Academic literature on the topic 'Bible. John - Criticism, interpretation'

Abstract Moberly discusses John Barton's Nature of Biblical Criticism and takes issue with Barton's portrayal of theological interpretation as hostile to the values of biblical criticism. After showing how Barton misrepresents theological interpretation, not least because of a failure to do justice to the changing frames of reference of critical scholarship, Moberly extends the discussion to include the preunderstandings that interpreters inevitably bring to the Bible in ways analogous to how one reads a classic; the way in which appreciation of deep literature relates to personal maturity; and the way in which theological dogma, rightly understood, can make truer one's perception of reality.

Abstract Moberly discusses John Barton's Nature of Biblical Criticism and takes issue with Barton's portrayal of theological interpretation as hostile to the values of biblical criticism. After showing how Barton misrepresents theological interpretation, not least because of a failure to do justice to the changing frames of reference of critical scholarship, Moberly extends the discussion to include the preunderstandings that interpreters inevitably bring to the Bible in ways analogous to how one reads a classic; the way in which appreciation of deep literature relates to personal maturity; and the way in which theological dogma, rightly understood, can make truer one's perception of reality.

According to the traditional (or ‘whig’) interpretation of history, sometime in the seventeenth century science was born in the form that we know today, in a new spirit that can best be summed up by the motto of the Royal Society: nullius in verba, take nobody's word for it. In the next few centuries this new critical way of looking at reality was instrumental in the creation of a coherent view of the world, and of that world's history, which was found to be increasingly at odds with traditional claims, most famously in the case of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. By the end of the nineteenth century, the divide between science and religion was described by means of words such as ‘conflict’ and ‘warfare,’ the terms used by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the titles of their respective books: History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

Violence and conflict in the name of religion have increased in Indonesia, including Maluku. Social strife in Maluku provides evidence of the reality of an objectionable and properly managed society. Conflict in the name of religion has contributed to legitimization with bible texts, including Deuteronomy 7: 1-11 and John 14: 6. Therefore, this article is the result of re-interpretation utilizing ideological criticism of these biblical texts. Through the interpretation, the authors found that the exclusive narrative of Deuteronomy 7: 1-11 and John 14: 6 was influenced by the social, political, and economic situation. Thus, both texts need to be reinterpreted contextually regarding the plurality of Indonesian society. In the end, this article emphasizes that the concept of God's people cannot be interpreted exclusively but refers to all humankind universally.

Abstract John Chrysostom, circa 349–407 ce, wrote “On Vainglory, or The Right Way to Raise Children,” which purports to be about raising all Christian children. In fact, out of ninety chapters, only one deals with girls. Even more significant are the numerous overlooked children in the text, who are present but whose Christian education is never discussed because they are enslaved. This paper utilizes childist criticism to draw these enslaved children from hiddenness into plain sight. The paper is situated in the context of Jesus’ teaching about children because Chrysostom believes that the best way to raise children is by teaching them stories from the Bible, Hebrew Bible first, then New Testament, but instead of an openness to all children he discusses only freeborn, elite boys. Chrysostom’s treatise exposes the context of how few children in late antiquity could be shaped by biblical interpretation intended for all children. (147 words)

THE BIBLE & ANCIENT SCIENCE: Principles of Interpretation by Denis O. Lamoureux. Tullahoma, TN: McGahan Publishing, 2020. 218 pages. Paperback; $15.99. ISBN: 9781951252052. *"Simply stated, I believe the literary genre of Genesis 1-3 is an ancient account of origins. Notably, it is deeply rooted in ancient science" (p. 195). *Denis O. Lamoureux is Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta. He possesses three earned doctorates (dentistry, theology, and biology) and tells of an intellectual and spiritual journey out of atheism, through fundamentalism, and to his current position. Consequently, if there was ever a model voice that displays the academic and personal experience necessary to speak formidably about the hermeneutical issues associated with Genesis 1-3 and the other creation texts of the Bible, it is Lamoureux. *The study begins with what seems like a simple question, "Is the Bible a book about science?" However, before the opening chapters are completed, the reader understands that the question is anything but simple. In fact, the difficulty of the conversation is poignantly displayed when he offers answers to his leading question from two giant figures within the evangelical tradition. Henry M. Morris answers in the affirmative, but Billy Graham answers negatively. Yet, to his credit, Lamoureux does not dwell on this disagreement. He quickly emphasizes that a proper answer to his question requires an entanglement with issues of hermeneutics, or principles of interpretation (p. 13). Consequently, the remainder of the book is a journey through the wild and woolly world of biblical hermeneutics on the way to answering the question of whether the Bible is a book about science. *Lamoureux guides the reader toward his answer by discussing twenty-two hermeneutical principles that range from the mundane topics of "literalism," "literary genre," and "historical criticism" to the more complex, such as "cognitive competence," "accommodation," and "concordism." Each chapter is devoted to one principle, and all the chapters are organized similarly. They discuss the principle and then specific applications to the creation texts. This approach produces manageable-sized chapters that can be pondered without a fear of being overwhelmed by complex arguments; however, presenting an argument by a series of propositional statements can obfuscate how each proposition interacts with the others and how they all cooperate. In Lamoureux's defense, however, he does well to minimize any dissonance. *Ultimately, Lamoureux finds himself landing between Morris and Graham when answering his leading question. According to Lamoureux, the Bible contains science, but it's ancient science. And that qualification makes all the difference. The biblical writers are indeed talking about the origins of the universe, but they are doing so in terms of an Iron Age worldview while using Iron Age concepts. Therefore, their "science" is incompatible with the scientific inquiry and discourse of today. This conviction implies that concordism neither does justice to the text and its message nor frames a useful conversation. *In pushing back against any simplistic appropriation of the Bible's message upon the demands of modern scientific discourse, Lamoureux offers a very nuanced proposal. But at its heart is a respect for the ancient worldview of the biblical authors with all its frustrating peculiarities. For example, Lamoureux emphasizes how things such as the rhetoric and ahistorical symbolism of parables must be respected. Simple enough; however, Lamoureux also recognizes that ancient Israel perceived the universe through a three-tiered concept, a reality that finds itself alongside flat-earth theories in the hall of fame of modern-day cosmological ludicrousness. Similarly, ancient Israel's botanical awareness was clearly ignorant of the data we have today. Therefore, Lamoureux's discussions eventually bring the reader to a crossroad. How can a reader respect the Bible if it is invoking principles of, say, botany or any other field of science, in ways that run counter to contemporary scientific discourse? Is the reader confronted with the terrible situation in which they must support the Bible's claims despite the contradictory scientific evidence? Are they forced to abandon any notion of inerrancy? *It is at this point that the integrity of Lamoureux's argument reaches a critical point. His argument cannot work without certain hermeneutical principles. First, the principle of accommodation argues that God accommodates himself to humanity--through language, culture, concepts, etc.--in order to ensure effective communication. So, in the example of Israel's botanical awareness, God is "using the botany-of-the-day" to ensure that the audience would understand the message. Similarly, this should also be applied to Israel's three-tiered universe and other cosmological concepts. Second, the message-incident principle argues that the mode of communication is incidental to the core message. To be clear, "Incidental has the meaning of that which happens to be alongside and happening in connection with something important" (p. 46). Therefore, applied to the creation texts, ancient science is incidental but important to delivering spiritual truths (p. 47). Third, Lamoureux champions incarnational inspiration. According to Lamoureux, the incarnation, as understood in Jesus, becomes the analogy par excellence for understanding the nature of scripture. It is fully divine and fully human. The Bible, like Jesus, transcends time and history. And God's perfect message comes through finite and imperfect humanity. *Many of Lamoureux's arguments echo similar arguments made by biblical scholars in recent memory. For example, Kenton Sparks, in God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (2008), emphasized accommodation in his attempt to balance a conviction that the Bible contains factual errors but is also inerrant. Peter Enns systematically argued for incarnational inspiration, as in Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (2005). John Walton and Brent Sandy display affinities to Lamoureux's message-incident principle in their work The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (2013). Consequently, the pitfalls that face these scholars face Lamoureux as well. If accommodation explains the scientific ignorance of the biblical writers, is inerrancy the best description of scripture? Or, because the incarnation is unique to the realities of Jesus, how appropriate is it to invoke it as an analogy for something else? At what point does it break down (cf. Ben Witherington, The Living Word of God [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007], 35-49)? *I wholeheartedly agree with Lamoureux that it is paramount for the interpreter to dutifully consider the text on its own terms, particularly since I take seriously the notion that God used ancient Israel to communicate his redemptive plan. Thus, the interpreter should yield to Israel's concepts, conventions, and philosophies on the way to understanding the message before they move to appropriation for theological discourse. Nevertheless, several elements in The Bible and Ancient Science could be fine tuned. These include Lamoureux's framing of the discussion of translating Genesis 1:1 (pp. 75-81) as a text-critical issue, when it is more of a translation problem. Lamoureux also presents a generic, almost flat, portrait of the classic criticisms of biblical studies (e.g., textual criticism, literary criticism, historical criticism) that does not support a nuanced understanding of their results for the creation texts. *A little more significant is Lamoureux's understanding of Paul's typological argument in Romans 5. He struggles with the possibility that Paul's argument appears historical in nature. He states, *"As a consequence, Paul undoubtedly believed Adam was a historical person and that the events of Genesis 2-3 really happened. However, it must be emphasized that Paul's belief in the reality of Adam and the events in the Garden of Eden does not necessarily mean they are historical" (p. 175). *Thus, he is forced to wrestle with the implications of his argument as it confronts the semantics of the text. He may well have been influenced by Enns in how he tries to navigate this, but a difficult tension remains (Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins [2012]). For Lamoureux, and Enns for that matter, it is difficult to advocate a framework-like typology which usually interprets historical figures in the context of history as, in this instance, functioning with a significant level of historical ignorance. *A deeper commitment to comparative investigations would also have enhanced Lamoureux's argument. He is certainly aware of non-Israelite texts and how they help us understand the concepts, conventions, and message of the biblical text, for he references them in his discussions of worldview and ancient conceptions of the universe. However, reading Genesis 1-2 in the shadow of texts such as the "Enuma Elish" and the "Memphite Theology" crystalizes the form and function of the genre as well as the Old Testament's theological emphases. *Nevertheless, overall Lamoureux gets far more right than wrong and this work is valuable. It makes potentially complicated concepts accessible and applies them to the very important debate about what "inerrant" means when describing the nature of scripture. *Reviewed by David B. Schreiner, Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Old Testament, Wesley Biblical Seminary, Ridgeland, MS 39157.

This article compares the typological exegesis promoted by E. B. Pusey (1800–82) and his colleagues John Henry Newman and John Keble with that of their eighteenth-century Hutchinsonian predecessor William Jones of Nayland (1726–1800). Building on Peter Nockles’s argument that Jones’s emphasis on the figurative character of biblical language foreshadows the Tractarian application of the sacramental principle to exegesis, this article shows how this common approach differs from the more cautious one displayed by the High Church luminaries William Van Mildert and Herbert Marsh. At the same time, both Pusey’s criticism of the mainstream apologetics of his day and his more explicit application of the doctrine of the Incarnation to exegesis resulted in bolder interpretations and a greater emphasis on the necessity of figurative readings (of both the Bible and the natural world) than Jones generally proposed. A shared appreciation of the principle of reserve may explain both these differences and the Tractarian emphasis on a patristic, rather than a Hutchinsonian, inspiration for their approach.

The interpretation of the Bible in the present continues to grow rapidly. This progress has both positive and negative effects in the realm of biblical interpretation. The positive impact that is with the progress of interpretation, it was found many truth values that were not understood and now start out one by one. The negative as the progress of biblical interpretation is the loss of boundaries. With the method of high-criticism interpretation makes the Bible originally believed to be the infallible Word, and now it is equated with another book of lesser value than the scriptures. The Bible is aligned with the ordinary book, even the authority of the Bible as God's Word is in doubt, denied and demeaned to an ordinary literary work.This is a challenge for Christianity today. It takes a firm stance in the face of the Higher Criticism interpretation movement. Christians need to determine a position to deflect any allegations that undermine the authority of the Bible and any allegations that cast doubt on the inspiration and revelation of the existing Scriptures. This paper is expected to give a little apologetic response to the Higher Criticism movement Keywords: Higher Criticism, Apologetic, Bible AbstrakPenafsiran Alkitab dalam masa kini terus mengalami perkembangan dengan pesat. Kemajuan ini memberikan dampak positif maupun negative dalam ranah dunia tafsir Alkitab. Positive karena dengan kemajuannya banak nilai-nilai kebenaran yang dul tidak dipahami mulai keluar satu persatu. Negatifnya saat kemajuan penafsiran Alkitab kehilangan batasan, dengan metode penafsiran higher Critism menjadikan Alkitab yang awalnya diyakini sebagai Firman yang tanpa salah, layaknya buku lain yang nilainya lebih rendah dari kitab suci. Aklitab disejajarkan dengan buku biasa. Bahkah otoritas Alkitab sebagai Firman Allah diragukan, disangkal dan direndahkan sebatas karya sastra biasa.Ini merupakan tantangan bagai kekristenan saat ini. Diperlukan sikap yang tegas dalam menghadapi pergerakan penafsiran Higher Critism. Orang Kristen perlu menentukan posisi dalam menangkis segala tuduhan yang merendahkan otoritas Alkitab. Segala tuduhan yang meragukan pengilhaman dan pewahyuan penulisan kitab Suci yang ada. Tulisan ini diharapkan memberikan sedikit sikap apologetika terhadap gerakan Higer Critism Kata Kunci: Higer Critism, Apologet, Alkitab

Abstract Modern historical criticism has disengaged understanding of the Bible from the long Christian tradition of interpretation, severing the bond between text and reader, between Scripture and the living church tradition. As a consequence, patristic and medieval interpreters are dismissed as serious commentators on the Holy Scriptures. This essay offers examples from classical Christian exegetes that illustrate how reading the Scriptures from within rather than against tradition deepens our understanding of the Bible.

Abstract Modern historical criticism has disengaged understanding of the Bible from the long Christian tradition of interpretation, severing the bond between text and reader, between Scripture and the living church tradition. As a consequence, patristic and medieval interpreters are dismissed as serious commentators on the Holy Scriptures. This essay offers examples from classical Christian exegetes that illustrate how reading the Scriptures from within rather than against tradition deepens our understanding of the Bible.

In chapter one of this work, as a preliminary to the formulation of the question that this thesis will attempt to answer, the changing understanding of the part played by the interpreter in the process of interpretation is discussed. This outline begins with the understanding of the role of the interpreter in liberal theology - where he is thought of as one who applies critical methods to the text in a detached and scientific way. After this the hermeneutic spiral is discussed - the formation of this model acknowledges to a greater degree the individual and human part played by the interpreter. This is followed by a brief examination of the most recent theories of interpretation in which meaning is regarded as residing not in the text but in the interpreter himself. The task of this thesis is to determine whether, as these recent theorists suggest, the reader creates meaning instead of reading out what somehow lies in the text itself. The task of this thesis is to ascertain, by studying the interpretationsof John's Prologue by Origen, Luther and Bultmann, whether the text does in fact operate as a series of sign-posts that pOint the interpreter to a destination within his own semantic universe. This may be determined by noting whether or not the contexts, i n the broadest sense, of these interpreters have played a formative part in their interpretations. contextual influences are regarded as existing wherever there is a procedure or meaning in the interpreter's commentary which one expe cts to find there as a result of one's knowledge of the interpreter's life and previous writings. Our research reveals that Orige n, Luther and Bultmann have produced three very different commentaries in which the common denominator is the formative influence of the interpreter's context. Each of these writers has produced an interpretation that is consistent, in both approach and theology, with their previous exegetical and theological thought. This indicates that contextual factors have played a significant part in determining their interpr etations of John 1 :1-18. It would appear that these interpreters have been led to find the meaning of John's Prologue not with reference to any new, unprecedented set of symbols, but with reference to their own, well-worn semantic universes. In the conclusion it is noted that this research appears to support what many modern theorists have said as to the locus of meaning in interpretation. In the conclusion it is also noted that many of the fears raised by these findings - that readers and writers, or speakers and hearers, may become so isolated and trapped in their own thought worlds that any real contact with the outside is impossible - may be groundless. These findings also point to a certain consistency between the interpreters and their communities. This refutes the fears as to the isolation and solitary development of the individual in that it points to a certain community or corporate aspect which plays a part in the development of the indivi dual's semantic universe .
KMBT_363
Adobe Acrobat 9.53 Paper Capture Plug-in

This thesis explores the interaction of literature and theology by means of archetypal criticism with specific reference to certain characters in the Gospel of John. Northrop Frye's system of archetypal literary criticism consisting of the four mythoi or archetypes of romance, tragedy, irony and satire, and comedy forms the governing framework and means of exchange between literature and theology. This synchronic interaction is centered on Jesus, an innocent man acting on behalf of others, as romance; Pilate, unable or unwilling to act justly in an unwanted and unavoidable particular circumstance, as tragedy; Thomas and the Jews, variations on the theme of seeing and not seeing as irony; and Peter, who denies Christ and later recovers, as comedy. These characters' function as points of exchange, each reaching their defining literary and theological climax during the crucifixion events. Within the FG's narrative these characters also serve as imaginative points of contact and identification for the reader at which the reader's own faith response may be placed within the literary and theological milieu of the Fourth Gospel. Conceptually, Jesus and romance, Pilate and tragedy, Thomas, the Jews, and irony, and Peter and comedy may be characterized by representation, reduction, negation, and integration, respectively. The variable between these four mythoi and between these characters is the relationship between a belief or an ideal and experience or reality assumed by the work as a whole and/or assumed and displayed by each character.

In this thesis we will explore the question of Jesus' revelation as a central motif of the Johannine Christology from the perspectives of literary criticism, Jewish apocalypticism and Graeco-Roman dramatic literature. In particular, we will attempt to solve the riddle of the visions developed in John 12.20-36, by answering the fragmentary theory of the text, the claim for the divergent christologies, the question of realised eschatology with or without future eschatology, and the claim that the Johannine community its symbolic world creates is 'sectarian'. A special attention will be paid to the Son of man as presented in the pericope under discussion as well as in the Fourth Gospel as a whole. The thesis will be summarised as follows: 1. Over against the fragment theory, the concentric arrangement of Jesus' saying formed predominantly in parallelism shows a deliberate literary design of the author. Set at the end of the earthly ministry of Jesus, John 12.20-36 is a culminating point of the revelatory process of Jesus. 2. The overall conceptual framework to understand John 12.20-36, and thus the Fourth Gospel as a whole, is the apocalyptic idea of the divine mysteries concerning the .end time. The revelation is centred on Jesus the Son of man, identified as the human-like figure of Dan 7, which culminates in his cross as his glorification/lifting-up. The vision of the revealed mysteries in Jesus on the cross embraces the eschatological Messiah, the restoration of Israel and of the Temple, salvation, the vindication of the righteous and the condemnation of the evil, and the Gentiles' pilgrimage, which is comparable to contemporary Jewish apocalyptic writings. 3. The cross of Jesus as the focus of the apocalyptic vision of the end time lies behind the apparently divergent christologies (the Son of man, the Davidic Messiah, divine Wisdom), which are integrated in the text in such a manner that it is impossible for each to be understood in isolation. The combination of these is already found in the Jewish apocalyptic-eschatological hope. The fact that the lifting-up and glorification of the Son of man is given precedence to the Davidic Kingly Messiah deprives a political and military aspect of the popular Jewish expectation. 4. At the same time, the revelatory pattern of the Johannine Jesus is not only explicable in Jewish apocalyptic terms, but it has to be understand in view of the anagnorisis, a popular Graeco-Roman dramatic convention. Within the main plot of the Fourth Gospel Jesus is depicted as the divine homecoming hero-king, as in Homer's Odyssey, whose messianic identity is closed to many and disclosed to those who receive him with faith (and hospitality). This pattern is relevant for most of the Johannine Son of man sayings as well. In this plot development John 12.20-36 is situated in a climactic place where the Jewish crowd fails to recognise Jesus who points to the decisive moment of his revelation on the cross. 5. The Johannine Eschatology is Jesus centred, and its realised aspect is strongly emphasised, because the eschatological terminology is overwhelmingly applied to him. Thus Jesus on the cross is the embodiment of the eschaton. At the same time, the post-Easter period, the time of the church, is open toward its future culmination because of the mission perspective. 6. The revelation of Jesus as the core of the divine mysteries concerning the end-time centres on the cross, which is presented as both the judgement and the salvation of the world. The Johannine understanding of the cross is expressed within the framework of the vindication/exaltation of the suffering righteous. It is implied that Jesus' death and resurrection inaugurates the new, eschatological covenant for the new people of God embracing both Jews and Gentiles. 7. John 12.20-36 envisages an apocalyptic vision of the end-time judgement and salvation, in which the new covenant people is created as a new people of God. The basis of the new 'children of the Light' is no longer the Law as in the old covenant but the faith in Jesus the Light (and to love each other as a new law). This faith is not individualistic but geared towards community building, which includes the believers from the Gentiles. The community itself is the result of the cross of Jesus. The purpose of Jesus' death for 'bearing much fruit' and gathering of 'all' (nations) to his own house is to be accomplished in the community through its mission to the world, despite the probable persecutions.

Thesis (MTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2015.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: South Africans are confronted on a daily basis with the social inequality among individuals which greatly inspires violence, victimisation, discrimination and life-denying ethos. These acts of injustice are not simply inspired by formal laws and policies, but spurred on by various ideological and symbolic categories and power structures. In a way, social behaviour can be said to be ‘scripted’ by the ideologies, perceptions and language internalised, normalised and passed on within society at large. One does not have to look very far to see the way in which this ‘script’ functions in South Africa and what impact the pre-determined and ‘scripted’ identity markers of gender and health have on individuals and groups, as categories like man, woman, HIV positive, and disabled already trigger a set of preconceived ideas and expectations regarding these individuals. The normalisation of this ‘script’ and its social hierarchies is extremely counter-productive as it often pre-determines the value, abilities, potential, limitations and ‘appropriate’ ethos of individuals and groups on the basis of the categories they fall into. The scripted nature of society is however not a twenty-first century phenomenon, but something deeply integral also to life in first century Palestine. This script interpreted, determined and reinforced the prescribed status, agency and ethos of different individuals and identity markers of health and gender were paramount in this process of scripting. Part of this ‘scripted’ world was Jesus of Nazareth. However, upon reading the narratives of John 4:1-42 and 9:1-41, it would appear that the relationship between the societal script and the actual ethos of Jesus was anything but simplistic. Upon reading these two episodes against the grain of the first century societal script, Jesus’ ethos as a Jewish man in relation to a somewhat questionable Samaritan female and blind and impure beggar brings forth some inconsistencies toward the script. It would seem as if Jesus was reluctant to read his context one dimensionally and simply comply with popular custom and ideology. The aim of this study would therefore be to explore whether these inconsistencies between the societal script and the ethos of Jesus could be of any significance in an analogously scripted twenty-first century South Africa, a society pleading for critical reflection upon the societal script. When the possible ‘counter-ethos’ of Jesus is considered, faith communities might be challenged to embrace the fragility of social categories and hierarchies and perhaps embody a similar critical attitude and ethos toward the life-denying societal script and its taken-for-granted assumptions.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Suid-Afrikaners word daagliks gekonfronteer met die sosiaal ongelyke stand van ons samelewing. Hierdie ongelykhede is grootliks verantwoordelik vir geweld, viktimisasie, diskriminasie en nie-lewensgewende etos. Die bogenoemde word egter nie bloot deur formele wette geïnspireer nie, maar aangevuur deur verskeie ideologiese en simboliese kategorieë en magstrukture. Sosiale gedrag kan as’t ware gesien word as ʼn voorafbepaalde teks, ondersteun deur die ideologieë, persepsies en taal wat ons internaliseer, normaliseer en aan ander oordra. Hierdie voorafbepaalde ‘samelewingsteks’ is uiters prominent in Suid-Afrika, waar ʼn bepaalde status, etos en grense dikwels aan individue gegee word op die basis van identiteits-merkers van onder andere gender en gesondheid. Die identifisering van iemand as man, vrou, MIV positief, gestremd, ensovoorts spreek ideologiese boekdele van hul plek, doel en perke in die samelewing. In hierdie sin dien die vooropgestelde ‘samelewingsteks’ ʼn uiters teenproduktiewe rol, aangesien dit die waarde, vermoëns, potensiaal, en ‘korrekte’ etos van individue vooraf bepaal op grond van die simboliese kategorieë waarin hul val. Die voorafbepaalde ‘samelewingsteks’ herbevestig dikwels sosiale hiërargieë, wat ongeregtigheid normaliseer en bevorder. Hierdie is egter nie net ʼn een-en-twintigste eeu se verskynsel nie, maar iets wat al reeds prominent voorgekom het in eerste eeu se Palestina. Hierdie ‘samelewingsteks’ het die gepaste status en etos van verskillende individue bepaal op die grond van identiteits-merkers, soos die van gender en gesondheid. Dit is ook die samelewing waarin Jesus van Nasaret homself bevind het. Wanneer die narratiewe van Johannes 4:1-42 en 9:1-41 gelees word, kom dit egter voor asof die verhouding tussen hierdie ‘samelewingsteks’ en die etos beliggaam deur Jesus kompleks was. Wanneer die twee episodes in lig van die voorafbepaalde ‘samelewingsteks’ gelees word, blyk Jesus, ʼn Joodse man, se etos teenoor ʼn redelike verdagte Samaritaanse vrou en blinde en onreine bedelaar in spanning te wees met die etos aan hom voorgeskryf. Dit sou voorkom asof Jesus gewaak het teen die eenvoudige beliggaming van wat deur die ‘samelewingsteks’ as gehoord voorgeskryf en verwag is. Die doel van hierdie studie sou daarom wees om te ondersoek of die spanning tussen die eerste eeu se ‘samelewingsteks’ en die ware beliggaamde etos van Jesus enigsins betekenisvol kan wees in lyn van die een-en-twintigste eeu se voorafbepaalde ‘samelewingsteks’ in ʼn land wat ryp is vir kritiese refleksie op dit wat as ‘normaal’ en ‘korrek’ beskou word. Die moontlike ‘kontra-etos' van Jesus kan geloofsgemeenskappe uitdaag om die broosheid van sosiale en simboliese kategorieë en hiërargieë aan te gryp en ʼn soortgelyke kritiese houding en etos teenoor die nie-lewegewende ‘samelewingsteks’ en sy voorveronderstellings te beliggaam.

Thesis (MTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2011.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Critical New Testament study has drawn on analytical techniques and interrogatory methods from a wide range of disciplines. In recent decades the dominance of historical and ecclesiologicallylocated approaches have been challenged by insights from literary, sociological, anthropological, cultural and ideological scholarship. These challenges have proved fruitful and opened biblical scholarship to new and generative interpretation. This plurality of interpretation has in turn challenged the reductionism of biblical scholarship, leading to the now common acknowledgement that a particular reading or reconstruction is but one of many. Unfortunately many new readings have been too tightly bound to a single method or insight. The broad interaction between these readings has been often overlooked. In contrast to this trend an epistemology of text emerging from the poststructural notion of intertextuality allows the construction of links between a range of interpretive methods. Intertextuality emerges from literary and cultural theory but spills over to make hermeneutical connections with historical, cultural and ideological theory. For the most part New Testament scholars who have appropriated the term have noted this but not thoroughly explored it. In this study an ideologically-declared overtly intertextual approach to the third canonical gospel demonstrates the interlinking hermeneutic allowed by intertextuality. John Howard Yoder's reading of the gospel of Luke underscores the development of a Christian social-ethic. This reading in turn forms the framework for the more overtly intertextual reading offered here. An intertextual reading of the New Testament Scriptures is both narratively generative and politically directive for many Christian communities.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Kritiese Nuwe Testamentiese studies het in die verlede gebruik gemaak van analitiese tegnieke en ondervraende metodes uit ‘n wye verskeidenheid van dissiplines. Meer onlangs is die oorheersing van historiese en kerklik-gerigte benaderings uitgedaag deur insigte vanuit letterkundige, sosiologiese, antropologiese, kulturele en ideologiese dissiplines. Hierdie uitdagings het vrugbaar geblyk en het Bybelse vakkennis toeganklik gemaak vir nuwe en produktiewe interpretasies. Hierdie meervoudige interpretasies het op hul beurt weer die reduksionisme in Bybelse geleerdheid uitgedaag, wat aanleiding gegee het tot die nou algemene erkenning dat ‘n bepaalde vertolking of rekonstruksie slegs een van vele is. Die breë wisselwerking tussen sulke vertolkings word dikwels misgekyk. In teenstelling met hierdie neiging, laat ‘n epistemologie van die teks wat te voorskyn kom uit ‘n poststrukturele begrip van intertekstualiteit toe dat verbande gekonstrueer word word tussen ‘n verskeidenheid van vertolkingsmetodes. Intertekstualiteit spruit voort uit literêre en kulturele teorie, maar vorm ook hermeneutiese skakels met historiese, kulturele en ideologie kritiek. Die meeste Nuwe Testamentici wat gebruik gemaak het van hierdie term, het kennis geneem van sulke verbande, maar dit nie altyd volledig verreken nie. In hierdie studie demonstreer ‘n ideologies-verklaarde, openlik intertekstuele benadering tot die derde kanonieke evangelie die gekoppelde hermeneutiek wat toegelaat word deur intertekstualiteit. John Howard Yoder se vertolking van die Evangelie van Lukas plaas klem op die ontwikkeling van ‘n Christelike sosiale etiek. Hierdie interpretasie vorm op sy beurt weer die raamwerk vir die meer openlik intertekstuele vertolking wat hier aangebied word. ‘n Intertekstuele interpretasie van die Nuwe Testamentiese geskrifte is beide verhalend produktief asook polities rigtinggewend vir talle Christelike gemeenskappe.