Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:12:44.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Christology and Methodology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

M. D. Hooker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas: Newcastle (1970) Seminar Reports
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , July 1971 , pp. 480 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 480 note 2 The History of the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. 1963), p. 205.Google Scholar

page 480 note 3 Essays on New Testament Themes (E.T. 1964), pp. 4–7.Google Scholar

page 480 note 4 Jesus Christus’ in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1959), col. 623.Google Scholar

page 480 note 5 Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (1967), pp. 39–43.Google Scholar

page 480 note 6 The Foundations of New Testament Christology (1965), pp. 18, 116.Google Scholar

page 480 note 7 Op. cit. p. 43.

page 481 note 1 We must therefore disagree with the statement of Zahrnt, H., The Historical Jesus (E.T. 1963)Google Scholar: There is today general agreement on this basic principle of method.’

page 481 note 2 N. Perrin, loc. cit.

page 481 note 3 R. H. Fuller, for example, refers to sayings which pass this test as the more characteristic parts of Jesus’ teaching' op. cit. p. 103. What he means is that they are distinctive’ in the other sense. Cf. N. Perrin, op. cit. p. 39: If we are to seek that which is most characteristic of Jesus, it will be found not in the things which he shares with his contemporaries but in the things wherein he differs from them.’ This assertion of Jesus' uniqueness is a dogmatic assumption. Cf. the criticism of Downing, F. G., The Church and Jesus (1968), p. 116.Google Scholar

page 482 note 1 Cf. Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (1967), pp. 6 f.Google ScholarNineham, D. E. in Christ for Us Today, ed. N. Pittenger (1968), p. 58, n. 18.Google Scholar

page 482 note 2 Perrin's statement that the Gospels offer us directly information about the early church, (What is Redaction Criticism? (1970), p. 69Google Scholar) is over-optimistic.

page 482 note 3 Cf. F. G. Downing, op. cit. pp. 114 f.

page 483 note 1 Cf. R. H. Fuller, op. cit. p. 18; Perrin, N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 37 fGoogle Scholar.; and the criticisms of F. G. Downing, op. cit. pp. 113 f.

page 483 note 2 Op. cit. pp. 164–75, 197–8.

page 483 note 3 Op. cit. p. 41.

page 483 note 4 Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu’, Festschrift für Günther Dehn, ed. W. Schneemelcher (1957), pp. 51–79;Google ScholarJesus und der Menschensohn’, Z.Th.K. LX (1963), 133–77.Google Scholar

page 484 note 1 Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition’, Z.Th.K., LIV, (1957), 277–96.Google Scholar

page 484 note 2 So Schweizer, E.; see Der Menschensohn’, Z.N.T.W. LX (1959), 185–209Google Scholar; The Son of Man’, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 119–29Google Scholar; The Son of Man Again’, N.T.S. IX (1963), 256–61.Google Scholar

page 484 note 3 Loc. cit.

page 484 note 4 See, most recently, the article by Leivestad, R., which challenges these assumptions: Der apokalyptische menschensohn ein theologisches Phantom’, pp. 49–105,Google Scholar in Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, VI (1968).Google Scholar Cf. also N. Perrin's discussion, referred to above, p. 483, n. 2.

page 485 note 1 N. Perrin, op. cit. p. 39.

page 485 note 2 What is Redaction Criticism?, p. 70. A similar misunderstanding is found in Higgins's, A. J. B. essay Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?’ in Neotestamentica et Semitica, Studies in Honour of M. Black, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox (1969), p. 73.Google Scholar

page 485 note 3 The Son of Man in Mark, p. 5.

page 486 note 1 See R. H. Fuller, op. cit. p. 109; Knox, J., The Death of Christ (1959), pp. 78–80.Google Scholar

page 487 note 1 Cf. M. D. Hooker, op. cit. pp. 182–93; R. Leivestad, op. cit. pp. 80–91.

page 487 note 2 Op. cit. p. 248. Fuller himself recognizes this when he writes on page 130: Jesus understood his mission in terms of eschatological prophecy and was confident of its vindication by the Son of man at the End…Take the implied self-understanding of his role in terms of the eschatological prophet away, and the whole ministry falls into a series of unrelated, if not meaningless fragments.’ We may accept the underlying truth of this statement, without necessarily agreeing that the term eschatological prophet’ is the correct one.