About
My name is Matthew Larsen and I am currently pursuing a master’s degree in New Testament studies. My scholarly interests are largely driven by my own questions regarding Christian origins as I interact with the earliest sources we have for the Jesus movement, particularly bringing the tools of both a historical critic and a literary critic to bear of the Synoptic Gospels. At bottom, I list my own research interests as follows: the Gospel of Mark, the historical Jesus, narrative criticism, oral Jesus tradition, social memory, and early Jewish-Christian relations—in particular, the process by which the Jesus movement was transmogrified from a reform movement thoroughly entrenched within Judaism into a Gentile-oriented sect in it’s own right.
I am happily married to Lauren Larsen and the proud father of Life Larsen. Lauren is a photographer and her work can be seen at www.laurenlarsen.com. In my (very sparse) free time, I enjoy cooking, working out, traveling with my wife, and playing with my daughter.
This blog will serve as an academic outlet for me to interact with others and express my thoughts, so please feel free to comment and help me become a better student of Jesus.
Pax,
ML
twitter: http://twitter.com/themattlarsen
facebook: http://facebook.com/mdlarsen
[...] D. Larsen’s NT Studies Blog. Matthew is a graduate student in Jewish Studies, and some of his major, academic interests include studying the synoptics, the historical Jesus, and early Jewish-Christian relations with, [...]
Ok, so i happened upon your blog while searching for anything on the Progymnasmata. I am a homeschooling mom, who is trying to educate my children in the classical style and a christian worldview. I am interested in your blog, but am curious also about what exactly you believe. Would you call yourself a christian, and if so what does that mean to you? I am in no way trying to be confrontational or argumentative, just curious. I am trying to learn to be a thinking christian, and know what, and why I believe. Your blog really interests me.
Christine:
Yes, I identify as a Christian. I do hope you find my writing to be of good use. However, I must add that this blog is not intended to be a devotionally or pastorally edifying endeavor. Rather, it is my attempt to ask historical questions about the origins of the early Jesus movement. Hence, I attempt to use the tools of a historian and a literary critic to ascertain what can be historically asserted. At bottom, I am not so much asking faith-questions—or even theology-questions—as I am history-questions (though obviously it would be foolish to assume that one can fully separate these things, as they are clearly concatenated).
I hope you find this blog to be a helpful resource as you attempt to educate and train your own children.
Pax,
ML
Hey, Matt, it’s been a while. Hope things have been well. I’m a little confused on the “Judeo-Christian” worldview that you mentioned. Is there somewhere on here where you expound more on what that means??
Hey Don:
Good question. We all have worldviews and I operate under the worldview of the story told in the Hebrew Bible: there is a Creator who made things well (i.e. there is a way things ought to be), humans rebellion is the source of the brokenness of his creation, and the Creator will make things right again in his creation. As a Christian, I believe this happens through Jesus. I find this to be important because it draws a distinction between what I believe and many other expressions of Christianity that for all practical intents and purposes more Gnostic-Christian than Judeo-Christian.
However, your question caused to think through whether or not this term could be easily misunderstood. Well, I went to that unquestioned source of wisdom—Wikipedia—and found that the term “Judeo-Christian” does have a rather wide range of meaning (even some political ones!), not all of which I would choose to identify with. So, in response to your question, I will be removing this phrase from my earlier response. Thanks for your dialogue, Don.
Ok, that makes sense…though to me, that’s simply Christianity, lol.
Am I safe in assuming that Gnostic-Christianity is the idea that the world was created bad physically, but not spiritually, or something to that effect??
Matthew,
This blog is a blessing, and I am thoroughly impressed by your scholarly diligence and well thought out dialogue. I have been recently looking into the gnostic gospels, and q document theory, to a small degree, and will be reading your blogs with much interest. I am glad that you are offering this resource, as I am deeply curious to the origins and development of the Christianity.
James
Matthew, yes, I’m the James R. Butts who did the translation of Theon for his dissertation at Claremont. I’d be interested in knowing more about the direction you are moving in with regard to ancient rhetorical teaching and understanding early Christian writings. And thank you for the acknowledgement in your posts.
Wow! Dr. Butts, what a pleasure to see you here. I am honored to have you comment on my blog.
Listening to B. Gerhardsson’s critique of Bultmannian form criticism, I hope to utilize the oral-rhetorical tools to get behind a text and into the oral tradition behind it. Building on the work of M. Moeser’s, S. Byrskog, et al, I would like to read the Gospel of Mark in light of the ancient oral-rhetorical χρεία as well as διήγησις to better uncover the oral Jesus tradition behind the Gospel of Mark. This seems to be a growing and promising field of study (something akin to a new Formgeschichte).
I would love to hear your thoughts—perhaps there or via email—on how you see ancient rhetorical teaching and understanding early Christian writings intersecting and where the trajectory is heading.
Are you familiar with Barry Henaut’s, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4? Published by Sheffield Academic Press in 1993. If so, I’d be interested in knowing what you think of his heavy critique of Gerhardsson’s work, and essentially his argument that we lack the critical tools to reconstruct the oral phase of Christian tradition in any meaningful fashion. (See page 295 in his conclusion.) Henaut also does a knowledgable critique of Bultmann and Werner Kelber (who, of course, also takes on Gerhardsson), as well as various different takes on folkloric analysis. And one of Byrskog’s ideas, namely, “re-oralization,” also seems to be a significant issue in clearly distinguishing between oral and literary, or traditional and textual. Now, I haven’t given much systematic thought recently to the question of the nexus (and I choose that word specifically for its textual ambiguity regarding singular and plural) between the oral and the literary in early Christian tradition, but Henaut’s argument and Byrskog’s “re-oralization” might suggest a way to enrich and clarify (through complication) our re-construction of early Christian tradition, as well as our mining of such works as Theon’s Progymnasmata in that effort.
I’ve always thought that the chreia in Mark 12:14-17//Matthew 16:21//Luke 20:21-25//Thomas 100 presents a possible foundation for suggesting a matrix of criteria for teasing out hints of the interplay and vagaries of orality/traditional versus literary/textual that might create glimpses of the tradition from Jesus (the “fox” a la Burton Mack) through a “sayings source” (Q/Thomas) into Matthew and Luke. I’ve never had the chance, however, to pursue that thought in any sort of systematic way. I doubt that I ever will.