Marie Noonan Sabin
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780195143591
- eISBN:
- 9780199834600
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195143590.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Biblical Studies
Knowing that the earliest Jesus traditions took shape in a Jewish milieu, Sabin sets the composition of the earliest gospel in the context of the theological discourse of first‐century Judaism. That ...
More
Knowing that the earliest Jesus traditions took shape in a Jewish milieu, Sabin sets the composition of the earliest gospel in the context of the theological discourse of first‐century Judaism. That discourse took the form of an exchange between current events and Scripture: contemporary persons and events were understood through the lens of the Hebrew Bible, while at the same time, the biblical word was reopened – i.e., reinterpreted – so as to reveal its relevance to the present faith community. Applying this kind of compositional process (which is related to Midrash) to the Gospel of Mark, Sabin uncovers a fresh reading of the Seed, Fig Tree, and Vineyard parables; of the various Temple scenes; of the foolish disciples and the wise women; and of the gospel's open‐ended ending. She highlights the results of her findings by juxtaposing them with interpretations of the same passages by various church fathers as well as by readings from modern critics. Sabin sees Mark as an original theologian shaping his material out of two primary Jewish traditions: the Wisdom traditions, with their emphasis on God's presence in daily life, and Creation theology, which imagined the End Time not as a catastrophe but as a return to the Garden. She thus offers a new way of understanding Mark's use of Scripture, his eschatology, and his presentation of Jesus. In conclusion, she argues that retrieving Mark's voice in the context of Early Judaism brings with it insights much needed in our day: of God's presence in the ordinary, of God's image reflected in female as well as male, of watchfulness as the way of wisdom, and of God's revelation as ongoing.Less
Knowing that the earliest Jesus traditions took shape in a Jewish milieu, Sabin sets the composition of the earliest gospel in the context of the theological discourse of first‐century Judaism. That discourse took the form of an exchange between current events and Scripture: contemporary persons and events were understood through the lens of the Hebrew Bible, while at the same time, the biblical word was reopened – i.e., reinterpreted – so as to reveal its relevance to the present faith community. Applying this kind of compositional process (which is related to Midrash) to the Gospel of Mark, Sabin uncovers a fresh reading of the Seed, Fig Tree, and Vineyard parables; of the various Temple scenes; of the foolish disciples and the wise women; and of the gospel's open‐ended ending. She highlights the results of her findings by juxtaposing them with interpretations of the same passages by various church fathers as well as by readings from modern critics. Sabin sees Mark as an original theologian shaping his material out of two primary Jewish traditions: the Wisdom traditions, with their emphasis on God's presence in daily life, and Creation theology, which imagined the End Time not as a catastrophe but as a return to the Garden. She thus offers a new way of understanding Mark's use of Scripture, his eschatology, and his presentation of Jesus. In conclusion, she argues that retrieving Mark's voice in the context of Early Judaism brings with it insights much needed in our day: of God's presence in the ordinary, of God's image reflected in female as well as male, of watchfulness as the way of wisdom, and of God's revelation as ongoing.
Bruce Zuckerman
- Published in print:
- 1991
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195058963
- eISBN:
- 9780199853342
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195058963.003.0010
- Subject:
- Religion, Buddhism
The “Poem of Job” like Bontsye Shvayg maintains a sharply critical line against pietistic worldview that a poet like Perets wished to address. The chapter mentions that to understand fully the “Poem ...
More
The “Poem of Job” like Bontsye Shvayg maintains a sharply critical line against pietistic worldview that a poet like Perets wished to address. The chapter mentions that to understand fully the “Poem of Job,” one must see what the poet wished to turn inside out for purposes of parody, both in broad and small scale terms. Perets wanted the same thing on a whole array of Yiddish themes though it is not as easy as it is in Bontsye since it has a relative wealth of contemporaneous information while Job does not. The two reasons for such is Job, as a literary work, clearly stands within the “Wisdom” tradition and literature within the Ancient Near East is remarkably conservative. The basic structure of the “Poem of Job” is said to be parallel to the “Theodicity” or “Babylonian Theodicity” with the dialogue between Job and his friends as actually an appeal to his God. There is also similarity of Ludlul to the “Poem of Job” which is sometimes called the “Babylonian Job.” The Dialogue/Appeal was an excellent way to show the transition of Job into Anti-Job keeping in mind that the innocent victim must always keep his complains within the bounds of propriety, thus being a “Righteous Sufferer.” At the same time, issues of justice and righteousness do play a role in the standard Dialogue/Appeal though in the end things do turn around right for God acts decisively and dramatically to restore the victim.Less
The “Poem of Job” like Bontsye Shvayg maintains a sharply critical line against pietistic worldview that a poet like Perets wished to address. The chapter mentions that to understand fully the “Poem of Job,” one must see what the poet wished to turn inside out for purposes of parody, both in broad and small scale terms. Perets wanted the same thing on a whole array of Yiddish themes though it is not as easy as it is in Bontsye since it has a relative wealth of contemporaneous information while Job does not. The two reasons for such is Job, as a literary work, clearly stands within the “Wisdom” tradition and literature within the Ancient Near East is remarkably conservative. The basic structure of the “Poem of Job” is said to be parallel to the “Theodicity” or “Babylonian Theodicity” with the dialogue between Job and his friends as actually an appeal to his God. There is also similarity of Ludlul to the “Poem of Job” which is sometimes called the “Babylonian Job.” The Dialogue/Appeal was an excellent way to show the transition of Job into Anti-Job keeping in mind that the innocent victim must always keep his complains within the bounds of propriety, thus being a “Righteous Sufferer.” At the same time, issues of justice and righteousness do play a role in the standard Dialogue/Appeal though in the end things do turn around right for God acts decisively and dramatically to restore the victim.
