Powell suggests in his text that many of the authors of the gospel did not live during the time of christ. Instead he states that through a collection of Jesus' sayings and through stories and hearsay, the gospels have been compiled to give to stories and meanings that they do today. That being said, should the gospels still be considered legitimate as they are not first hand accounts? Were the gospels in search of their own "Jesus"?
The Gospel of Matthew offers us our first view of the canonical Jesus. What is significant about the fact Matthew presents Jesus as a Jew? Does this emphasis on Jesus' place in Jewish culture make him exclusive to other groups?
On pages 50-51, Powell discusses the impact that translation into English has had on the Gospels. In particular, he cites the example of the greek word "basileia" which doubles as a noun and a verb, and compares it with its translation in some English Bibles to "kingdom," which obviously lacks the verbal application inherent in the original Greek.
With consideration to Mark 1:15 ("The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom [[basileia]] of God has come near"), what impact might this translation have on the English-speaking individual's understanding of 'God's kingdom' that may differ from the implication in the Greek? Does this impact of translation fundamentally alter Jesus's purpose on Earth in the English Bible (ie. He grants the ability to enter a physical kingdom after death vs. he grants the ability to enter God's 'reign' while still alive)?
Powell writes that the goal of the gospels is to convert people. The Gospel of Matthew discusses a multitude of miracles including incidences of healing and changing the weather.
How important are the descriptions of miracles in the conversion of the reader?
In Powell's book, on page four, he states that Judaism, in the first century, was not a "uniform religion." I wonder how Judaism started as such and grew to a more uniform religion (four large denominations), whereas Christianity fractured into many denominations (four or five large denominations split into many smaller denominations)? My information on the denominations was found on Wikipedia.
The Gospel of Matthew offers us our first view of the canonical Jesus. What is significant about the fact Matthew presents Jesus as a Jew? Does this emphasis on Jesus' place in Jewish culture exclude other groups?
The concept of faith is repeatedly discussed throughout the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew, “ye of little faith” is the stereotypical description of those who constitute the church. Powell argues that this “characterization emphasizes the inadequacy of Jesus’ followers and, accordingly, their dependence upon him” (Powell, 81). However, the measurement of “little faith” is considerably different in Matthew, where only the tiniest amount of faith is needed in order to follow God (Matt. 17:20).
Clearly, both the church and the concept of faith can be interpreted numerous ways. As Powell points out, the contrast between “no faith” (Mark 4:40) and “little faith” (Matt. 8:26) is significant. How should one interpret the church in the Gospel of Matthew? Is it one comprised of inadequate sinners dependent on Jesus for forgiveness like Powell suggests or one filled with disciples of Jesus with enough faith to do whatever God calls them to do?
On this basis, what are the implications on the reader’s attitude toward Jesus relative to their interpretation of the church?
8 comments:
Powell suggests in his text that many of the authors of the gospel did not live during the time of christ. Instead he states that through a collection of Jesus' sayings and through stories and hearsay, the gospels have been compiled to give to stories and meanings that they do today. That being said, should the gospels still be considered legitimate as they are not first hand accounts? Were the gospels in search of their own "Jesus"?
The Gospel of Matthew offers us our first view of the canonical Jesus. What is significant about the fact Matthew presents Jesus as a Jew? Does this emphasis on Jesus' place in Jewish culture make him exclusive to other groups?
On pages 50-51, Powell discusses the impact that translation into English has had on the Gospels. In particular, he cites the example of the greek word "basileia" which doubles as a noun and a verb, and compares it with its translation in some English Bibles to "kingdom," which obviously lacks the verbal application inherent in the original Greek.
With consideration to Mark 1:15 ("The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom [[basileia]] of God has come near"), what impact might this translation have on the English-speaking individual's understanding of 'God's kingdom' that may differ from the implication in the Greek? Does this impact of translation fundamentally alter Jesus's purpose on Earth in the English Bible (ie. He grants the ability to enter a physical kingdom after death vs. he grants the ability to enter God's 'reign' while still alive)?
Powell writes that the goal of the gospels is to convert people. The Gospel of Matthew discusses a multitude of miracles including incidences of healing and changing the weather.
How important are the descriptions of miracles in the conversion of the reader?
In Powell's book, on page four, he states that Judaism, in the first century, was not a "uniform religion." I wonder how Judaism started as such and grew to a more uniform religion (four large denominations), whereas Christianity fractured into many denominations (four or five
large denominations split into many smaller denominations)? My information on the denominations was found on Wikipedia.
The Gospel of Matthew offers us our first view of the canonical Jesus. What is significant about the fact Matthew presents Jesus as a Jew? Does this emphasis on Jesus' place in Jewish culture exclude other groups?
The concept of faith is repeatedly discussed throughout the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew, “ye of little faith” is the stereotypical description of those who constitute the church. Powell argues that this “characterization emphasizes the inadequacy of Jesus’ followers and, accordingly, their dependence upon him” (Powell, 81). However, the measurement of “little faith” is considerably different in Matthew, where only the tiniest amount of faith is needed in order to follow God (Matt. 17:20).
Clearly, both the church and the concept of faith can be interpreted numerous ways. As Powell points out, the contrast between “no faith” (Mark 4:40) and “little faith” (Matt. 8:26) is significant. How should one interpret the church in the Gospel of Matthew? Is it one comprised of inadequate sinners dependent on Jesus for forgiveness like Powell suggests or one filled with disciples of Jesus with enough faith to do whatever God calls them to do?
On this basis, what are the implications on the reader’s attitude toward Jesus relative to their interpretation of the church?
Post a Comment