Interesting. After Nicea was theology that doesn't really relate to the first century Judaism of the historical Jesus or to the variety of various Christianities, for want of better term, that one found in the first through third century (Valentinian, Ebionite, Marcionite, etc) but to the orthodoxy. So, in using those as sources, the "difficult sayings" are seen only through the eyes of the winners of the battle for orthodoxy. If one is content with Christianity as it is today, the book should be comforting to those. It will explain "difficult sayings" in the way that reinforces their beliefs, probably...

As far as "kingdom of god," from what we have it seems that many scholars believe that Jesus saw this as present, in the world, not as an apocalyptic event. (Many other scholars don't.) One generally sifts through the gospels. There is evidence to support either contention. There was an apocalyptic event in the early seventies, when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in the temple, one which resulted in a re-ordering of Judaism. If there were any "followers of Jesus" at this point they would have been Jews, and certainly this resulted in a re-thinking of their form of Judaism. It seems that all of the gospels were written between the last quarter of the first century and the first quarter of the second century, when this was on their mind, yet fading by the time one gets to a rather Roman apologetic Luke/Acts.

Where does the author stand in his view of the basilea (kingdom)? 

Dennis

Jan 28, 2011 -- 7:08AM, Mikey345 wrote:

hi there,

 

sorry I havent go that much time check this every day.

 

As to your questions, I just happen to be a fan of patristics and biblical studies....so I thoroughly enjoy anything that brings them close - another fave author of mine is John Breck (scripture in tradition). As a newcomer to orthodoxy, Im a fan of the above. I am not sure why this thread has been prone to such heated discussion.

The book as far as I can tell (im no expert) also makes reference to fathers after nicea. One thing I very much liked was seeing the answer to the "kingdom of heaven suffers violence" which one side discusses the required "violent tribulation" of the eschaton that would see Jesus and John afflicted (the view of scholarship), whereas on the other saw the violence as the repentance of those seeking to violently enter the kingdom (church fathers). Needless to say each view is really reflective of the spiritual lives of the interpreters.

 

Interesting stuff. Just to let you know I will be away for a few days... Anyway have a look at the books preview, Id be interested to hear what over people think.

Of course, Pelikan, who has been relegated to dusty shelves, was doomed to failure, which has nothing to do with this thread, and the quest for the historical Jesus continues unabated as it has for several hundred years, with important contributions by Ehrman, Crossan, Tabor, the Jesus Seminar, Borg, Thompson, Spong, the Society of Biblical Literature, Vermes, Eisenman, Ludemann, Goodacre, Chilton, Armstrong, Pagels, Carroll, Mack, Price, Patterson, MacDonald, Jill-Levine, Kloppenborg, and so on. In fact, biblical scholars have actually, in the last quarter of a century, written their share of best sellers, which means that, for probably the first time in history, this information is actually making it past the "sainted halls of churchdom" to the population in general... Yep, Pelikan was wrong. His books are dusted regularly by librarians.