There has been a hot line that a professor that I am studying under keeps saying. I am calling it hot because it rubs some people the wrong way and some people absolutely love it. The line reads as follows...
"The Gospels are just passion narratives with extended introductions."
Does this bother you? Do you love this line? Why or why not? Can you see why it might bother somebody or why somebody might love this?
If you get a chance, I would love to hear your thoughts on this controversial comment.
I attached some of the newest photography that Whitney has added to her site.
Mini Putt
8 comments:
I seem to take issue whenever the term passion/passion narrative/passion of Christ/other term with passion is used as a refrence to just the crucixifiction and resurrection. It would seem that Jesus was a pretty passionate guy through his recorded life. And did his teachings not show us passion as well, teaching us (to borrow a term from Mars Hill) the best possible way to live.
Aside from that little tid-bit, the line seems to minimize the life of Jesus. How much time do people spend on introductions? If I'm really excited about a book, I'll skip the introduction completely to get to the meet. I have a bunch of books whose introduction I still have yet to read. I know people don't really study introductions like they would the rest of the story.
Whats the prof's point with the line?
I suppose you might say that this hot line "bothers" me. To the extend that the author is suggesting that beleivers are simply expanding on memories and detailing situations from an emotional (passion) aspect.
Any beleiver who has spent a good bit of time in scripture is certain to know that emotion is present. However we also know that the Holy Spirit will take us far deeper into the significance of the written word if we but allow the reality of the presence.
To assume that scripture is only the words we see---is to really miss the point.
Much of "scripture" comes from an understanding of circumstances, past experiences, messages that are subtle and VERY meaningful. A skeptic will surely miss it all.
I do think that the introduction can be very important in setting an image, that we may better understand the nature of a teaching.
Any book, I really mean ANY book with a rich introduction will have a deeper effect on the understanding of the reader.
If our current day Christians were better read and familiar with Jesus roots, faith and teachings we would have a far different "church" than exists today.
And so now, dear Nicholas, you know what I think of that-hot line. Love to you both GM
Nick-
This definition (if you will) of the Gospels does not seem to bother me all that much. Maybe that is bad, but I think I can attempt to say why.
For me, I read the introductions (sorry Duby) of books and I often find them interesting. And I do believe a lot of the beginning of the Gospel accounts do introduce us to the "scene" of Jesus the Christ. It is helpful because all four, somehow, give us different perspectives; just like everyone has a different interpretation when they read scripture.
However, I do agree with Duby - Jesus' life is about passion, just as much as His death. So, yeah, they are just extended introductions, but let's be sure to not miss where His passion picks up and the intros stop.
So I guess I love the quote insofar as I believe it to be accurate. I think it sounds a little discouraging when read, but I can't read the prof's mind and how he/she feels about it from the words that are type, ya know?
Love your posts and thoughts Nick! Keep them coming...
I am sorry that I was not more clear... The passion narrative is the story that surrounds the cross... I have a feeling that this will switch the thoughts of some people!
Yes, Nick is right. When biblical scholar-types use the term "passion narrative" they are referring specifically to the suffering and death of Jesus Christ (think of the content of Passion plays). Often, in writings, this use of the term is capitalized - "Passion narrative". It is a very specific reference and should not be confused with the idea that the rest of the gospels' stories lack little 'p' "passion". Of course they do. Jesus was a very passionate man. What Nick's prof is referring to though is the idea that all of this little 'p' "passion" narrative stuff is a long introduction to the heart of the matter (the "meat" as duby calls it), namely the big 'P' "Passion" narrative. He may very well be right in saying this. But, I would certainly agree with calebyoungblood too. We ought to read the introductions (see the classic book How To Read a Book) to all books, especially one whose "meat" is the Passion.
I was just really impressed with Duby's words - well done.
theule
wo-ho i win!
Actually its just the picture of Jesus next to what I wrote. Ya can't argue with Jesus. :)
thanks theule
Not gonna lie...this hot line does more than bother me. I HATE it. Caleb, I love you and everything, but we will have to agree to strongly disagree. The tone of the line "The gospels are just passion narratives with extended introductions" indicates that the introductions are not only not as important as the Passion, but that they aren't important at all. Maybe that is not what the prof meant, but that is definatley what is read by my eyes at least. You can't elevate the importance of the cross while you diminish the importance of His life. On the contrary, when you elevate how important the cross is, His life, and all 66 chapters of "introduction" become all the more important and vital to understanding how to follow Jesus. I think this prof either needs to actually fall in love with Jesus and not Christian doctrine, OR needs to choose his words a bit more wisely.
Post a Comment