faty
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Understanding Early Christian Diversity with the Help of SocialScientific Criticism
According to Malina there are four basic social institutions in any society: kinship, religion, politics and economics.According to Malina one of these institutions usually holds primacy over the others. Scholars are not agreed on which one dominated Palestine at the time of Jesus. In the Islamic world politics, economics and kinship are dominated by religion. In capitalistic societies like the U.S.A. politics, kinship and religion are dominated by economics. In the communistic world, like China, kinship, religion, and economics are dominated by politics. In the modern Mediterranean, Africa and Latin America religion, economics and politics are dominated by kinship. According to Malina’s judgement in first century Palestine politics, economics and religion were dominated by kinship as well. Malina adds the second most important institution was politics. Building on this insight observation economics and religion did not function independently of kinship and politics in the first century Mediterranean world. In another context Malina proposes how other institutions are sometimes involved by Mediterraneans where modern westerners would have involved religion, for example, kinship obligations as inducing ancestral merit and political obligations urging sacrifice at some lesser or more central shrine. Politically embedded religions are prone to police the behaviour of members.
Anti-Jewish Rhetoric
Gager includes Q in his discussion of the origins of Anti-Semitism in Early Christianity.15 There are some harsh words spoken against those rejecting the proclamation, as can be expected between insiders and outsiders. The kingdom is intended for Israel, although some pious Gentiles are included. He concludes that Q reflects prophetic anti-Judaism. In Q 10:21 Jesus thanks God for hiding these things from wise men and revealing them to children. Q 11:39–52 reports the denouncing of Pharisees or Lawyers in rather “uncompromising language.”16 Whoever it is that Q originally addressed here, they are held accountable for the death of the prophets and sages which is to be avenged on “this generation.” This generation seems to be a pejorative label for Jews that do not believe in Jesus.Q 11:39–42 calls this generation an evil generation because they request a sign. They are to be condemned by the Queen of the South. Q 13:34–35 reports laments over Jerusalem that has killed the prophets and stoned those that had been sent to them. “Behold your house is forsaken.” Basser & Cohen and other scholars appear over-confident in isolating the anti-Jewish strand in Matthew. According to the Zweiquellenhypothese Matthew is based on Q, so that the bulk of the denouncing of the Pharisees was taken over by Matthew. This includes the part that blames the Jews for all the prophets that have been murdered including Jesus. Neither can one argue that there existed some kind of Proto-Matthew to which Q was added at a later stage, for Q is at the heart of the Matthean composition. Without it there would be no sermon on the mount, no teaching on loving your neighbour. Bibliowicz is mistaken to suggest that Mark is the first to blame Jesus’ death on the Jews. Bibliowicz is also wrong to conclude that the Jewish culpability theme was limited to only one faction inside Christianity. Evidently Mark did not invent this idea as much as inherit it from his predecessors. Clearly this had already been the case in Q. If Q belongs to a more JewishChristian faction it cannot be denied that Q also blamed the death of Jesus on Jews.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Topic Introduction
1.2 Text and Translation
1.3 Research Problem
1.4 Research Objectives
1.5 Thesis Statement
1.6 Delineations & Limitations
1.7 Definitions of Terms and Concepts
1.8 Assumptions
1.9 Significance of the Study
1.10 Structure of the Study
1.11 Corrections on the Thesis
1.12 Conclusion
2 RESEARCH HISTORY
2.1 Historical Plausibility
2.2 P.Oxy. 840 and Inter-Texts
2.3 Trajectories
2.4 The Manuscript of P.Oxy. 840
2.5 The Text of P.Oxy. 840
2.6 The Style of P.Oxy. 840
2.7 Conclusion
3 METHOD
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Methodology
3.4 Limitations
3.5 Ethical Considerations
3.6 Conclusion
4 READING OF P.OXY. 840
4.1 Date
4.2 Genre
4.3 Style
4.4 Sources
4.5 Anti-Jewish Rhetoric
4.6 Form
4.7 Theology
4.8 Sub-Conclusion
5 GNOSTIC TEXTS COMPARABLE TO P.OXY. 840
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Dialogues of the Redeemer
5.3 Sethian Works
5.4 Gnostic Works Defying Further Categorization
5.5 Fragments Preserved by Church Fathers
5.6 Manichaean Christianity
5.7 Sub-Conclusion
6 JEWISH CHRISTIAN TEXTS COMPARABLE TO P.OXY. 840
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Sayings Source, Q
6.3 The Synoptic Gospels: Matthew
6.4 The Gospel according to the Hebrews
6.5 The Gospel according to the Nazarenes
6.6 The Gospel according to Ebionites
6.7 Papyrus Egerton 2
6.8 An isolated chria from Didymus: Pericope adulterae
6.9 Sub-Conclusion
7 PROTO-ORTHODOX TEXTS COMPARABLE TO P.OXY. 840
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Synoptic Gospels: Mark
7.3 John
7.4 Epistula Apostolorum
7.5 Hebrews
7.6 The Epistle of Barnabas
7.7 Excursion: The Apologists and the Demise of the Gospel
7.8 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho
7.9 Sub-Conclusion
8 CONCLUSION
8.1 Summary of Findings
8.2 Conclusions
8.3 Summary of Contributions
8.4 Future Research
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.1 Primary Sources
9.2 Secondary Sources
