Jesus and the minjung revisited: The Legacy of Ahn Byung-Mu (1922-1996)

2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Volker Küster

AbstractAhn Byung-Mu was not only one of the leading theological thinkers of 20th century Korea, a mediator between Western, especially German theological tradition and Korean Christianity, but also a persistent regime critique under South Korea's development dictatorship of the 1970s and 80s. Originally a New Testament scholar he also became one of the founding fathers of minjung theology by giving this political theology in the Korean context a biblical foundation. In his studies on the Gospel of Mark, Ahn advocates the thesis that German historical-critical exegesis viewed the Markan ochlos from the perspective of form criticism as a dramatic element similar to the “antique choir”, thereby failing to acknowledge its social and theological significance. In contrast, he emphasizes Jesus' unconditional commitment to the ochlos, which is displayed in the Gospel of Mark. The Galilean ochlos, an amorphous, and in its membership varying group of people from the Galilean lower class, is the addressee of Jesus' mission. The article reconstructs Ahn Byung Mu's theological way of thinking and tackles the question how his legacy can be re-contextualized.

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-84
Author(s):  
Hans-Josef Klauck

Abstract A hundred years ago, in 1919–1922, the groundbreaking works on form-criticism appeared, mainly independent of each other. This means that it is time for a retrospect and an evaluation. The article starts with the forerunners, especially Johann Gottlieb Herder and Hermann Gunkel, but also some others. Then main paragraphs are devoted to each of the five protagonists: Martin Dibelius, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Rudolph Bultmann, Martin Albertz and Georg Bertram. Their foundational form-critical studies are discussed and contextualized within their lives and their literary output. In the case of Dibelius, more attention than usual is given to the important differences between the first (1919) and the second edition (1933) of his “Formgeschichte” that was decisive for creating the terminology. The little known political options that Bertram favored are criticized. The final section draws some lines from the early 20th century to the present days.


Author(s):  
Allan Metcalf

This book is about the name “Guy” and its slow, mostly unnoticed development over four centuries since it began on November 5, 1605, with the suddenly famous Guy Fawkes, who was arrested just in time just before he could light the fuse on 36 barrels of gunpowder to blow up the House of Lords. During those four centuries, “Guy” became “guy,” the name for an effigy of Guy Fawkes burned at bonfires every November 5 since. The effigy was called a “guy,” so that more than one effigy would be “guys,” Then, slowly, “guy” extended its signification into a name for a ragged, lower-class male, then any strangely dressed male, then a neutral everyday word for just any male, a “guy.” To top it off, the 20th century extended the plural “guys” or “you guys” to include all human beings, even women speaking to groups of women. None of these developments were made deliberately; the word just quietly slipped by, except for opposition from some Southerners and feminists who objected to it on the grounds that it wasn’t “y’all” and it wasn’t gender neutral. It has become all the more entrenched because now it’s the standard second-person plural pronoun for most of us who speak English.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-86
Author(s):  
Jens Dörpinghaus

Zusammenfassung Markus 14,27-28; 16,7 und Lukas 24,49 bzw. Apostelgeschichte 1,4 sprechen jeweils unterschiedliche Erwartungen für die Erscheinungsorte des Auferstandenen aus und insbesondere für das Verbleiben der Jünger. Markus spricht von Galiläa als Erscheinungsort, nach Lukas 24,49 sollen die Jünger jedoch in Jerusalem bleiben. Dieses Spannungsfeld wird häufig durch Methoden der Form- und Traditionskritik untersucht. Hier soll dieser Ansatz nicht nur diskutiert, sondern es sollen auch die theologischen Implikationen untersucht werden. Anhand eines neuen literarisch-chronologischen Ordnungsversuchs in den Evangelien kann herausgearbeitet werden, dass sich beide Aussagen auf die Nachfolge der Jünger Jesu in bestimmten Abschnitten der Zeit vor und nach der Auferstehung Jesu und seiner Himmelfahrt beziehen. Damit findet sich eine neue Perspektive auf die nachösterliche Nachfolge im Neuen Testament.SummaryMark 14:27-28 and 16:7 on the one hand and Luke 24:49 with Acts 1:4 on the other hand mention different locations where the disciples will meet Jesus after the resurrection or where they should stay. Mark mentions Galilee, Luke Jerusalem. Most scholars try to solve this conflict with the methods of form criticism or tradition criticism. This article discusses the shortcomings of this approach and discusses the resulting theological implications for both Jerusalem and Galilee. It introduces a new literary approach for ordering the post-resurrection appearances in the Gospels and Acts. The results provide new perspectives on discipleship in the period after Easter in the New Testament.RésuméMarc 14:27-28 et 16:7 d’un côté et Luc 24:49 avec Actes 1:4 de l’autre mentionnent différents lieux où les disciples rencontreront Jésus après la résurrection ou devront attendre. Marc cite la Galilée, Luc Jérusalem. La plupart des exégètes s’efforcent de résoudre ce conflit en recourant aux méthodes de la critique des formes ou de la tradition. Cet article traite des faiblesses de cette approche et aborde les implications théologiques qui en résultent pour à la fois Jérusalem et la Galilée. Il introduit une nouvelle approche littéraire pour ordonner les apparitions post-résurrection dans l’Évangile et les Actes. Les résultats ouvrent de nouvelles perspectives sur le discipulat en cette période importante du Nouveau Testament.


2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (101) ◽  
pp. 182-202
Author(s):  
Jørgen Holmgaard

Eller: Håndværkeren og filosoffen Phenomenology and StructuralismThis paper traces the changes in the French phenomenologist Merleau- Ponty’s ideas of language and cognition during the 1940s and 50s. In the mid-40s he is under the spell of the new French Hegel interpretation heralded by Alexandre Kojève and Jean Hippolyte since the late 1930s. Gradually, as Cl. Lévi-Strauss, starting in the late 1940s, demonstrates that he is able to rejuvenate the Durkheim-Mauss tradition in French intellectual life by way of inspirations from structuralist linguistics, Merleau-Ponty takes up reading Saussure and other founding fathers of structuralism. By 1960, when he welcomes Lévi-Strauss into the Collège de France, Merleau-Ponty seems to be close to a structuralist concept of language. But then again, in 1962 young Derrida presents a radical re-reading of Husserl leading up to his well-known attack a few years later on Lévi-Strauss and structuralism, thus swinging back the pendulum between two competing strands in French thought in the 20th century.


1978 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert T. Fortna

Some recent redaction-critical work on Mark's passion narrative has questioned the existence of a pre-Markan passion account. This in turn has suggested another look at the relation between the gospels of Mark and John. Norman Perrin has put it plainly:For a long time the general opinion of New Testament scholars was that the passion narrative existed as a connected unit before the gospel of Mark was written, and it was easy and natural to think that John had known and used a version of that pre-Markan narrative rather than the gospel of Mark. But today the tendency is to ascribe more and more of the composition of the passion narrative to the evangelist Mark himself and to doubt the very existence of a pre-Markan and non-Markan passion narrative extensive enough to have been the basis for the gospel of John. A particular consideration is the fact that the trial before the High Priest (John 18: 19–24) is set in the context of the denial by Peter (18: 15–18, 25–7), as it is also in the gospel of Mark. But there is a strong case that Mark himself originally composed this account of the trial at night before the Jewish authorities and then set it in the context of the story of Peter's denial. If this is so, the evangelist John must necessarily have known the gospel of Mark.


2021 ◽  

Umm Kulthum was probably the most famous singer in the Arab world during the 20th century, and among the most highly regarded for her command of poetic texts and the historic Arab musical system brought together in affective performances, working closely with accomplished poets and composers of her day. She became a public figure in general, certainly in the later decades of her life, when she became closely associated with then president Jamal ‘Abd al-Nasir of Egypt and spoke frequently about her love for her country and its people. Born to a poor village family in the Egyptian delta, her background resembled that of millions of her compatriots. She was raised in an agrarian setting. Her father was the imam of the local mosque. Like many children of her generation, she attended Qurʾan school (kuttāb), which was among the few educational opportunities for lower-class children under the then British occupation. She learned to sing by mimicking her father and her brother, who sang religious songs for weddings and special occasions to make additional money. Her strong voice drew great attention. She moved to Cairo in about 1923 to advance her career. Thanks to her performances and commercial recordings, her career took off, and by the late 1920s she had become wildly successful. Films and live broadcasts followed in the 1930s. In the 1940s, like many Egyptians, she began to express the shared dismay at the continued British presence during World War II, the corruption of the Egyptian government, and the war in Palestine. After the Egyptian Revolution in 1952, she, again like many of her cohort, expressed support for the revolutionary government in song and speech and, later, for ‘Abd al-Nasir himself. Her musical style changed over the years as she continually cultivated new listeners. Owing to the wide dissemination of her recordings, the powerful Egyptian radio-broadcasting capacity, and her touring, she became well known and popular throughout the Arab world. After the Egyptian defeat in the 1967 war with Israel, she launched a successful series of benefit concerts designed to replenish the Egyptian war department’s treasury. When she died in 1975, it was said that her funeral was bigger than ‘Abd al-Nasir’s had been. Probably owing to her stature as a public figure, most publications about Umm Kulthum have been biographical in nature, as writers attempted to document her life, her social impact, and the reasons for her various successes. She rarely sought an audience outside the world of Arabic speakers, and she was little known in the West until the late 20th century, with the burgeoning interest in “world music.”


Living Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Miguel Vatter

This chapter situates Jewish political theology as a discourse developed in the 20th century, mainly by German Jewish thinkers. It sets out the basic differences between this analysis and the discourse on political theology developed by Carl Schmitt, centered on the need for absolute sovereignty to “restrain” disorder and revolutionary upheavals. The chapter argues that Jewish political theology offers an alternative conception of divine sovereignty and its implications for democracy and revolution. Jewish political theology is both republican and anarchic, attached to the idea of a higher law above human sovereignty and to the egalitarian ideal of a politics beyond domination. This chapter presents the two analytical-conceptual guiding-threads of the investigation. The first is concerned with Max Weber’s category of charismatic leadership and the problem of its functioning within a constitutional idea of democratic legitimacy. The second guiding-thread is concerned with the process of secularization. This chapter argues that Jewish political theology reconceives divine providence in order to criticize the assumption of human progress in and through history.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document