Hi folks,
I'm hopelessly behind in my email, so I apologize for taking so long to
forward the following:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Grolin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Susan Maneck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:24 PM
Subject: An answer re: "Love Thine Enemy"
Hi Susan,
Could you pass this one on to B. St.?
Regards,
Daniel
-----
Dear Dick,
I am not sure how useful the following is. Below I have undertaken an
analysis and commentary of the saying in question.
The saying appears in Matthew (5:43-4) and Luke (6:27) and is generally
attributed to their supposed common source known as Q. Though I accept the
existence of Q and the sayings presence in that lost literary artifact I
think that the differences are substantial enough to presume an oral
influence on the two versions rather than redactional (or authorial) ones.
Didache 1:3 is another witness to this sayings, which likewise shows an
affinity to the more original version represented in Luke. (For arguments
the early and independent nature of the Didache see Grolin, "Jesus and Early
Christianity in the Gospels, pp. 382-403.) Some time later in the earlier
part of the second century it appears in a letter from Polycarp to the
Philippians (12:3).
There is a virtual unanimity amongst historians that this is an actual
teaching of Jesus (The Jesus Seminar voted this saying, in its Lukan version
red by 84% majority, making it the 5th most authentic saying voted on). The
Lukan version is in all likelihood the more original version, while Matthew
has made it to fit his antithesis format. The former also conforms better to
rules of rhythm and rhyme in a retranslation into Aramaic (Manson, "The
Sayings of Jesus", 50.)
Luke 6:27 "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them
which hate you,"
Some commentators (cf. M'Neil) agree that Rabbinic Judaism specifically did
not go as far as Jesus does in his treatment of "enemies" and I have not
personally been able to locate anything either.
There are a few exegetical questions that should be asked: Who are these
enemies and what does this tell us about Jesus meaning? How does Jesus make
the argument to His Jewish contemporaries?
Who are the enemies that Jesus told his audience to love? Marcus J. Borg
proposed in his Ph. D. dissertation ("Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the
Teachings of Jesus"), what many others had and would afterwards, namely that
the enemies here referred specifically to the Roman forces and/or
collaborators. In other words Jesus was saying not to act like resistance
fighters. This view has several problems (for example that there was no
significant resistance movement a la Zealots of the 65-70 CE at that time)
and Borg himself effectively rescinds this position in his new introduction
in 1998.
If Jesus' comment isn't anti-Zealot, what kind of enemies are they? Richard
A. Horsley in his landmark study "Jesus and the Spiral of Violence"
addresses this issue. In his treatment of this particular saying he shows
that the Synoptic tradition uses ECQROUS in reference to local and or
individual enemies. The enemy is one who mistreats you personally. Horsley
points out that these are not in the strictest sense commandments. Jesus is
not here making a New Law or making a legal interpretation. I think this is
significant, because Protestant readings such as Gerd Theissen's ("A Theory
of Primitive Christian Religion") see this as an impossible requirement,
which is only solved by radical forgiveness. Horsley, rightly I think, calls
it "a call for a general orientation toward one's social relations
illustrated by some extreme instances and further motivated by comparative
exhortations." (p. 266).
So if Jesus is not making a New Law in the Mosaic sense, or legal
interpretation in Rabbinic sense, how does Jesus call for this
reorientation?
Clearly there is prophetic authority involved (what some sociologists might
refer to as charisma), but that is not all.
First I want to direct your attention to the Parable of the Good Samaritan
(a parable rather than an example story, following Crossan, 'Parable and
Example in the Teachings of Jesus' NTS vol. 18, pp. 285-307). Please read
Luke 10:30-36.
A parable, unlike an example, is to be taken metaphorically. That does not
mean that the literal reading as a criticism of purity ideals (as Borg does)
is invalid. It does, however, mean that there is something more at play.
Jesus' rhetorical question: "who was a neighbor to him?" has to do with the
central theme of Jesus' message. This is how God acts through in His rule.
The Kingdom of God is this: that the most despised have become the
righteous. By making the protagonist a despise Samaritan and the recipient
of his goodness a Jew (coming down from Jerusalem) Jesus says this is how
God acts: He does good even to those who despise Him or His people.
The saying goes on to give the following:
Mt 5:45 "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust."
In other words Jesus is saying: if you are the children of God, then (try
to) behave as He does and be good to all, the virtuous and the wayward, good
and evil. That this is the behavior of God we see also in Psalms:
Ps 145:9 "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his
works."
In conclusion I wish to say that whether one accepts Jesus' authority and
claims, is Jesus' challenge not worth consider?
Regards,
Daniel Grolin
PS. I have a Baha'i list for questions like this. If you are interested
please write to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
