gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (10/18/85)
>Well, there's no getting around that word "fulfilment". It's in the >text. This is probably one of the most hotly debated statements of >Jesus, right up there with "not one iota of the law will pass >away...". It first must be pointed out that, as far as Gentile >Christianity is concerned, this passage is of little direct import. >The Acts of the Apostles clearly states that we are not bound to >Mosaic law. Period. So the chief importance of the passage today is >how it depicts Jesus' relationship to Judaic law and custom. >I don't think I will attempt to explain the passage. As I said, it is >much argued about, and there are numerous commentaries on the passage. >The only comment I have is that Jesus prefaces the passage with "I am >not come to destroy [the law]," even though in another place he says >that nothing a man eats can defile him, in violent contradiction with >the dietary laws. So perhaps there is no simple answer to be given on >this point. >Charley Wingate ------------------------------------- Lets not overlook something here. The NT canon as we have it contains a great deal of specifically Pauline material. One might say that the NT represents a "Pauline Christianity" over against other forms that were present in the 1st century. The effect of this "high density" of Pauline material in the canon and its literary ordering has the effect of skewing(distorting) our view of the 1st century church. Is the Pauline view of the relation of the Mosaic Law to gentiles and to jews the "true" view simply because this is the only view represented in the canon. Is the Pauline view of the Law the "true" view simply because Paul left literary artifacts of his theology while others did not. The text(canon) is not co-extensive with the culture. The canon is a "key hole" through which to view the history of the early church but it is not the whole history of the church. The canon is a bias in the reconstruction of history. It is not the true history of the church simply because it is canonical. Nor is it the true history of the church simply because it is the only one accessible to the believer. Pauline Christianity is successful Christianity. "Truth" of the kind that theologians and philosophers are want to talk about does not enter into the socio-political/historical fact of success that I have just mentioned. Socio-political success does not validate historical facts and cosmological assertions that the canonical scriptures make. A basic thesis of Elaine Pagels book The Gnostic Gospels is the assertion that the reason for the "failure" of Gnosticism was not that it was "false"(=not "true") but that it failed to develop "institutions" instantiating its theology and this was so because its theology did not understand "Salvation" in any kind of corporate manner as did early catholicism. Peter did not write or if he did what he wrote did not survive history. But there is the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter that, even though he did not write it, may indeed be based on authentic Petrine tradition passed on in community from one generation to the next just as Pauline Christianity was passed on in community from one generation to the next. The Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter may be as true to his thoughts(theology) as are the canonical Pastorals(1,2 Tim & Titus) written in Pauls name after his death. I would be willing to defend the thesis that Pauls view of the validity of the law as regards jews and gentiles is in radical opposition with those of Peter. The canon is not an innocent document. It is the juxtaposition of a number of separate writings that in themselves and with each given its own integrity are, I would call, ideological weapons. Not only do they hurl polemics among themselves (Gospel of John to Gospel of Mark) but they also polemicize individuals (John the Baptist in Johns Gospel) who are not even present in literary form to defend themselves. The canon is witness to a war of "super powers" in the early church. Canon has already suppressed those communities that did not survive the first wave of theological confrontation. The views of Pauls opponents have not survived history and all we hear from Paul was that it was a "false gospel". What that "gospel" was no one knows - but in Pauls judgement it was "false" and that is the only judgement we have. >Well, there's no getting around that word "fulfilment". It's in the >text. This is probably one of the most hotly debated statements of >Jesus, right up there with "not one iota of the law will pass >away...". >The Acts of the Apostles clearly states that we are not bound to >Mosaic law. Period. So the chief importance of the passage today is >how it depicts Jesus' relationship to Judaic law and custom. "Its in the text... and there's no getting around it." The text is the victor, and has the "truth" but not the kind of truth you think it has. The canon defines the kind of truth one has when one systematically eliminates all opposed and contrary opinions by means of force. Pauls opponents have already been vanquished by their exclusion from the canon. Petrine Christianity has fallen also and has been banished to the apocrypha (even if he was the "rock" on which Jesus said he would build his church). John the Baptist didn't have a chance in the face of repeated polemic salvos fired off in rapid succession in the first three chapters in the canonical gospel of John - put in his own mouth no less. The early church(es) have been reduced to 400 pages of text in the canon and this is the big war - the war of Christologies. I would ask - Who is the ultimate victim(='a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency; a person who is cheated; a living being sacrificed in religious rites'). I answer, the victims are three. First, the jews, for Christians slew Moses and the Hebrew Scriptures by an act of heretical exegesis. Second, Jesus of Nazareth, for I take the Gospels to be, each in their own right, a systematic distortion. The third victim is the believer, for s/he is only dimly aware of the true enterprise in which they participate and to which they are party. The Truth of the Gospel(s) are clear. "Might is right" and the victory goes to the one who carries the biggest sword and the longest spear even when those "spears" and "swords" are polemic and rhetoric. Is the pen mighter than the sword ? A hard question indeed. But not a question at all once pen and sword are on the same side. Military might met literary rhetoric in alliance in 337 AD when Christianity became the officially sanctioned religion of the Empire and the Law of the land. Constantine is dead but Wingate and others, now armed with an infallibly true text filled with True doctrine, continue the "Christian" fight to this very day. Gary