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)