What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom
Scott, Bernard Brandon
192 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 1981
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 29, 2024
A “LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS’ LANGUAGE”
Author and Emeritus NT professor Bernard Brandon Scott wrote in the Introduction of this 1981 book, “Latter-day parable researchers are heirs of the New Quest and New Hermeneutic… This book consciously works out of that legacy and seeks to expand it beyond the confines of parables to other forms of Jesus’ language. The literary, structuralist models developed in parable criticism provide a basis for attempting a coherent insight into Jesus’ language as a whole. The accent upon language distinguishes our task from previous ventures at understanding the historical Jesus. Language is… a system of signs… Thus, Jesus’ utterances can be explored so as to deduce a grammar of their symbolic organization.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “We begin by accepting as a hypothesis [Norman] Perrin’s classification of Kingdom as symbol… Two assumptions underlie this effort. Because what we want to talk about is essentially unspeakable in discursive language, we have adopted insight as a methodological principle… Secondly, we are taking a sounding, digging a test hole into Jesus’ language. Our study… is also, I believe, the first attempt to mount a literary analysis of the historical Jesus’ language across formal lines.” (Pg. 3)
He goes on, “Parable as metaphorical World suggests a method whereby parables can be used to formulate our sought-after insight… can we delineate [parables’] horizon of meaning with any precision? On the one hand, we cannot… But can we develop a metalanguage … that delineates that horizon of meaning? A principal thesis of this book is that such is possible.” (Pg. 16)
He states, “The real difference between similitudes and narrative parables lies at a different level than Jülicher’s grammatical distinction. To indicate this, I will call them ‘one-liners’ because they are also related to another type of ‘mashal,’ the proverb. They share a metaphorical structure with narrative parables, while having the style of a proverb.” (Pg. 66)
He suggests, “We began with a discussion of the parable’s importance for an understanding of Jesus’ eschatology. But for the parable to decide the Kingdom’s presence or futurity, two things were necessary: First, a prior understanding of Kingdom must be derived from outside the parable, and second, the point must be identified with harvest. But as we have implied, harvest in the parable is not an allegorical timetable for the Last Judgment. From the parable’s viewpoint, the question of eschatology in terms of ‘chronos,’ chronological arrival, presence, or futurity, is a question so poorly framed as to be unanswerable.” (Pg. 87)
He summarizes, “We have seen that Jesus’ language coheres, that different forms exhibit the same characteristics. His language is World-shattering, in some cases form-shattering. And yet at the same time it is new-World-affirmative. This leads us to reexamine both the presiding symbol of this language and its outcome.” (Pg. 155)
He points out, “James M. Robinson … [proposes] making the death and resurrection the culmination of the Gospel’s revelation. A historian who would be faithful to the claims of the material must ask if Jesus’ language demands this interpretative framework. I am not concerned about attempting to verify the resurrection historically; such an attempt I would consider illegitimate. But does Jesus’ language support the tradition’s contention that apart from the death and resurrection his words are interpreted inauthentically?” (Pg. 166)
He concludes, “[Jesus’] language creates for its receiver a perspective that impels faith---explicitly a faith in Yahweh and implicitly a faith in the sender as a symbol-maker for Yahweh. The presiding symbol of the perspective is the Kingdom of God. For the one who believes that the symbol makes Yahweh present, Reality is different---previous reality was illusion… Faith, as a primary relation in this vision, rejects Ideology as a way of relating. In this we come to the crux of the problem. To believe in Jesus’ Word one must surrender the Ideology’s predictability for Faith… Ideology blocks judgment by obscuring symbolic presence. This World which makes faith possible graces the receiver with a new Reality symbolized in Jesus’ language… God’s destruction of death in Jesus’ death destroys the ultimate division of Reality and shows forth this new Reality as the presence of Grace… Belief in the resurrection is made possible by the perspective of Jesus’ World and the symbol of that referent is congruent with the symbol of Jesus’ World.” (Pg. 177)
This book will probably be of most interest to those interested in linguistic philosophies (such as Deconstruction).
Author and Emeritus NT professor Bernard Brandon Scott wrote in the Introduction of this 1981 book, “Latter-day parable researchers are heirs of the New Quest and New Hermeneutic… This book consciously works out of that legacy and seeks to expand it beyond the confines of parables to other forms of Jesus’ language. The literary, structuralist models developed in parable criticism provide a basis for attempting a coherent insight into Jesus’ language as a whole. The accent upon language distinguishes our task from previous ventures at understanding the historical Jesus. Language is… a system of signs… Thus, Jesus’ utterances can be explored so as to deduce a grammar of their symbolic organization.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “We begin by accepting as a hypothesis [Norman] Perrin’s classification of Kingdom as symbol… Two assumptions underlie this effort. Because what we want to talk about is essentially unspeakable in discursive language, we have adopted insight as a methodological principle… Secondly, we are taking a sounding, digging a test hole into Jesus’ language. Our study… is also, I believe, the first attempt to mount a literary analysis of the historical Jesus’ language across formal lines.” (Pg. 3)
He goes on, “Parable as metaphorical World suggests a method whereby parables can be used to formulate our sought-after insight… can we delineate [parables’] horizon of meaning with any precision? On the one hand, we cannot… But can we develop a metalanguage … that delineates that horizon of meaning? A principal thesis of this book is that such is possible.” (Pg. 16)
He states, “The real difference between similitudes and narrative parables lies at a different level than Jülicher’s grammatical distinction. To indicate this, I will call them ‘one-liners’ because they are also related to another type of ‘mashal,’ the proverb. They share a metaphorical structure with narrative parables, while having the style of a proverb.” (Pg. 66)
He suggests, “We began with a discussion of the parable’s importance for an understanding of Jesus’ eschatology. But for the parable to decide the Kingdom’s presence or futurity, two things were necessary: First, a prior understanding of Kingdom must be derived from outside the parable, and second, the point must be identified with harvest. But as we have implied, harvest in the parable is not an allegorical timetable for the Last Judgment. From the parable’s viewpoint, the question of eschatology in terms of ‘chronos,’ chronological arrival, presence, or futurity, is a question so poorly framed as to be unanswerable.” (Pg. 87)
He summarizes, “We have seen that Jesus’ language coheres, that different forms exhibit the same characteristics. His language is World-shattering, in some cases form-shattering. And yet at the same time it is new-World-affirmative. This leads us to reexamine both the presiding symbol of this language and its outcome.” (Pg. 155)
He points out, “James M. Robinson … [proposes] making the death and resurrection the culmination of the Gospel’s revelation. A historian who would be faithful to the claims of the material must ask if Jesus’ language demands this interpretative framework. I am not concerned about attempting to verify the resurrection historically; such an attempt I would consider illegitimate. But does Jesus’ language support the tradition’s contention that apart from the death and resurrection his words are interpreted inauthentically?” (Pg. 166)
He concludes, “[Jesus’] language creates for its receiver a perspective that impels faith---explicitly a faith in Yahweh and implicitly a faith in the sender as a symbol-maker for Yahweh. The presiding symbol of the perspective is the Kingdom of God. For the one who believes that the symbol makes Yahweh present, Reality is different---previous reality was illusion… Faith, as a primary relation in this vision, rejects Ideology as a way of relating. In this we come to the crux of the problem. To believe in Jesus’ Word one must surrender the Ideology’s predictability for Faith… Ideology blocks judgment by obscuring symbolic presence. This World which makes faith possible graces the receiver with a new Reality symbolized in Jesus’ language… God’s destruction of death in Jesus’ death destroys the ultimate division of Reality and shows forth this new Reality as the presence of Grace… Belief in the resurrection is made possible by the perspective of Jesus’ World and the symbol of that referent is congruent with the symbol of Jesus’ World.” (Pg. 177)
This book will probably be of most interest to those interested in linguistic philosophies (such as Deconstruction).
Displaying 1 of 1 review