Monthly Archives: September 2015

Musings on the Practical, or Practical Musings?

Posted on by
Reply

Worth Revisiting Wednesday – This post originally appeared on March 30, 2014.

On numerous occasions over the years I have been asked to “make a presentation on Scripture”. The settings have been quite varied: a series on the Gospels or a particular Gospel; a talk to a group sponsored by a parish education program; a study group meeting at the homes of parish members; an RCIA program; members of men and women religious, and the like. One common denominator among all is a lack on the part of many of knowledge of the teachings from Vatican II, especially those contained in Dei Verbum.

Without trying to assess the reasons for this vacuum, I believe some suggestions for increasing the knowledge of the faithful regarding Scripture might be in order. One way to approach the problem is to develop an understanding of the various “criticisms” that Scripture scholars have put forth. For the audience intended, this does not have to be full of technical jargon. But as the title of this article suggests, it must be practical.

José A. Pagola, a Spanish Scripture theologian whose numerous books have guided me in this quest of the “practical,” offers the following response to the question:  What are the Gospels attempting to do?

For followers of Jesus, the four gospels are a unique and irreplaceable resource. They are not textbooks, expounding an academic doctrine of Jesus. They are not detailed biographies, tracing his life in history. These stories bring us close to Jesus as the first generations of Christians remembered him, with faith and love. On the one hand, they show us the great impact Jesus caused in the people who first were attracted to him and followed him. On the other, they were written to inspire new disciples to do the same.[i]

Pagola is in no way denigrating the academic study of the Gospels, for he is a scholar. Rather, he is finding a way to “translate” our studies in such a way that the widest audience possible will understand and be inspired.

How do we approach the “practical”; that is, how do we make the concepts real and compelling in the lives of those whom we teach, preach, and offer pastoral care and support? Three words come quickly to mind: gently, firmly, and spiritually.

Gently: It is imperative that we approach our faithful people knowing they are, in the words of Pagola above, disciples who must be inspired to follow in the footsteps of the original disciples. Thus we are to take the approach of Jesus who ministered to those he described “as sheep without a shepherd.” Doing this will require our own studies to lead us to bring the “good news” in a manner that will not frighten these “yearning disciples” away. Our learning and intimacy with Jesus will provide the means to “break open the Word” to our audience. Our prayer to Jesus should be, “Help me, Lord, to tend to your most precious flock whoever they may be and at whatever stage of learning we find them.

Firmly: In this context, firmly is not to emit a negative or frightening connotation. When we bring the word of Jesus to any audience, we must search for an understanding of just “where” the audience is. If they are novices in the study of the Gospels, we must “feed them with the milk of Jesus’ nourishment.” If they are more learned we can guide them to and through the many techniques with which they can continue to grow in the knowledge of Jesus’ message.

Spiritually: We can intertwine the message of the Gospels with the continual understanding that Jesus’ teachings are designed to lead us to the Father. In this regard, our objective becomes to strengthen each person’s relationship with the Lord. As Lectio Divina teaches, we can read, meditate, pray, and contemplate. Perhaps no greater good can come from guiding our audiences to grow in following in the footsteps of Jesus and to teach them to be more than readers and studiers of the Word, but as the wise saying emphasizes “to be doers.”  Jesus came, Jesus taught by word and example, Jesus reconciled us to the Father. What a splendid way he has given us to lead others to his Father.

John Munroe teaches Sacred Scripture for Saint Joseph’s College.

 

Messianic Traditions and Jesus the Servant Messiah

Posted on by
Reply

Two of today’s readings underscore Jesus’ identity as the Servant Messiah depicted by Isaiah.  The first reading, Isaiah 50:5-9a, and the Gospel reading, Mark 8:27-35 on Peter’s confession of faith, allude to the narratively unified corpus of Isaian passages on the Servant Messiah, and more specifically to the suffering and death of this anointed one depicted in Isaiah 50 and especially 53.  Arguably, these Isaian passages are unified because Isa 61:1-3—a passage about the anointed one upon whom is the Spirit of the Lord YHWH—is a compound of Isa 11:2 (from a specifically Davidic context), 42:1, 49:8-9, and 50:4.  Isa 61:1-3 fulfills the promises made in these passages, as well as other Davidic promises made in Isa 9 and 55.  For this reason, among others, the Isaian narrative intimates that the Servant of YHWH is the Davidic Messiah.

Jesus’ personal identification with the fulfillment of these Isaian prophecies of Davidic Koene picmessianic kingship highlights a historical trajectory represented in the two readings—that of the Isaian Servant Messiah.  This diverged from and contrasted with the previous dominant trajectory within Second Temple Jewish messianism of diversified expectation which posited two messiahs—one kingly and one priestly.

At least three factors produced the single Davidic messianic expectation during the Roman-Herodian period (75 B.C.-68 A.D.).  The first is the expectation of a Davidic warrior king, found in such documents as the War Rule (4Q285), Psalms of Solomon, the Son of God fragment (4Q246), and the Book of Isaiah.  The second is the expectation of a Davidic Servant Messiah, as portrayed in the Book of Isaiah.  Aspects of this Servant Messiah are reflected in the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), 11QMelch (11Q13), the New Testament, and perhaps early traditions in the formation of the Book of the Similitudes.    A third factor are the social/political features of the Hasmonean royalty despoiling the Davidic throne (104-76 B.C.) combined with the Roman conquest of Pompey (63 B.C.) and its desecration of the Holy of Holies.  These factors that produced the single Davidic messianic expectation also overlap and may relate to each other.  They further galvanized and strengthened anticipation of a great Davidic messiah king.

A modern exegetical issue relevant to interpretation of Isaiah is authorship.  Much of good, contemporary scholarship assumes at least deutero- or trito-Isaian authorship.  However, several notable scholars opt for a single Isaian authorship.  Reasons for this, that at least engage serious thought and reflection on the matter, are the following.  First, in the first century A.D., the tradition of belief in single authorship of Isaiah had long been established.  The Book of Sirach, written in the early second century B.C., attests to this belief.  Sirach 48:22-25 consists of contents that reflect a unified continuum throughout the two most distinct movements of the Isaian narrative (Isa 1-39 and Isa 40-66).

Second, the Qumran Scroll of the entire Book of Isaiah, sometimes known as the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, dates to about 125 B.C.  The Scroll reflects no break or indentation between chapters 39 and 40, and the manuscript is a copy as well.  Taking the evidence of Sirach and the Isaian Scroll together, we may assert that in the third century B.C. a single Isaian authorship tradition was well established, and that the Book of Isaiah existed at that time in the same form as we have today.

Third, the first century presented no other name but Isaiah, son of Amoz, attached to this book.  Moreover, although Isa 40-66—so delineated by modern convention—was one of the most common prophetic pieces appropriated and interpreted in the first century, no “second” or “third” Isaiah was ever identified.

Notwithstanding, apart from various contemporary views on Isaian authorship, first century interpreters, such as the Evangelists, viewed Isaiah as a unified prophetic piece.  They understood key passages throughout it—such as on the Servant and the Davidic Messiah—as related to each other and inspired by the same prophetic Spirit.  This unitive Isaian perspective helps us to clarify the New Testament depiction of Jesus’ messianic identity with greater precision and depth.  (Some of the reflections in this post I also have presented in my dissertation, The Septuagintal Isaian Use of Nomos in the Lukan Presentation Narrative, published by ProQuest.)

Mark Koehne teaches moral theology for Saint Joseph’s College.