ルカ7・11-17
イエスは、その葬儀の行列と、町の入口で出くわしました。
葬儀の行列と出くわす。決してめずらしい光景ではなかったと思います。ある意味で、日常的な光景だったでしょう。
私たちも、町を通っていると、しばしば葬儀案内の看板を見かけることがあるでしょう。それを見ると、今日もどこかのご家庭で不幸があったのだな、と思います。
けれども、私たちは、自分の身内や知り合いの葬儀でなければ、ほとんど悼（いた）み、悲しむことはありません。そこに、自分との深い関わりがないからです。
ところが、主イエスはそうではありませんでした。見ず知らずの一人息子の死と、それを葬る見ず知らずの母親の姿を見て、「憐（あわ）れに思っ（た）」（13節）というのです。
「憐れに思う」という言葉は、ルカによる福音書の中に何度か出て来ます。例えば、10章で主イエスが語られた〈善いサマリア人〉のたとえ話の中で、強盗に襲われ、道端に倒れていたユダヤ人の脇（わき）を、旅のサマリア人が通りかかった時、「その人を見て、憐れに思い」（10章33節）とあります。そこで彼は、傷の手当てをし、宿屋に連れて行って介抱します。実はサマリア人はユダヤ人とは仲の悪い、犬猿（けんえん）の間柄でした。それなのに‥‥です。ちなみに、サマリア人の前に、見て見ぬふりをして通り過ぎて行ったユダヤ人が二人いました。
また、15章の〈放蕩（ほうとう）息子〉のたとえ話においても、父親に財産を生前贈与させて、遠くの町で遊び暮らしていた息子が、落ちぶれて家に帰って来たとき、その父親は「息子を見つけて、憐れに思い、走り寄って首を抱き、接吻した」（15章20節）とあります。どの面（つら）下げて帰って来たか！と怒鳴られても不思議ではない場面で、父親は怒りではなく、憐れに思ったと言うのです。
見ず知らずの相手だったり、犬猿の仲の相手だったり、勝手をして散々迷惑を掛けられた相手だったり‥‥‥「憐れに思」わなくてもおかしくないのですが、主イエスは、主イエスのたとえ話の主人公は皆、憐れに思うのです。それが、“神の気持”なのでしょう。人が人に対して思う気持ではなく、神が人に対して思う気持です。それが、ここで言う“憐れみ”です。
ちなみに、「憐れに思う」と訳されている元の言葉（ギリシア語）は、“はらわたが痛む”という意味の言葉です。相手の悲しみ、相手の苦しみを思うと、自分のはらわたがよじれ、腹が痛む。それほどに、相手の悲しみ、苦しみを自分のもののように感じるのです。それが、神の気持です。
神さまというお方は、そのように一人ひとりの死に、そして愛する者を送る一人ひとりの悲しみを、憐れに思い、腹を痛める方なのだと私は思います。たまたま町の入口で出くわした人の死と悲しみであっても、自分に無関係な、見ず知らずの人の死と悲しみであっても、本人にとっては耐えがたい悲しみであり、心の痛みです。そういう人の悲しみと痛みを、神さまはご自分も感じてくださる。無関係な傍観者（ぼうかんしゃ）として振る舞うのではなく、寄り添って、悲しみを共にしてくださる。それが、私たちの信じる神なのです。神さまというお方は、そういう意味で“私の神”“私一人の神”なのです。
主イエスは、一人息子を失い、悲しむ母親を見て、憐れに思われました。そして、「もう泣かなくともよい」（13節）と声を掛けられました。そのように慰めの言葉をかけることができたのは、主イエスただお一人だけだったのではないでしょうか。「町の人が大勢そばに付き添っていた」（12節）と言います。けれども、だれも言葉をかけられなかったことでしょう。
愛する者を失い、悲しむ人を前にして、私たちは言葉を失います。憐れに思っても、しかし、何と言葉をかけていいか分かりません。クリスチャンだからと言って、牧師だからと言って、復活だ、天国だ、永遠の命だと、神さまが助けてくださると、軽々しく声をかけることはできないのです。何か言葉をかけなければと焦（あせ）って、口を開くと、大概（たいがい）、後で後悔します。人の死の悲しみを前にして、私たち人間は無力です。ただ、その場にいるしかない。その人に寄り添うしかない。沈黙して悲しみを、共に耐えるしかないのです。
人の死の悲しみに慰めの声をかけることができるのは、御言葉を語ることができるのは、ただ主イエスだけです。「もう泣かなくともよい」。そう言えるのは神さまだけです。それは、失われた一人息子を生き返らせることができる全能の力をお持ちだからです。母親に息子をお返しになる復活の力をお持ちだからです。その力を信じることが、私たちの慰めの源、信仰の土台です。
けれども、「もう泣かなくともよい」と言われても、涙が止まらないのが、愛する者を失った悲しみではないでしょうか。もし現実に返してもらえるなら、すべての人が、愛する人を返してほしいと心から願うに違いありません。しかし、神さまを信じたからと言って、愛する者が生き返るわけではないのです。ならば、「もう泣かなくともよい」との御言葉は、どういう意味で受け止めればよいのでしょう。
イエスさまの言葉の力を印象づけています。それはまさしく、神の言葉の力です。聖書の一番初め、創世記の天地創造のところで、このように書かれています。‥‥「光あれ。こうして光があった」(創世記１:３)。神様が言葉によって宇宙とその中にあるすべてのものを作ったと書かれています。神さまが言葉を発せられるとその通りになる。このイエスさまの言葉は、そのような力のあることを示しています。
絶望はない
そのように、イエスさまがおっしゃれば、何も不可能なことはないということを教えられます。それで、私たちには絶望というものもなくなります。ひとたびイエスさまが、「若者よ、あなたに言う。起きなさい」と命じられると、死人さえも生き返ってものを言い始めたように、ひとたびイエスさまが、私たちの抱えている問題について言葉を発せられれば、それは解決されるのです。
そしてそれは、私たちが立派だからイエスさまがそうしてくださる、ということではありません。それはただイエスさまの憐れみによるのです。そしてイエスさまが憐れみ深い方であるということを感謝したいと思います。
主イエスは、母親に一人息子を返してくださいました。それは、私たちにとって、感謝と希望を返してくださったということだと私は思います。人の命は、いつか召されます。けれども、神さまは信仰によって、感謝と希望を返してくださるのです。
「若者よ、あなたに言う。起きなさい」（14節）。
この御言葉は、だれに向かって語られた言葉でしょう？ 直接には、亡くなった息子自身に語られています。けれども、そうではなくて、私は、一人息子を失った母親に、愛する者を失う悲しみを味わうことがある私たちに、語りかけられている言葉だなあ、と初めて気づかされました。
わたしはあなたに、希望と感謝を返そう。だから、あなたに言う。起きなさい。絶望と悲しみだけに支配されて、うずくまったままで終わらず、わたしを信じて、復活の希望と感謝を杖にして、起き上がり、立ち上がり、自分の命を生きて行きなさい。そう語りかけられているように感じます。
ーーーーーーーーーー今週から教会暦は「緑の季節」に入る。緑の季節は信仰の成長ということを考え、願い、求める季節である。
私たちはイエスのように死んだ人を生き返らせたり、病気を治したりすることはできません。けれども、イエスと同じ思いを持って接することはできるのです。家族をを失って悲しんでいる人に寄り添い、病気の人と時間を共有することはできます。そのように、この世で弱い立場にある人を中心に、皆が共に集うとき、イエスの共にいてくださいます。これが神の国の姿です。
もう一度今日の福音を読み返してみましょう。「町の人が大勢そばに付き添っていた」とあります。やもめであった母親は、おそらく収入もなく、貧しい暮らしをしていたことでしょう。町の人々が世話をしていたことが分かります。イエスはその有様にも心を揺さぶられたのではないでしょうか。そして、彼らのためにも奇跡を行われたのです。
5. ストーリーの再構成
イエスがナインという町の城門で遺体を城外に運び出す葬儀の行列と出会った。担架で担がれている遺体は若者らしい。そばでは母親とおぼしき女性が泣いている。行列には大勢の人たちが付き添っている。それを見ただけで、この親子がどれほど町の人々から愛されていたのか想像できる。その母親はやもめで、ひとり息子であったとのこと。死とは無惨なものである。息子を強制的に母親の手から奪い取ることを意味する。文字通り、息子の遺体は町の人々に担がれて城外に運び出される。それはもはや息子ではなく「物」である。人間が生きる世界においてはならない「物体」としての処理である。イエスは母親を見て、心が揺さぶられ「もう泣かなくともよい」と声をかけられた。泣かなくてもいい、といわれても泣かざるを得ないのが愛する者の死である。死の恐ろしさは強制的な分離ということであろう。今、まさに息子は人の生きる世界の外に運び出されようとしている。イエスは近づいて担架を運ぶものを制止し、「若者よ、あなたに言う。起きなさい」と言われた。すると、死人は起き上がってものを言い始めた。イエスは息子をその母親にお返しになった。息子は母親の手に戻ってきた。母親から見ると、強制的に奪われた息子が戻ってきた。
人々はこの情景を見て「恐れを抱き、神を賛美して、『大預言者が我々の間に現れた』と言い、また、『神はその民を心にかけてくださった』と言った」という。
6. メッセージ
普通なら、ここで死んだ者が生き返ったことに驚くであろう。もちろんここでもそのことを驚いているのには違いないが、そのことよりもむしろ人々は「神はその民を心にかけてくださった」ということに驚き、神を賛美し、叫び声を上げている。この「心にかける」という言葉は口語訳では「顧みる」という言葉になっており、単に気にしているとか、配慮したくれたというレベルのことにはとどまらない。昔、イスラエルの民がエジプトの奴隷として「死んだような」生活をしていたとき、彼らの祈りに応えて、神がモーセを選び、モーセを派遣したときに、人々が叫んだ言葉である（出エジプト4:31、2:25、3:16）。ルカはこの言葉をザカリアの賛歌の冒頭でも用いている。「主はその民を訪れて」（ルカ1:26）の「訪れ」がそれである。神が生きて働いている。ナインの若者の生き返りの出来事はこのことを語る。ここで注目すべきことは、この出来事を「神の訪れの出来事」として語っているのは著者ルカの主張であるということである。この奇跡、あの奇跡という一つ一つの奇跡が驚きではなく、今、ここにおける「神の訪れ」としてのイエスが生きているということが驚きなのである。ルカにとっての「いま、ここ」というのは過去のイエスの時代ではなく、「ルカの今」である。「死んだようになっていた息子」が生き返って母親の手に取り戻された出来事である。
(5) 13節でイエスは「主」と呼ばれています。使徒言行録2章36節に、「イスラエルの全家は、はっきり知らなくてはなりません。あなたがたが十字架につけて殺したイエスを、神は主とし、またメシアとなさったのです」とあります。イエスが「主」と呼ばれるのは、おもに復活後のことですが、ルカ福音書では地上で活動していたイエスについても「主」という言葉が使われています。これは、イエスが神と等しい権威と力を持っていることを表していて、今日の箇所でもまさにそういう意味で「主」と言われています。
この物語は、「貧しい人は福音を告げ知らされ」(22節)、イエスの愛に触れた人が絶望と死の暗闇から立ち上がるという、来るべきメシアの時代の始まりを示しています。わたしたちも今日、イエスによって始まったこの新しい時代を生きるよう招かれているのです。
-The Raising of the Son of the Widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17)
http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Miracles#The_Historicity_of_Jesus_Raising_the_Dead
As noted above, the story of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) comes from the special Lucan source, and so does not overlap with the Marcan or Johannine sources. Though Luke has redacted it to some extent (particularly, as we shall see, in adding his reference to “the Lord,” – “ho Kyrios”), the story has relatively simple lines for which there is significant evidence of a primitive source. The story follows the basic three-part standard form of a narrative of raising the dead:
(1) It begins with Jesus moving toward the gate of a small town a few miles south of Nazareth in Galilee. As Jesus approaches, He notices a dead man being brought by on a bier who was the only son of a widow. She was weeping. When Jesus sees her, He feels a very visceral compassion for her (esplagchnisthe), and in a very uncharacteristic move (falling outside the standard form of this kind of story), He does not await a request. Indeed, He does not seem to expect one because a request for a “raising to life” would have been quite beyond the imagination of His audience. Instead, He asks the mother not to weep, and then touches the bier, which incites the bearers to come to a halt.
(2) The miracle proper. The commissioning of the miracle recounts another uncharacteristic feature. Jesus does not touch the man. Instead, He works the miracle by His word alone. The words are important here, “Young man, to you I say, Arise.”[77] And, seemingly immediately, the dead man sits up and begins to speak, and Jesus gives him to his mother.
(3) Conclusion. Fear grips the crowd and they glorify God. The exclamation of the crowd is interesting. First they call Jesus “a great prophet,”[78] and then say that God has visited His people. This second exclamation is a favorite theme of Luke’s, and probably a Lucan redaction. The story concludes with a notation that word “spread through the whole of Judea and the surrounding country,” which is unusual because it goes beyond the Galilean locale.
Two major topics require attention in our pursuit of historicity: (1) redressing the charge that Luke has composed this story himself from stories of Elijah/Elisha (1 Kgs 17:7-24 and 2 Kgs 4:8-37), and/or the story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56), and (2) a consideration of four major indications of Luke’s reliance on and faithfulness to a more primitive story which he inherited from a Palestinian milieu.
(1) With respect to the first topic, Meier notes that the Nain story conforms quite snugly with many Lucan stylistic proclivities – most notably, Lucan vocabulary and LXX phrases.[79] This provokes the question of whether Luke may have simply taken several other traditions (such as the Elijah/Elisha cycle and/or the raising of the daughter of Jairus), and woven them together with his special compositional features. Meier responds to this at great length and concludes in the negative for several reasons.
First and foremost, there is no way that Luke could have borrowed a significant portion of any of the above-mentioned stories for the Nain story. There are simply too many differences. Thus, the Evangelist would have had to have composed his story by “abstracting bits and pieces eclectically from all the various stories, while leaving the core of each story behind.”[80] Needless to say, this would have been a very bizarre procedure which would have been very uncharacteristic of Luke. There are also several factors which militate against Luke borrowing too heavily from any of the above-mentioned stories.
With respect to the Elijah/Elisha stories (1 Kgs 17:7-24 and 2 Kgs 4:8-37), Meier notes that the prophets had a longstanding relationship with the two women they assisted, to the point where they could rebuke them for not helping. This is clearly not the case in the Lucan narrative where Jesus does not know the widow, is not asked by the widow to do anything, and is not expected by the widow to do anything, which allows Jesus the freedom to feel deep compassion for her and to respond to her need without request.
Furthermore, the prophets act alone (no one else is allowed in the room), and they use very physical techniques (such as lying on the corpse). Jesus, in contrast, acts in front of a huge crowd and does not try to restrict His audience in any way. He raises the man without any physical gesture (not even touching) by His command alone. Again, Elijah and Elisha pray to God while Jesus acts solely by His own authority (even emphasizing the fact that He is saying it, “Young man, I say to you, Arise.”). In conclusion, if Luke did borrow from the Elijah/Elisha stories, it would have been by way of vocabulary, phrases, or implication alone, because significant parallels are quite remote.[81]
We may notice the same kinds of differences between the Nain narrative and the one depicting the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56). Jairus comes to Jesus to make a request while the widow of Nain expects nothing; Jesus restricts His audience to the two parents and three of His disciples in the Jairus narrative, while He acts quite publicly in front of a large crowd in the Nain narrative; Jesus takes the hand of the little girl in the Jairus narrative, while He raises by His word alone in the Nain narrative; He is laughed to scorn by mourners in the Jairus narrative, while He receives great adulation from the crowd in the Nain narrative; and Jairus is named, while the widow remains anonymous. Meier points out that the only real similarity between the stories is that Jesus raises the child of a grieving parent.[82]
Thus, we arrive back at Meier’s original objection to the “copyist” theory – namely, that Luke would have had to have been borrowing bits and pieces quite eclectically from all three of the above-mentioned sources in order to derive but a small piece of his actual narrative. This is highly unlikely, prima facie.
(2) We may now move to our second topic, namely, Meier’s four major indications that Luke inherited a primitive Palestinian story to which he remained faithful (while adding some of his more characteristic redactions).
The first and most obvious indication is Luke’s mention of the town of Nain. As Meier notes, this town is very small and remote, and is never mentioned in the Old Testament, the New Testament (beyond this unique reference), the pre-Christian pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, or the Mishna.[83] When one considers that Luke did not have a very good grasp on the geography of Israel, one will want to ask how he had an intimate knowledge of this remote village, how he knew it had a gate (a fact which has only recently been confirmed by archeology[84]), and why he would have selected it for one of the greatest of Jesus’ miracles. Answer: he didn’t. The possibility of Luke inventing this town out of thin air is so remote that we should have confidence that he inherited it from a tradition whose author actually might have known where the town was. We would then want to ask the further question, why would any formulator of an oral tradition choose this remote town as the site for one of Jesus’ greatest miracles if that miracle had not in fact occurred there? If one were going to make up a miracle of this magnitude, why not place it in a better known Galilean town, say, Capernaum? Indeed, why get so specific? After all, if you choose a really small, remote town, just about everyone in that village is going to know that that miracle either occurred or did not occur in the locality. It does not make any sense from the vantage point of apologetics or falsifiability to select a small, remote town as the location for a spectacular miracle, if that miracle had not really occurred there. The fraud could be easily exposed. However, it is very fortuitous for historians that a miracle should have occurred there, because it provides remarkable confirmatory evidence of the miracle’s actually having occurred.
Meier’s second indication concerns Semitisms. Once again, he relies on Gérard Rochais’ analysis of Semitisms underlying the Greek text.[85] The most obvious Semitism is the presence of parataxis (stringing together multiple simple sentences with “and”) throughout the narrative. Luke, as a very fine Greek stylist, probably abhorred the style, and certainly tried to eliminate it when appropriate. It can scarcely be imagined that he would have introduced this intentionally into his own freestanding work. Secondly, the clause kai autē ēn chēra (“and she was a widow”) in Luke 17:12, corresponds neatly to a circumstantial clause in Aramaic,[86] but much less so in Greek. Thirdly, the Greek verb “exerchomai” (which means literally, “to go out”) is not used to refer to a report spreading; the only way of making sense of this is to see exerchomai used as a translation of the Hebrew verb yāsā or the Aramaic verb nĕpaq (which occurs in the Septuagint).[87] As Meier notes, none of these Semitisms by itself can be considered definitive of an Aramaic substratum; however, when all of them are combined (along with other minor Semitisms), the Aramaic backdrop is almost undeniable. It seems likely, therefore, that Luke inherited a tradition which had a very old Palestinian background, and which referred to the town of Nain, which very probably went back to the ministry of Jesus (for the reasons mentioned above).
Meier’s third indication of an older pre-Lucan narrative concerns the title used for Jesus after the miracle is complete: “He is a great prophet.”[88] This expression would have been quite appropriate for a Jewish audience during Jesus’ ministry which had little knowledge of Jesus beyond this spectacular miracle. They may well have seen Him in light of Elijah or Elisha who were designated as “great prophets.” However, this designation is completely surpassed two years later after Jesus’ resurrection and gift of the Spirit, the formation of the Church, and the Church’s proclamation of Him as “the Lord.” “Great prophet” doesn’t come anywhere near what the early Church thought of Jesus. In light of this, one might think that Luke would be tempted to simply replace the title “great prophet” with something a little more meaningful, such as “Messiah,” or perhaps “the One who is to come;” but he does not. He leaves the inferior title on the lips of Jesus’ audience and, quite subtly, puts his own high Christological title, “the Lord,” three verses earlier as part of the narrative. This is a rather remarkable turn of events, for no other Evangelist uses the title “the Lord” of Jesus during His ministry.[89] Even more interesting is the fact that this miracle marks the first use of “the Lord” in Luke’s Gospel after which he continues to use it to designate the true status of Jesus during His ministry.
When one considers Luke’s conviction about Jesus’ true status (as communicated in this particular miracle), it cannot be imagined that he would have intentionally introduced the title “great prophet” to designate Jesus after so spectacular an occurrence. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke inherited this title from an earlier oral tradition which probably went back to the time of Jesus’ ministry. This would have been the title which a Jewish audience would have been likely to use, but not one that would have come readily to any Christian author’s mind. Luke apparently respected the tradition he was using, and so decided to keep it; but made his Christological “correction” three verses earlier with the high Christological title “the Lord.”
Meier’s fourth indication of a pre-Lucan narrative concerns Luke’s avoidance of literary doublets. Luke’s literary proclivity is shown by his refusal to take both of Mark’s stories for the feeding of the four thousand and the feeding of the five thousand, preferring to keep only the second. It is shown again by his preferring to replace the anointing at Bethany with his own special tradition of an anointing of Jesus’ feet, instead of using both narratives.[90] This stylistic proclivity is carried out in other ways throughout the Lucan Gospel, which provokes the question, why would Luke have added this “raising of the dead” narrative to his Gospel when he intended to also include the Marcan narrative of the raising of Jairus’ daughter one chapter later. In addition to this, Luke apparently feels no compunction to multiply miracle stories or raising from the dead stories. Indeed, none of the Evangelists do. So why would Luke have created a doublet when in every other circumstance he eliminates them? The answer very likely is that he felt that the narrative tradition he inherited was true, he noticed the differences that existed between it and the Jairus narrative, and he was taken by the reference to Jesus’ compassion which was at least implied in the pre-Lucan narrative.
Conclusion. When one considers the totality of the evidence for a pre-Lucan narrative, particularly the naming of the remote, small village of Nain, the multiplicity of Semitisms, the use of the outmoded title, “great prophet” for Jesus, and the addition of a doublet (rather than the elimination of one), it does not seem likely that Luke invented this narrative. Indeed, the very thought seems quite ludicrous, because he probably had no knowledge of the town of Nain (let alone its gate), he certainly would not have used parataxis and other awkward Greek expressions instead of his elegant Greek style, he certainly would not have invented a completely inadequate Christological title (after his addition of a more appropriate one), and finally, it is barely conceivable that he would have added a doublet simply to “stick in” another “raising the dead” narrative of his own making.
Yet, the above evidence does not stop at indicating a pre-Lucan narrative. It proceeds further back to the public ministry of Jesus Himself. This is indicated first by the naming of the town of Nain, which no Christian author would have invented as the place for one of Jesus’ greatest miracles (because of the town’s smallness, remoteness, obscurity, and capacity to produce falsifiability); and secondly, the use of a completely inadequate Christological title for Jesus (which only makes sense on the lips of a Jewish audience at the time of Jesus’ public ministry, but could hardly be thought to have been invented by a later Christian author). These reasons alone are sufficient to build a strong circumstantial case in favor of the historicity of this miracle. We now have a second very probable case given by a different source than Mark (i.e., special Luke) giving further confirmation to the historicity of Jesus raising the dead.
Before moving to the Johannine account of the raising of Lazarus, there are two final points worth mentioning. First, Jesus performs this remarkable miracle by His own authority. As noted above, Jesus is quite different from Elijah and Elisha in that He does not pray to God to perform the miracle, but rather, gives the command to raise the man by His own authority. Not only does He give the command “young man, arise,” but puts in an emphatic “I say to you.” This additional phrase places the emphasis on Jesus performing the miracle by His own authority.
It is difficult to determine whether this emphatic “I say to you” is a Lucan redaction, or dates back to a more primitive tradition. If it dates back to a more primitive tradition (or even to Jesus Himself), it would call attention to Jesus’ radical departure from Elijah and Elisha and from the Jewish tradition altogether. If it is a Lucan redaction, then one can be sure that Luke recognized the unique character of Jesus’ command, power, and authority, and wanted to emphasize it. In either case, the command with the emphatic “I say to you” reveals that Jesus believed He possessed in Himself the power and authority which was thought to belong to God alone. But He more than believed this; He demonstrated it because His word was in fact efficacious; it did in fact raise to life; and thus, God’s power and authority was intrinsic to Jesus, and not merely working through Jesus. This radical departure from Judaism; this power of God intrinsic to Jesus; this implicit claim to be “with God” so completely that God’s power and authority is Jesus’ own power and authority, is a remarkable confirmation of His divine sonship and the breaking through of God’s kingdom. This implicit self-revelation of Jesus’ true identity will be taken up again in the conclusion to this Unit.
One final point should be discussed at this juncture, namely, the reference to the compassion of Jesus. This, of course, is a favorite Lucan theme, and so it may well be a Lucan redaction. Even if it is a Lucan redaction, it has great relevance, because Luke was justified in calling attention to Jesus’ compassion in this particular narrative. The primitive story speaks of Jesus approaching the town of Nain, and seeing a young man being brought out on a bier and his mother weeping beside him (without any additional sons). Jesus stops the bier and gives the command which restores life to the young man. If no report on Jesus’ feeling had been given by the primitive tradition, what other feeling could Luke have appropriately attributed to Jesus in this scene? Compassion seems most appropriate. Now, if Luke did not inherit the specific word used for compassion in this narrative, we should assume that he selected it because of its excellent fit and his deep sense of Jesus’ feelings. The word used in this case is esplagchnusthē (from splagchnon), which, according to Strong’s Concordance,Strong’s Numbers #4698, (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4698.htm).</ref> has the general meaning of “the bowels, which were thought to be the seat of the deeper affections, and could refer to pity or sympathy –inward affection, tender mercy.” Luke (or the tradition upon which he relied) has chosen a most visceral (gut-wrenching) way to portray Jesus’ feelings of “tender mercy” toward this widow. If we acknowledge the appropriateness of this word selection (particularly in light of the circumstances surrounding the narrative, and the author’s awareness of Jesus) it would give us a very concrete insight into Jesus’ feelings, empathy, and love. This insight will give concreteness and feeling to our forthcoming discussion of the unconditional Love of God in Part Two of this book.
Without being present in 1st century Palestine with appropriate scientific equipment and knowledge, it is very difficult to get beyond the domain of common sense. But then again, common sense is not altogether hapless and unreliable. Perhaps a little more of it could lead to even better judgments about the meaning of life and the value of the human person. In the meantime, I would suggest that using it with respect to the case of Jesus’ miracles leads at least to the probabilistic conclusion that Jesus instantaneously cured the blind, the deaf, the mute, the paralyzed, lepers, and yes, He even raised people from the dead.
The prophetic tradition of raising from the dead is very rare indeed, and is found, of course, in the two great prophets who best characterize precursors to Jesus: Elijah and Elisha. The two accounts of raising the dead in 1Kgs 17:7-24 and 2Kgs 4:8-37 are very explicit about Elijah and Elisha praying to God and being the instruments of God’s power by prostrating themselves on the corpses of the people they intended to raise. We must presume that the formulators of the primitive Christian traditions had some acquaintance with these well-known Elijah-Elisha stories, but it is clear that they ignore them and formulate their own independent primitive stories on the basis of a most peculiar assertion – namely, that Jesus raises the dead by His own word, power, and authority. Such a radical departure from the prophetic tradition, and indeed, from the whole of second-Temple Judaism, would be very unlikely even in a single Christian narrative, having a single author, a single historical incident, and a single location. But three? Three different primitive traditions (originating in three different locales, grounded in three different historical incidents, with three different authors) all having the same radical departure from the prophetic tradition and second-Temple Judaism? The odds of this occurring without some similar historical root are exceedingly low! Yet this is what we find; and so we are compelled to conclude that there was a similar historical root, namely, Jesus who issued the command to raise from the dead by His own word, power, and authority. It seems, then, that the historical Jesus really did raise individuals from the dead through His own power and authority, and so confirmed that the power and authority of God was intrinsic to Him. If this analysis is correct, then we will have drawn quite close to the manifestation of His divinity not only in His resurrection and gift of the Spirit, but also in His ministry.
------
What follows is a brief synopsis of the criteria and methods used to corroborate the likely validity of historical texts. It focuses primarily on the New Testament, and can be applied to Brown’s and Meier’s assessment of the historicity of the miracles (Unit II-F), as well as Wright’s, Brown’s, and Jeremiahs’ assessments of the historicity of Jesus’ Eucharist, Passion, and statements about Himself and His mission (Units II-G,L,&M). We will begin with the four most commonly used criteria of historicity:
1. Multiple attestation,
2. Discontinuity,
3. Coherence, and
4. Sufficient and Necessary Explanation
The Criterion of Discontinuity. There are two major applications of discontinuity: (1) any saying or action of Jesus which is discontinuous with the attitudes, theology, or sayings of second-Temple Judaism[7] show signs of historicity because Jesus had sufficient authority to break with that tradition; (2) any saying or action attributed to Jesus which may be viewed as undeveloped (because the early Church’s theology had developed in light of His resurrection and gift of the Spirit) also shows signs of historicity, because there is no reason why the early Church would have preserved an undeveloped theology except in deference to Jesus’ having uttered it.[8] This may also be extended to actions or sayings which the early Church would have found embarrassing, apologetically unappealing, disrespectful to Jesus, or disrespectful to the apostles. This criterion works particularly well in combination with multiple attestation, because multiple attestation can help to identify high probability of an origin in the early Palestinian Church or the historical Jesus; so when there is both multiple attestation and discontinuity from early Judaism and/or the early Church, it is difficult to find another source besides Jesus having sufficient authority to explain their placement within the Gospels.
Note that the converse is once again fallacious. Just because a story or saying is continuous with early second-Temple Judaism and the theology of the early Church does not mean that it is non-historical (to conclude otherwise would again be the fallacy of negating the antecedent).
Meier, John P. 1990(a). “Jesus.” (In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed by Brown, Fitzmyer, and Murphy. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), pp. 1316-1328.
---. 1990(b). Matthew. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
---. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1. (New York: Doubleday).
---. 1994. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 2. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. (New York: Doubleday).-------
No comments:
Post a Comment