dost

Hello

I am unable to get hold of the following source:

D.E. Nineham, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries: Saint Mark [Penguin Books, Baltimore MY; Reprinted edition 1967]

I just need to know how Nineham interprets the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard = p. 309. I understand he accepts the parable's "essential" authenticity, but how does he interpret it? By this I mean, does he conclude on the basis of this parable that the historical Jesus did view himself as the Unique and Divine Son of God - "the Son of God"? Or is his conclusion that Jesus saw himself as "a son" or simply "son"?

Thanks in advance.

Toto

Amazon in the US claims to have used copies for $1 or more (if this is the book, which it appears to be)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

Or try other sites from bookfinder:

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Saint_Mark/0664213448/

yalla

Nineham p 309

"The parable itself has generally been taken as allegory...the son and heir for Jesus....the authenticity of this parable has been widely doubted...behaviour of the characters seems very improbable...there can be no doubt that St.Mark and his contemporaries understood the story in this allegorical fashion..neverthe less...possible to maintain ...essentially an authentic parable ...reasonable accuracy...
But was there originally any reference to Jesus himself? Dodd thinks there was....but....the reference to the son [note: not capitalised]would be a natural addition for Christians to make... "

I cannot see where Nineham directly considers the question of JC viewing himself as SOG and get the impression that he does not relate the parable/ allegory directly to JC at all.

I suspect the [deliberate?] ambiguity is related to the problem that if considered as allegory, then the story is clearly post 70ce..where the owner [god] who destroys the tenants [ Jews/temple] and gives the vineyard [Israel]to others [Christians] where the cornerstone [JC] rejected by the Jews has become the head.

dost

Hi Toto and yalla

Toto - I just placed an order for the commentary...thanks for bringing the price to my attention!

Yalla - Thanks a lot for the clarification and explanation. Just a slight query:

"Dodd thinks there was....but....the reference to the son [note: not capitalised]would be a natural addition for Christians to make... "

So Nineham believes that the reference to the son would be a natural addition for Christians to make, or is this Dodd's view? If Dodd's, then does Nineham explain his own view i.e., does he believe that the reference to the son (or a son) was a later addition or used by Jesus himself? Anyway, hopefully I should receive the commentary soon you do not have to trouble yourself further

I've been reading a bit on this parable in the books that I have. There seem to be three views: 1. it is entirely authentic. 2. It is a post-easter creation. 3. the form in Mark is a development, with an earlier form preserved in Thomas. 2 and 3 seem to be the view of most scholars, with most modern scholars going along with 3.

I was curious about Nineham after reading the following article:

http://answering-islam.org/Responses...y/tenants2.htm

according to which (scroll towards the end), Nineham accepts the passage as "essentially authentic", which, presumably, means he regards the reference to the son to be authentic.

Another interesting reference mentioned in the above paper is: Eschatalogy, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, ed. [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan/Cambridge, 1997], p. 99. I'll see if my local library has it...

Again, thanks for the helpful comments, much appreciated.

Toto

Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, V. 1)