|
The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research is a consortium of Jewish and Christian scholars that study the Synoptic Gospels in light of the historic, linguistic and cultural milieu of Jesus.〔(Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. Retrieved 05 Nov. 2006 )〕 The beginnings of the collegial relationships that formed the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research can be traced back to a Jewish scholar and a Christian scholar, respectively David Flusser and Robert L. Lindsey in the 1960s.〔"A Tribute to Robert L. Lindsey, Ph. D. (1917-1995) and his work...:Excerpt from November 1996 Tree of Life Quarterly Membership Magazine", HaY'Did. Retrieved 05 Nov. 2006. ()〕 For the past 50 years, ‘Christian scholars fluent in Hebrew and living in the land of Israel have collaborated with Jewish scholars to examine Jesus’ sayings from a Judaic and Hebraic perspective’. ==Viewpoints== The consortium's own website states three assumptions, shared by its members, namely, "1) the importance of Hebrew language, 2) the relevance of Jewish culture", and 3) the significance of Semitisms underneath sections of the Synoptic Gospels that in turn often yield results to the interconnection (of dependence) between the Synoptic Gospels.〔"Methodology." Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. Retrieved 26 Sep. 2009. ()〕 (These three assumptions, and not one synoptic theory, are the shared presuppositions of Jerusalem School members.) The first two assumptions are perhaps not shared by the majority of New Testament scholars, but are neither considered to be fringe positions. Today, the common view is that Jesus and His milieu spoke Aramaic, however that Hebrew was spoken and even important is not unique to the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research.〔As early as the beginning of the 20th century, we already have: Moses Hirsch Segal ''Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic. A Grammatical Study ... Reprinted from the Jewish Quarterly Review for July'' Horace Hart: Oxford, 1909.〕 Many more New Testament Scholars worldwide have increasingly affirmed the importance of Jewish culture for the understanding of Jesus. John P. Meier is exemplary of this significant trend when he poignantly criticizes scholarship in the twentieth century that has paid lip service to the 'Jewish Jesus' but has not really fleshed this out, stating that if we do not have a halachic Jesus, we don't have an historical Jesus.〔Meier "rejects a major academic failure of Jesus research: mouthing respect for Jesus' Jewishness while avoiding like the plague the beating heart of that Jewishness: the Torah in all its complexity. However bewildering the positions Jesus sometimes takes, he emerges from this volume as a Palestinian Jew engaged in the legal discussions and debates proper to his time and place. It is Torah and Torah alone that puts flesh and bones on the spectral figure of "Jesus the Jew." No halakic Jesus, no historical Jesus. This is the reason why many American books on the historical Jesus may be dismissed out of hand: their presentation of lst-century Judaism and especially of Jewish Law is either missing in action or so hopelessly skewed that it renders any portrait of Jesus the Jew distorted from the start. It is odd that it has taken American scholarship so long to absorb this basic insight: either one takes Jewish Law seriously and "gets it right" or one should abandon the quest for the historical Jesus entirely.....The patient reader of Volume Four of A Marginal Jew may at this juncture be sick unto death of the mantra, 'the historical Jesus is the halakic Jesus.' But at least such readers have been inoculated for life against the virus that induces legal amnesia in most Americans writing on Jesus. The halakic dimension of the historical Jesus is never exciting but always essential." John P. Meier, "Conclusion to Volume Four" in A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume IV: Law and Love, (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library: Yale University Press, 2009), 648 and 649.〕 The third assumption of the Jerusalem School basically seems to be concerned with not holding to an assumed-default position of Markan priority. It is especially the third assumption in more individually pronounced forms that has invited a response of the academic community. Some scholars have perceived the Jerusalem School as a group that holds to Lukan Priority.〔Among others: Delbert Royce Burkett, ''Rethinking the Gospel sources: from proto-Mark to Mark'', T&T Clark: NY, 4. Beate Ego,Armin Lange,Peter Pilhofer, ''Gemeinde ohne Tempel /Community without Temple'', Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Mohr Siebeck: Tubingen, 462n2〕 But this perception is incomplete since it is only Robert Lindsey and David Bivin who have argued strongly for Lukan priority. The third methodological assumption of the Jerusalem School is much broader and open, without any one theory being affirmed: Many scholars affirm Semitic quality of the Synoptic Gospel material as indicative of earlier material, but how to determine Semitic quality has been hotly debated. Recently this subject of a Hebrew Gospel and Semitic material has been discussed by James R. Edwards (although with somewhat differing results than Jerusalem School members).〔James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.〕 The most extensive Jerusalem School publication on Semitic material and types of Semitic interference can be found in an extended essay and appendix (critical notes) in Jesus' Last Week (Leiden: Brill, 2006).〔Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica. "Temple Authorities and Tithe-Evasion: The Linguistic Background and Impact of the Parable of the Vineyard Tenants and the Son." Pages 53-80 (essay), 259-317 (Critical Notes) in Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies on the Synoptic Gospels, Volume 1. Edited by R. S. Notley, B. Becker, and M. Turnage. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 11. Leiden: Brill, 2006.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|