary work like something from Homer. Shakespeare and so on.
The Gospels are in a whole different category. Obviously first of all because of the message. I'm sure I'm probably preaching to the choir and you all understand the significance of that. But moreover, especially do to the nature of those "stories" themselves. While the Gospels are "stories", it would be more much accuracte to call them "testimonies", as in the notion of a "sworn testimony" in the legal sense. Because the Gosples themselves were eye witness accounts of people that had seen and heard first hand the most incredible message and events that had ever taken place in the World. The Gospel writers like Matthew were giving their emphatic testimony to that affect. They were literally staking their reputation, and the future of their life and limb on the truth of those "stories". And holding up the veracity of that "narrative" against repreated scourgings, imprisonments, and finally execution itself. The character of the evangelists, and the nature of their suffering for that message was considered "evidence" concerning the Truth of that message (Because people will not give themselves over to such things if they believe a message is a lie. And the Sannhedrin were not only spinning the the story that disciplies had lied concerning the Resurrection, and were doing everything they could to undermine and extinguish their testimony). So clearly both the content of the Gospel and the great sacrifice and belief of the Evangelists themselves sets this apart from all other "narratives".
I thought the first aspect of commentary I would do would be concerning the significance of the Books title, "According to Matthew", or "The Gospel According to Matthew" in the original Greek/Aramaic.
I wanted to say that I think this is much more than "A narrative". And here is the wiki link to that literary concept if you want to brush up on what I'm getting at here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative
I'm mentioning it here because I think some people, namely fans of Biblical Higher Criticism, and most notably today postmodern / emerging evangelical Christians, have really trivialized certain aspects of the Bible. So for instance, "telling stories" as a way of doing sermons, teaching is all the rage now; because that is a way that gets around some of the problems that they see with modernity (reductionism, scholasticism and the alike). They also note that Jesus told stories as a way of showing spiritual truth and so on.
I don't have a problem with that. But many times the term "telling stories" is done in a way that lowers the bar. Not all stories are equal, some stories are greater, more authoritative, have more testimony around them, and make much greater claims then others. So what bugs me is many times the gospel "narratives" are talked about in the same exact vein as a person "spinning a yarn" to make a point, or some other literary work like something from Homer. Shakespeare and so on.
The Gospels are in a whole different category. Obviously first of all because of the message. I'm sure I'm probably preaching to the choir and you all understand the significance of that. But moreover, especially do to the nature of those "stories" themselves. While the Gospels are "stories", it would be more much accuracte to call them "testimonies", as in the notion of a "sworn testimony" in the legal sense. Because the Gosples themselves were eye witness accounts of people that had seen and heard first hand the most incredible message and events that had ever taken place in the World. The Gospel writers like Matthew were giving their emphatic testimony to that affect. They were literally staking their reputation, and the future of their life and limb on the truth of those "stories". And holding up the veracity of that "narrative" against repreated scourgings, imprisonments, and finally execution itself. The character of the evangelists, and the nature of their suffering for that message was considered "evidence" concerning the Truth of that message (Because people will not give themselves over to such things if they believe a message is a lie. And the Sannhedrin were not only spinning the the story that disciplies had lied concerning the Resurrection, and were doing everything they could to undermine and extinguish their testimony). So clearly both the content of the Gospel and the great sacrifice and belief of the Evangelists themselves sets this apart from all other "narratives".
posted by Addai | 7:05 AM
2 Comments:
Good points, hon. Though it should be pointed out that the gospels aren't in the genre of legal document or historical treatise, either. They're really in a category by themselves.
"Though it should be pointed out that the gospels aren't in the genre of legal document or historical treatise, either. They're really in a category by themselves"
I thought I made that point in the very end... :) OF course you caught me when I was still revising, editing and so on.
I mentioned legal sworn testimony, because that is the only kind of testimony some people really understand. And the gospels are partially of that nature. For instance the Jewish Sanhedrin was technically a religious based court. Much like both our supreme court, as well as the Ecumenical Counsels of Bishops, so their declaring that the Resurrection was a fraud was a ruling on both heresy, blasphemy etc. that carried civil penalities etc. So the disciples sticking to their guns and saying othewise is the counter evidence against that claim. In this sense the Sanhedrin were both making a ruling, and offering/fixing testimony. They were basically acting as a "Kangaroo Court".
Post a Comment
<< Home