A book I used to use in this course contains a chapter that I believe is the finest treatment of Jesus' miracles from a historical critical point of view. The item in question is The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders (1993), Chapter 10, "Miracles." I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but rather than being dismissive of Jesus' miracles or attempting to completely rationalize them out of existence, Sanders does attempt to grapple with the fact that more than anything else, the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus had a wide reputation as a miracle worker.
Just about every scholar I know of agrees with the division of Jesus' miracles into three categories: 1) Healings, 2) Exorcisms, and 3) Nature miracles. Most modern scholars believe there may be some truth to the reputation for healings and exorcisms, but dismiss all nature miracles as pure fiction.
Sanders takes a different approach than most scholars do in that he first seeks to explain and evaluate how exactly miracles were perceived in the ancient world. But in so doing he obviously works from the perspective of the modern scientific world view that has no room for miracles actually happening in the manner in which the ancients believed they did (by divine intervention). However, he is not ready to slap on the label of fiction, because that would imply intentional deception by the supposed miracle worker. Indeed, there was plenty such activity in the ancient world, since there were plenty of people eager and willing to believe in miracles. A good Biblical example is Simon the Great (Acts 8:9-25). This Simon is known of from other sources, but many skeptical Biblical scholars doubt he ever embraced Christianity. Regardless, it is clear that Acts presents him as a deceiver, not a true miracle worker, since as soon as he sees Peter impart the Holy Spirit by the laying on how hands he offers Peter a large sum of money to learn the secret of how this trick works (Acts 8:18-19).
there are notable examples among Greco-Roman pagan society, the best known being Apollonius of Tyana, a traveling philosopher with a reputation as a healer. Once when Apollonius was discussing various types of worship (to the pagan gods) a young man with a reputation as a reveler and carouser broke out in raucous laughter completely drowning the voice of Apollonius. Apparently the majority of the locals attributed this rude laughter to his often being drunk. Apollonius astutely recognizes in the young man the presence of a demon causing this behavior. Apollonius addresses the demon and demands that the demon vacate the young man. Which the demon does dramatically, leaving the young man very meek and subdued. The young man then gives up his rowdy ways and follows Apollonius.
Many skeptical Biblical scholars use Apollonius as an example that Jesus was not unique in the ancient world as a miracle worker. If the average modern American is not likely to believe the reports about the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, why believe those of Jesus?
There were also miracle workers among Palestinian Judaism in Jesus' time. The two most famous were Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circledrawer. It must also be noted that Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circledrawer only had a few impressive miracles to their credit, while those attributed to Jesus are numerous. Josephus claims to have known of a number of healers, especially exorcists. Josephus attributes the success of their exorcisms to some secret "Wisdom of Solomon" that had been passed down by word of mouth, meaning that a whispered incantation was the key to the exorcism. The use of an incantation supposedly derived from King Solomon smacks of magic, not divine intervention. Therefore according to this line of thinking, the logical conclusion is that Jesus was at all not unique. But, really - only Apollonius is anything like Jesus, of the miracle workers of that time that are known of today.
For Sanders he sees no indication whatsoever that Jesus' miracles indicate any intention to deceive. This leaves the possibility (for Sanders) that we are dealing with either exaggeration or wishful thinking. Stories of miraculous healings were quite common in the Greco-Roman world of Jesus' time. There were many pious devotees of the Greek god Asclepius, who specialized in healing, and numerous extant reports of healings attributed to the work of this god. Sanders surmises that if a person prays to a god and some of the time the prayer is answer as requested, then that would be seen as legitimate evidence that the god is effective in his work.
As you might be able to guess, many modern scholars view what the Gospels call demon possession as being some kind of mental disorder. Therefore, even scholars who do not believe in divine intervention suggest that it is possible that Jesus, by the sheer power of his magnetic personality was able to bring about a change in people who were experiencing various mental disorders. The supposition is that there would be cases of people whose station in life did not fit their personality and thus lead to an inner struggle which would be manifested as being emotionally unstable, and perhaps Jesus could "heal" them simply by giving such people to "be themselves." Of course such a person might not be welcome at home if they were going to exhibit behavior seen as anti-social. According to this line of thinking, this would explain why Mary Magdalene stayed with Jesus instead of returning home. (Of course, one could posit that simply gratitude for being healed would be reason enough to follow Jesus.)
In order to understand anything related to the miraculous in ancient times requires the recognition that there was then no hard division between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural.' God or the gods were constantly at work in the world. The entire cosmos was populated by good and evil spirits who could at will enter the world of sense perception (Sanders, pages 141-142). A good example of how this is taken for granted is in Philippians 2:10-11, where Paul says that every knee will bow to Jesus, not just those on earth but those above and below the earth, which presupposes that there are knees in heaven and under the earth that do not yet bow to Jesus. Thus, for Paul the spirit world is pervasive.
Now do not think that all ancients were automatically gullible. Sanders mentions that the great Roman orator/philosopher Cicero (106-43 BCE) did not believe in miracles. Quoting Cicero on this topic: "For nothing can happen without cause; nothing happens that cannot happen, . . . [and when it has happened] it may not be interpreted as a miracle. Consequently there are no miracles" (Sanders, page 143). Sanders is pleased to point out that Cicero's rationalist perspective, while in the minority in his own time, has become the majority viewpoint in the modern world.
In examining Jesus' healings Sanders makes an interesting observation that there are details that border on the magical in a couple of Jesus' healings. The first is the fact that in Mark's story of the healing of the girl who died (Mark 5:41), Mark quotes Jesus' exact words in Aramaic in
which he tells the dead girl to arise, talitha koum. This makes Sanders wonder why did Mark preserve the exact words as Jesus spoke them rather than translating them into Greek. His suspicion is that Mark (or someone before Mark) must have perceived some special power in the words themselves, as if they might have thought to be a magical incantation. This same phenomenon occurs in Mark 7:34 in the healing of a deaf man, where Jesus says ephphatha, which is Aramaic for "be opened." Sanders wonders why would Mark preserve these words of Jesus in their original form unless some special value was attached to them. This is true, but whether or not we should call it a magical incantation is questionable. Sanders does not mean that Jesus intended it that way, but simply that possibly that Mark (or his source before him) understood it that way.
Regardless of Jesus' methods there is no question but that he had a strong reputation as a healer among those who passed on information about his earthly life. There are stories of healing lepers, blind people, deaf/mutes, the lame. Some modern scholars detract from the stories about the healing of lepers by pointing out that in ancient times leprosy could include more skin ailments than the disfiguring disease we call leprosy today. Indeed, any skin ailment that altered the appearance of a person might be deemed (by Jewish people) to render the individual "unclean," that is unfit for participation in society according to the laws of Moses (see Leviticus, chapter 13 for details). While this may be true, if Jesus has a reputation for healing even minor skin ailments, one would have to argue that either these were psychosomatic ailments that were healed by the power of suggestion, or else, there was something truly unusual going on with Jesus' healings.
With regard to exorcisms. I mentioned earlier that most modern critical scholars consider demon possession as misdiagnosed mental disorders. Therefore, it was possible for Jesus to heal them by the power of suggestion due to his highly charismatic personality.
However, I believe that Jesus' Exorcisms are better interpreted as spiritual warfare than healings. We tend to view them as healings, but I am quite convinced that the gospel writers intentionally portray Jesus' exorcisms as spiritual warfare in they are best understood as proxy warfare. This is proxy warfare in which the Heavenly Father's earthly proxy (Jesus) does battle against the earthly minions of the demonic leader, Satan. The main point to gain from this is that Jesus wins every confrontation, every time and easily. By the power of his verbal word Jesus is able to banish the minions of Satan from his presence. In so doing, Jesus demonstrates that the power of the Kingdom (rule) of God has arrived on earth in the person and ministry of Jesus, as demonstrated by his power over the minions of the Evil One (demons) (see Luke 11:20).
In conclusion, I am quite convinced that people in Jesus' time did know the difference between what was credible and incredible and they knew that what Jesus was perceived as doing were no ordinary events. If they were, there would be no reason to record them.
A few more comments on Sanders. In a similar way that Sanders viewed Mark's retention of Aramaic healing words as possible magical elements in Jesus healings, Sanders looks at the story of the woman who was healed of a hemorrhage in the same way. For Sanders, the fact that she was healed simply by touching the hem of Jesus' robe in the midst of a crowd, makes this looks (to Sanders) a lot like magic (Mark 5:25-30). Jesus had magical power that could be drained off of him without his consent. Of course, Jesus states that it was the woman's faith that had made her well. But Sanders retorts that this line about faith was added later to banish any hints of magic from the story, because at first glance the healing power seems to be in the robe itself.
While Sanders believes that Jesus truly had a reputation as a miracle worker, he does not give as much credit to this as do the Gospels. Sanders provides his reasons for this on page 157. The main problem with Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker is that (in Sanders' opinion), the public reaction to Jesus' miracles is disproportionately small compared to the dramatic quality of some of these miracles. Sanders' test case if the multiplication of the loaves (which Sanders calls "feeding the multitude"). If such a miracle actually happened it would seem likely that there would be a great public response, especially since 5,000 people reportedly attended the event. However, the Gospels records virtually no public reaction to this miracle.
Sanders concludes that the best explanation would be that "there was little response because there were few major miracles." This leads Sanders to conclude that: "Possibly Jesus' actual miracles were relatively minor and excited the public only temporarily" (page 157 bottom). Sanders concludes that it was not Jesus' miracles that convinced his followers that he was a unique Son of God, but Jesus' resurrection (see pages 164-165). Sanders concludes that the Gospels as we have them exaggerate the miracles of Jesus, that the ones he did perform did not convince others to see him as God's special envoy, but rather to see Jesus as a "holy man, on intimate terms with God" (page 164 middle).
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Block 4 - The Parables of Jesus: Windows on the Kingdom
Before the 20th century almost no one ever thought of interpreting the parables of Jesus in terms of what Jesus may have intended to say to his original audience when he first spoke these parables. The parables were routinely interpreted in terms of how they spoke to the life of Christians in whatever century the interpreter was writing. The parables were usually assumed to speak to life in the church and usually interpreted as allegories.
All that changed when a German scholar by the name of Adolf Julicher published a book on the parables in 1899, in which he argued that Jesus was not at all interested in allegorical meanings, but that each parable had a single general moral point. Not all modern scholars are convinced about the "one general moral point only" theory of parable interpretation espoused by Julicher. But this did spell the end of people thinking that Jesus may have actually intended to teach in allegories, and it was the end of spinning out fanciful allegorical interpretations of the parables.
The key to the new direction in parable interpretation was the acceptance by most 20th century New Testament scholars that the central theme of Jesus ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. This does not mean they all agree on what exactly Jesus meant by the "coming of the Kingdom", as you will find two very different interpretations of this between Ehrman and Borg. But even most conservative scholars today readily admit that the primary focus of Jesus' teaching was on the Kingdom of God, and this is no where more evident than in his parables.
Long before Borg and Ehrman came along, Jesus scholars were divided on to what degree Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was present in his ministry and how much was yet to come in the near or distant future. In the early 20th century, scholars like Rudolf Bultmann and C. H. Dodd advocated a view they called "realized eschatology" meaning that they believed Jesus believed the Kingdom was fully present in his ministry and present in those who imitated his ministry. Borg tends in this direction. At the other extreme were scholars who concluded that Jesus believed that he was announcing the Kingdom's arrival, and it would be here very soon and with a big dramatic arrival. They pointed to indications that this was already beginning to happen (such as Jesus exorcisms), but certainly the Kingdom of God was not present in its fullness. But such scholars believed that Jesus expected the Kingdom of God to soon become a dramatic reality where God would rule over all the earth directly. Some scholars say Jesus expected an apocalyptic event, others say Jesus expected maybe a more peaceful arrival of the kingdom. These scholars advocate that Jesus held a "future eschatology" view of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom was not fully here yet in Jesus' ministry, but it would be in the very near future. Obviously, Ehrman falls into this category.
There is no question that the parables of Jesus often address the question of the Kingdom ("the Kingdom of God (heaven) is like ... ). The more difficult question is what exactly was Jesus trying to teach with the parables? Many scholars thought he was simply making common sense observations using the imagery of everyday rural life. Other scholars doubt that it is quite that simple. But regardless, the common goal among historical critical scholars in the mid-20th century was to interpret the parables of Jesus within the historical context of Jesus' ministry.
After Julicher, the next important book on the parables to be published was C. H. Dodd's The Parables of the Kingdom, published in 1935. The importance of this book lay in the fact that it introduces the question of how the parables of Jesus fit into his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Dodd rejects Julicher's idea that a parable contains one general moral lesson. Rather the focus becomes Jesus' proclamation that the Kingdom has arrived. In this book Dodd seeks to interpret the parables of Jesus within the larger context of Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom, in which the parables are interpreted as expressions of Jesus message about the Kingdom of God. Of value still today (in my opinion) is Dodd's definition of a parable:
"At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought."
This definition has the dual value of noticing both the everyday setting of the parable and the fact that there is sometimes something rather odd about it. In practice, most scholars believed the parables were accurate depictions of everyday life. This is no where more true than with Joachim Jeremias who grew up in Palestine at the turn of the 20th century, living as a child of Christian missionaries in Palestine.
Perhaps the most influential book on the parables published in the 20th century was Joachim Jeremias' The Parables of Jesus published in 1947. Jeremias consciously builds upon the work of Dodd, but changes Dodd's "realized eschatology" to "eschatology in the process of realization", which means, Jeremias believes, Jesus believed the Kingdom was in the process of becoming a reality on earth, and his ministry was heralding and hastening that process.
The first observation Jeremias made was that the parables, in the form in which we find them in the Gospels, are a creation of the early church, and the parables have been adapted to fit the setting of the early church, not the setting of the life of Jesus. So the first step in interpreting Jesus' parables is to remove the additional material added by early Christians (this includes any interpretive material or statements that apply the parable to some particular situation). Thus, the interpretation of the parable of the Sower (Mark 4:13-20) is certainly an invention of the early church, likewise the application of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:36-37.
Jeremias groups the parables of Jesus into various headings, seeking to highlight the central features of Jesus' message of the Kingdom as found in the parables. Here are the five most important categories: 1) Now is the day of salvation, 2) God's mercy for sinners, 3) the Imminence of catastrophe, 4) It may be too late, 5) the Challenge of the hour. In Jeremias' interpretation of Jesus' message we find something akin to an Old Testament prophetic message in which there is both God's offer of mercy and a warning of what may happen if that mercy is rejected. Not all scholars found Jeremias' conclusions about Jesus' message of the Kingdom to be satisfying. Scholars that came after Jeremias doubted that his practice of gleaning static unchanging messages from the parables really did the parables justice as proclamations of God's Kingdom.
The next big move in parable scholarship (which also shifted the momentum in parable scholarship from Germany to the United States) happened when American New Testament scholars decided to view the parables as literary entities and interpret them employing literary theories that had been developed by American and French literary critics. In this approach to parable interpretation, Jesus is seen as the one who communicates as a poet employing metaphors. The whole issue of how a parable can function as an extended metaphor consumes American parable scholarship in the 1960's and 70's. This brings into question the whole notion that a parable has one particular meaning to it, and that the interpreter's purpose is to identify that one meaning.
It was John Dominic Crossan's first book on the parables that did the most to push New Testament scholarship in this direction (In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, 1973). For Crossan, Jesus' parables do not express timeless truths or models of behavior but rather the parables are fundamental expressions of Jesus' personal experience of God. Crossan looks at the narrative structure of the parables and differentiates among the parables based on the how the narrative functions to make a point. Using this approach he comes up with three categories of parables: 1) parables of advent (that is, the coming of the Kingdom), 2) parables of reversal, and 3) parables of action. With parables of advent, the focus is on the hiddenness of the Kingdom in its current activity (as found in the example of a tiny mustard seed or leaven, yeast in dough, Matthew 13:31-33), but with the added expectation that there will be a great manifestation of the Kingdom in the near future, just as when yeast makes dough rise or when a seed grows into a great plant. In parables of reversal, the story does not turn out as one might expect. An example of a parable of reversal is the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). This might seem like an odd choice of label for the Good Samaritan except when we think of how it might have been received in its original telling. The Samaritan is the good guy. But to the ordinary Palestinian Jews to whom Jesus is telling this (fictional) story, a Samaritan is a despised ostracized half-breed. How dare Jesus make such a person the hero of his story. (For an incident when Jesus actually provokes a strong reaction with a similar story see Luke 4:16-30). Thus, Crossan uses this as an example of how Jesus' parables often end up meaning the opposite of what the original hearers might have expected. Another good example of this is the parable of the Great Dinner where the outcasts of society become the honored guests (Luke 14:15-24).
As an example of a parable of action, Crossan spends much time discussing the Worker in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-13). But while calling it a parable of action, Crossan treats it as a parable of reversal, as the main point of the parable is the reversal of the proportional expectations of the workers. That is, the workers apparently all expect their pay to be proportional, the same pay per hour. But when Jesus tells the story so that the workers all receive the same standard daily wage whether they had worked one hour or 12 hours, we can imagine this would seem quite unfair to the original hearers. But Jesus' purpose was to challenge the idea that God should be expected to operate by human rules of proportionality. Or perhaps Jesus' purpose was to state flat out that God operates by different rules than what humans always think is fair. I personally believe Jesus' point is that God's mercy and grace are not proportional, but every one can receive a full dose whether they deserve it or not.
The theoretical underpinnings of parable interpretation have not changed much since the appearance of Crossan's book, In Parables. Numerous scholars have offered their take on the parables, but they are all working with the same assumptions that came from Julicher and Dodd, through Jeremias and then through Crossan. No one among modern American historical critical scholars challenges the basic premises of Crossan's approach to parable interpretation, even though they might differ on the exact meanings and interpretations of the individual parables. If Borg on the parables sounds anything like Crossan, you can attribute that to the enduring influence of Crossan's ideas. Crossan is definitely (in my mind) the most creative New Testament scholar living (others may be more creative, but no one has had more success in getting other scholars to accept his innovative views about Jesus than Crossan).
There is one other bit of parable scholarship I wish to discuss. This pertains to the question of how realistic are the parables? Scholars like Jeremias expect the parables to be accurate depictions of everyday life. I tend to side with those who question this. For example, take the parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3-7). The whole key to this parable is wrapped up in this rhetorical question: "Which of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?" (Luke 15:4). The common sense answer to this question is No One is so foolish as to leave sheep to fend for themselves in the wilderness. The way the question is written in Greek, it is obvious that it expects a positive answer; it is not an open-ended question. Jeremias interprets this parable as realistic by saying the shepherd would have had helpers to assist him and watch the 99 while he looked for the lost sheep. But if we simply take the text at face value, it says nothing about helpers or assistants, but it's all about leaving the 99 to fend for themselves. In my mind, this is another way of Jesus saying that God does not always work according to principles that seem fair to humans. But it also reinforces the value of the one. This emphasis on the individual would have been the reverse of what was the prevailing view within the society and culture in which Jesus lived and taught, where it was always the job of the individual to sacrifice one's self for the good of the many. The individual was never as important in any ancient society as appears to be the case in the parables of Jesus. But over and over again Jesus reiterates the positive value of each individual person in God's sight (a perfect example is the parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11-32).
Along this line, French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (who also wrote several books on religion in addition to his numerous tomes on philosophy) wrote a small book on the parables. He is the source of this way of thinking about the strangeness of the parables that I mention above. His theory was that each parable had a "trait of extravagance," something that stretched credulity and (remembering Dodd's definition of a parable) the strangeness then teased the mind into active thought. Thus Ricoeur proposes that whatever this "trait of extravagance" might be in each parable, that is the key to the interpretation of that parable.
Suggestion: When reading over the parables of Jesus, ask yourself these questions. (Not every question will apply to every parable.) Does this parable promote a view of the Kingdom as present or the Kingdom as future? What about this parable seems odd or strange? How would the Palestinian Jews who first heard this parable have responded? What attitude or action is Jesus trying to change with this parable?
All that changed when a German scholar by the name of Adolf Julicher published a book on the parables in 1899, in which he argued that Jesus was not at all interested in allegorical meanings, but that each parable had a single general moral point. Not all modern scholars are convinced about the "one general moral point only" theory of parable interpretation espoused by Julicher. But this did spell the end of people thinking that Jesus may have actually intended to teach in allegories, and it was the end of spinning out fanciful allegorical interpretations of the parables.
The key to the new direction in parable interpretation was the acceptance by most 20th century New Testament scholars that the central theme of Jesus ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. This does not mean they all agree on what exactly Jesus meant by the "coming of the Kingdom", as you will find two very different interpretations of this between Ehrman and Borg. But even most conservative scholars today readily admit that the primary focus of Jesus' teaching was on the Kingdom of God, and this is no where more evident than in his parables.
Long before Borg and Ehrman came along, Jesus scholars were divided on to what degree Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was present in his ministry and how much was yet to come in the near or distant future. In the early 20th century, scholars like Rudolf Bultmann and C. H. Dodd advocated a view they called "realized eschatology" meaning that they believed Jesus believed the Kingdom was fully present in his ministry and present in those who imitated his ministry. Borg tends in this direction. At the other extreme were scholars who concluded that Jesus believed that he was announcing the Kingdom's arrival, and it would be here very soon and with a big dramatic arrival. They pointed to indications that this was already beginning to happen (such as Jesus exorcisms), but certainly the Kingdom of God was not present in its fullness. But such scholars believed that Jesus expected the Kingdom of God to soon become a dramatic reality where God would rule over all the earth directly. Some scholars say Jesus expected an apocalyptic event, others say Jesus expected maybe a more peaceful arrival of the kingdom. These scholars advocate that Jesus held a "future eschatology" view of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom was not fully here yet in Jesus' ministry, but it would be in the very near future. Obviously, Ehrman falls into this category.
There is no question that the parables of Jesus often address the question of the Kingdom ("the Kingdom of God (heaven) is like ... ). The more difficult question is what exactly was Jesus trying to teach with the parables? Many scholars thought he was simply making common sense observations using the imagery of everyday rural life. Other scholars doubt that it is quite that simple. But regardless, the common goal among historical critical scholars in the mid-20th century was to interpret the parables of Jesus within the historical context of Jesus' ministry.
After Julicher, the next important book on the parables to be published was C. H. Dodd's The Parables of the Kingdom, published in 1935. The importance of this book lay in the fact that it introduces the question of how the parables of Jesus fit into his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Dodd rejects Julicher's idea that a parable contains one general moral lesson. Rather the focus becomes Jesus' proclamation that the Kingdom has arrived. In this book Dodd seeks to interpret the parables of Jesus within the larger context of Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom, in which the parables are interpreted as expressions of Jesus message about the Kingdom of God. Of value still today (in my opinion) is Dodd's definition of a parable:
"At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought."
This definition has the dual value of noticing both the everyday setting of the parable and the fact that there is sometimes something rather odd about it. In practice, most scholars believed the parables were accurate depictions of everyday life. This is no where more true than with Joachim Jeremias who grew up in Palestine at the turn of the 20th century, living as a child of Christian missionaries in Palestine.
Perhaps the most influential book on the parables published in the 20th century was Joachim Jeremias' The Parables of Jesus published in 1947. Jeremias consciously builds upon the work of Dodd, but changes Dodd's "realized eschatology" to "eschatology in the process of realization", which means, Jeremias believes, Jesus believed the Kingdom was in the process of becoming a reality on earth, and his ministry was heralding and hastening that process.
The first observation Jeremias made was that the parables, in the form in which we find them in the Gospels, are a creation of the early church, and the parables have been adapted to fit the setting of the early church, not the setting of the life of Jesus. So the first step in interpreting Jesus' parables is to remove the additional material added by early Christians (this includes any interpretive material or statements that apply the parable to some particular situation). Thus, the interpretation of the parable of the Sower (Mark 4:13-20) is certainly an invention of the early church, likewise the application of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:36-37.
Jeremias groups the parables of Jesus into various headings, seeking to highlight the central features of Jesus' message of the Kingdom as found in the parables. Here are the five most important categories: 1) Now is the day of salvation, 2) God's mercy for sinners, 3) the Imminence of catastrophe, 4) It may be too late, 5) the Challenge of the hour. In Jeremias' interpretation of Jesus' message we find something akin to an Old Testament prophetic message in which there is both God's offer of mercy and a warning of what may happen if that mercy is rejected. Not all scholars found Jeremias' conclusions about Jesus' message of the Kingdom to be satisfying. Scholars that came after Jeremias doubted that his practice of gleaning static unchanging messages from the parables really did the parables justice as proclamations of God's Kingdom.
The next big move in parable scholarship (which also shifted the momentum in parable scholarship from Germany to the United States) happened when American New Testament scholars decided to view the parables as literary entities and interpret them employing literary theories that had been developed by American and French literary critics. In this approach to parable interpretation, Jesus is seen as the one who communicates as a poet employing metaphors. The whole issue of how a parable can function as an extended metaphor consumes American parable scholarship in the 1960's and 70's. This brings into question the whole notion that a parable has one particular meaning to it, and that the interpreter's purpose is to identify that one meaning.
It was John Dominic Crossan's first book on the parables that did the most to push New Testament scholarship in this direction (In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, 1973). For Crossan, Jesus' parables do not express timeless truths or models of behavior but rather the parables are fundamental expressions of Jesus' personal experience of God. Crossan looks at the narrative structure of the parables and differentiates among the parables based on the how the narrative functions to make a point. Using this approach he comes up with three categories of parables: 1) parables of advent (that is, the coming of the Kingdom), 2) parables of reversal, and 3) parables of action. With parables of advent, the focus is on the hiddenness of the Kingdom in its current activity (as found in the example of a tiny mustard seed or leaven, yeast in dough, Matthew 13:31-33), but with the added expectation that there will be a great manifestation of the Kingdom in the near future, just as when yeast makes dough rise or when a seed grows into a great plant. In parables of reversal, the story does not turn out as one might expect. An example of a parable of reversal is the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). This might seem like an odd choice of label for the Good Samaritan except when we think of how it might have been received in its original telling. The Samaritan is the good guy. But to the ordinary Palestinian Jews to whom Jesus is telling this (fictional) story, a Samaritan is a despised ostracized half-breed. How dare Jesus make such a person the hero of his story. (For an incident when Jesus actually provokes a strong reaction with a similar story see Luke 4:16-30). Thus, Crossan uses this as an example of how Jesus' parables often end up meaning the opposite of what the original hearers might have expected. Another good example of this is the parable of the Great Dinner where the outcasts of society become the honored guests (Luke 14:15-24).
As an example of a parable of action, Crossan spends much time discussing the Worker in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-13). But while calling it a parable of action, Crossan treats it as a parable of reversal, as the main point of the parable is the reversal of the proportional expectations of the workers. That is, the workers apparently all expect their pay to be proportional, the same pay per hour. But when Jesus tells the story so that the workers all receive the same standard daily wage whether they had worked one hour or 12 hours, we can imagine this would seem quite unfair to the original hearers. But Jesus' purpose was to challenge the idea that God should be expected to operate by human rules of proportionality. Or perhaps Jesus' purpose was to state flat out that God operates by different rules than what humans always think is fair. I personally believe Jesus' point is that God's mercy and grace are not proportional, but every one can receive a full dose whether they deserve it or not.
The theoretical underpinnings of parable interpretation have not changed much since the appearance of Crossan's book, In Parables. Numerous scholars have offered their take on the parables, but they are all working with the same assumptions that came from Julicher and Dodd, through Jeremias and then through Crossan. No one among modern American historical critical scholars challenges the basic premises of Crossan's approach to parable interpretation, even though they might differ on the exact meanings and interpretations of the individual parables. If Borg on the parables sounds anything like Crossan, you can attribute that to the enduring influence of Crossan's ideas. Crossan is definitely (in my mind) the most creative New Testament scholar living (others may be more creative, but no one has had more success in getting other scholars to accept his innovative views about Jesus than Crossan).
There is one other bit of parable scholarship I wish to discuss. This pertains to the question of how realistic are the parables? Scholars like Jeremias expect the parables to be accurate depictions of everyday life. I tend to side with those who question this. For example, take the parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3-7). The whole key to this parable is wrapped up in this rhetorical question: "Which of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?" (Luke 15:4). The common sense answer to this question is No One is so foolish as to leave sheep to fend for themselves in the wilderness. The way the question is written in Greek, it is obvious that it expects a positive answer; it is not an open-ended question. Jeremias interprets this parable as realistic by saying the shepherd would have had helpers to assist him and watch the 99 while he looked for the lost sheep. But if we simply take the text at face value, it says nothing about helpers or assistants, but it's all about leaving the 99 to fend for themselves. In my mind, this is another way of Jesus saying that God does not always work according to principles that seem fair to humans. But it also reinforces the value of the one. This emphasis on the individual would have been the reverse of what was the prevailing view within the society and culture in which Jesus lived and taught, where it was always the job of the individual to sacrifice one's self for the good of the many. The individual was never as important in any ancient society as appears to be the case in the parables of Jesus. But over and over again Jesus reiterates the positive value of each individual person in God's sight (a perfect example is the parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11-32).
Along this line, French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (who also wrote several books on religion in addition to his numerous tomes on philosophy) wrote a small book on the parables. He is the source of this way of thinking about the strangeness of the parables that I mention above. His theory was that each parable had a "trait of extravagance," something that stretched credulity and (remembering Dodd's definition of a parable) the strangeness then teased the mind into active thought. Thus Ricoeur proposes that whatever this "trait of extravagance" might be in each parable, that is the key to the interpretation of that parable.
Suggestion: When reading over the parables of Jesus, ask yourself these questions. (Not every question will apply to every parable.) Does this parable promote a view of the Kingdom as present or the Kingdom as future? What about this parable seems odd or strange? How would the Palestinian Jews who first heard this parable have responded? What attitude or action is Jesus trying to change with this parable?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Block 4 - Ehrman, Pages 179-181
Ehrman's discussion of the parables is a rather brief affair. Outside of these three pages, there are a few passing references are made to the parables. One place where the parables of Jesus are mentioned in any detail is on page 151 with the discussion of "salvation for sinners". The other place worth noting, is on page 145 where the parable of the wheat and weeds is mentioned in the context of Jesus' apocalyptic sayings. Ehrman seems to think Jesus may have spoken this parable. Scholars like Borg and Crossan would disagree simply on the grounds that they do not believe that Jesus taught anything strictly apocalyptic.
Most Jesus scholars spend much time discussing Jesus' parables, as it is believed that the parables represent a certifiable historical core to Jesus' teachings. Ehrman spends very little time on the parables of Jesus. I suspect one reason for this short section on the parables is that Ehrman is most interested in the apocalyptic Jesus, and not many parables lend themselves to an apocalyptic interpretation.
On page 179, Ehrman attacks Crossan's rather novel interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed (see middle of the page). It is pretty difficult to avoid the fact the this analogy of the mustard seed or the yeast in the dough, with its contrast of small beginnings but grand endings, lends itself to the expectation that the kingdom will be dramatically obvious to all in sometime in the future. On page 180, Ehrman interprets the parable of the Sower as an example of Jesus' call to action on the part of the hearers so that they are prepared for the arrival of the kingdom, by giving up everything they have in order to prepare, and thereby will be prepared to "bear fruit worthy of the coming harvest" (page 180). This may be stretching the interpretation of the parable quite a bit. Ehrman's interpretation of this parable is certainly not the standard interpretation of the parable of the Sower, that focuses on it as speaking to how people react and respond to Jesus' ministry; sometimes it produces fruit, sometimes not. Thus, regarding the note of urgency that Ehrman detects here, I cannot see it myself.
Ehrman has chosen to take Jesus' urgent call to be ready for the coming of the kingdom (mentioned numerous other places in the gospels and which we will examined in later Blog entries) as the interpretive key to understand the totality of Jesus' teaching on the kingdom. That means Ehrman does not see nuances in Jesus' teaching on the kingdom that other scholars do. For Ehrman these other scholars have introduced ambiguity into Jesus' teaching on the kingdom simply because that do not want to accept that Jesus had an unwavering apocalyptic message about the kingdom of God.
Most Jesus scholars spend much time discussing Jesus' parables, as it is believed that the parables represent a certifiable historical core to Jesus' teachings. Ehrman spends very little time on the parables of Jesus. I suspect one reason for this short section on the parables is that Ehrman is most interested in the apocalyptic Jesus, and not many parables lend themselves to an apocalyptic interpretation.
On page 179, Ehrman attacks Crossan's rather novel interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed (see middle of the page). It is pretty difficult to avoid the fact the this analogy of the mustard seed or the yeast in the dough, with its contrast of small beginnings but grand endings, lends itself to the expectation that the kingdom will be dramatically obvious to all in sometime in the future. On page 180, Ehrman interprets the parable of the Sower as an example of Jesus' call to action on the part of the hearers so that they are prepared for the arrival of the kingdom, by giving up everything they have in order to prepare, and thereby will be prepared to "bear fruit worthy of the coming harvest" (page 180). This may be stretching the interpretation of the parable quite a bit. Ehrman's interpretation of this parable is certainly not the standard interpretation of the parable of the Sower, that focuses on it as speaking to how people react and respond to Jesus' ministry; sometimes it produces fruit, sometimes not. Thus, regarding the note of urgency that Ehrman detects here, I cannot see it myself.
Ehrman has chosen to take Jesus' urgent call to be ready for the coming of the kingdom (mentioned numerous other places in the gospels and which we will examined in later Blog entries) as the interpretive key to understand the totality of Jesus' teaching on the kingdom. That means Ehrman does not see nuances in Jesus' teaching on the kingdom that other scholars do. For Ehrman these other scholars have introduced ambiguity into Jesus' teaching on the kingdom simply because that do not want to accept that Jesus had an unwavering apocalyptic message about the kingdom of God.
Block 4 - Borg, Pages 146-157, 165-190
In pages 146-150, Borg discusses Jesus as a healer. Jesus clearly had a reputation as a healer. The modern question is: What do we make of this reputation? How do we explain it? Borg makes a good point when he says that Jesus most often healed by word. Sometimes he used touch, but most often it was his word that made the difference. This is reminiscent of the emphasis on the divine word as the means of divine activity, as in creation (Genesis 1). Here with Jesus' healings, the divine word is used to restore health. That is, Jesus was not a magician who used potions or magical incantations (which were known of during this time). Rather the emphasis on the spoken word is more reminiscent of the tradition of the Jewish prophets. Borg makes a good point about the connection between Jesus' answer to the disciples of John the Baptist about his ministry in which the lame walk and the blind see and etc. (Matthew 11:4-5), and the fact that this is a reference to Isaiah 61:1. Isaiah Chapter 61 is about the "age to come" when (as I it interpret it) God's spirit will be upon God's anointed one (Messiah) to right all the wrongs in the world. The portrayal of Jesus' healings in the Gospels fits this model of an anointed one righting wrongs. Borg seems to imply that he is inclined to think that this response to the disciples of John the Baptist (Matthew 11:4-5) is authentically from Jesus, meaning that Jesus believed his healings were a manifestation of the presence of the Kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus.
With regard to Jesus' exorcisms, Borg points out that belief in the existence of demonic spirits and possession by such spirits was not unknown in the ancient world. Borg also makes the point that most modern scholars are inclined to view the conditions described as demonic possession as examples of what we could call mental illness or, in at least one case, an epileptic seizure (see Mark 9:14-29). Regardless of how one interprets such strange behavior today, there is no doubt that Jesus was believed to be someone who could expel these demons and make a person whole again, and that Jesus claimed to do this by divine power.
On pages 151-157, Borg discusses Jesus' use of parables as a means to convey his message. In this section Borg is more concerned with the form of the message as a parable than the content of Jesus' message (the content of Jesus' message is discussed in Borg's chapter 7). The word parable means comparison, of which Jesus encourages the hearer to make the comparison and draw out the implications. The length of a parable can be as short as one sentence stating a comparison (such as the parables about yeast, hidden treasure and an expensive pearl, Borg, page 152). Or the parable may a fictional story of several sentences (such as the prodigal son, the workers in the vineyard, the good Samaritan, etc, see Borg, page 152). Borg makes a good point by saying that the parables invite the hearer to make a judgment. A very good example is the conclusion of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). In case you have never noticed this and thought you knew this parable, look at the ending and you will see it is left open-ended. We don't know how it will end. Which of course is an invitation to the hearer to provide the appropriate ending, which means that the parable is not a story in and of itself, but only in so far as it is able to evoke thoughtful consideration of a topic in the hearer does the parable do its job. Time and again the parables challenge their hearers to embrace a different way of thinking and acting on a particular topic.
Scholars like to refer to the short sayings of Jesus using the Greek word aphorism, which means a short, pithy statement containing a truth of general import (to borrow a dictionary definition). Generally speaking, an aphorism is similar to a proverb, except that a proverb expresses a distillation of conventional wisdom, while an aphorism is a saying that offers some fresh insight (Borg, page 155). This makes sense in the teachings of Jesus, in that often their intent is to overthrow conventional wisdom on a particular topic (see Borg's examples on page 156).
The section on eating meals together is not on the syllabus, but you might find it useful, as it opens a window on a significant aspect of Jesus' ministry, his fraternizing with all manner of people, both the outcasts of society and his followers and the Pharisees. Luke records more of these meals than any other Gospel. While it might seem strange, there are 3 places in Luke where Jesus is reported eating with Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37, 14:1). While we cannot be exactly sure what Jesus' motives were in attending such a variety of meals across several social boundaries, the Gospels present these meals as offering God's acceptance to all people, with the expectation that repentance would be present on the part of the recipient. The story of Zacchaeus is one where a change of heart and lifestyle is the direct result of dining with Jesus (Luke 19:1-10).
In Chapter 7 (pages 165-190), Borg addresses the question of what do the teachings of Jesus tell us about his understanding of the character (and characteristics) of God? Borg enters this discussion from the perspective of Jesus as a teacher of wisdom. John Dominic Crossan is with him in taking this approach. In so doing, Borg refers to other teachers of religious wisdom throughout ancient history (page 166). But Borg makes a distinction between teaching conventional wisdom and challenging conventional wisdom, placing Jesus in the latter category. It seems to me that it makes much more sense to connect Jesus with those teachers of the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) who challenged the conventional wisdom of their day, the Biblical Prophets. Of course, Job and Ecclesiastes also challenged the conventional wisdom in the Old Testament. However, I think a prophet like Elijah or Elisha would be a more fitting comparison, because it is precisely these two prophets who combined both a ministry of the spoken word with a reputation for performing miracles (serving as examples of God's special activity among humanity) (see Luke 4:16-30). So, I think Borg misses the mark on this point.
With his extended discussion of the parable of the Prodigal Son (page 169ff.), Borg uses this parable to highlight the character of God in the teaching of Jesus, and I think he does a good job with it. The parable itself is obviously about the extravagance of divine compassion. The example of the father in this parable would have run counter to social expectations of the behavior of a wealthy land owner, and Jesus uses this piece of fiction to make a point about the character of God.
Similarly with the passage in Matthew on "do not worry," Borg interprets this as a teaching on God's compassionate generosity (page 175). Continuing in a similar line of thought, Borg highlights those aspects of Jesus' teaching that promote imitation of acts of the same kind of compassion that God has shown to humanity. Perhaps the best example in the teaching of Jesus of the connection between God's compassion and the expectation of humans imitating it is found in the parable of the "Unmerciful Servant" (Matthew18:23-34) (page 177). The same holds true in the parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46) (page 179). In the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15), Borg offers both the traditional interpretation of this parable as demonstrating the character of God's generosity, and a more radical interpretation of it as a subversion of the "domination system" (page 182). Maybe I am a bit old-fashioned, but I prefer the traditional interpretation.
In the section on God's passion for justice (pages 185-190), Borg makes a case for viewing Jesus' teachings on the Kingdom of God from the perspective of social justice, that is, they were addressed to the social ills of the day. Many scholars have made the case that Matthew dilutes Jesus' passion for social justice in his Beatitudes, as found in Borg's comparison of the Beatitudes in Luke (6:20-26) and the parallel tradition in Matthew (5:1-12). However, taking a different approach, Borg makes a case that even Matthew's version of the beatitudes begs to be interpreted as a call for social justice, contrary to the typical spiritualized interpretation of these sayings (page 190).
With regard to Jesus' exorcisms, Borg points out that belief in the existence of demonic spirits and possession by such spirits was not unknown in the ancient world. Borg also makes the point that most modern scholars are inclined to view the conditions described as demonic possession as examples of what we could call mental illness or, in at least one case, an epileptic seizure (see Mark 9:14-29). Regardless of how one interprets such strange behavior today, there is no doubt that Jesus was believed to be someone who could expel these demons and make a person whole again, and that Jesus claimed to do this by divine power.
On pages 151-157, Borg discusses Jesus' use of parables as a means to convey his message. In this section Borg is more concerned with the form of the message as a parable than the content of Jesus' message (the content of Jesus' message is discussed in Borg's chapter 7). The word parable means comparison, of which Jesus encourages the hearer to make the comparison and draw out the implications. The length of a parable can be as short as one sentence stating a comparison (such as the parables about yeast, hidden treasure and an expensive pearl, Borg, page 152). Or the parable may a fictional story of several sentences (such as the prodigal son, the workers in the vineyard, the good Samaritan, etc, see Borg, page 152). Borg makes a good point by saying that the parables invite the hearer to make a judgment. A very good example is the conclusion of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). In case you have never noticed this and thought you knew this parable, look at the ending and you will see it is left open-ended. We don't know how it will end. Which of course is an invitation to the hearer to provide the appropriate ending, which means that the parable is not a story in and of itself, but only in so far as it is able to evoke thoughtful consideration of a topic in the hearer does the parable do its job. Time and again the parables challenge their hearers to embrace a different way of thinking and acting on a particular topic.
Scholars like to refer to the short sayings of Jesus using the Greek word aphorism, which means a short, pithy statement containing a truth of general import (to borrow a dictionary definition). Generally speaking, an aphorism is similar to a proverb, except that a proverb expresses a distillation of conventional wisdom, while an aphorism is a saying that offers some fresh insight (Borg, page 155). This makes sense in the teachings of Jesus, in that often their intent is to overthrow conventional wisdom on a particular topic (see Borg's examples on page 156).
The section on eating meals together is not on the syllabus, but you might find it useful, as it opens a window on a significant aspect of Jesus' ministry, his fraternizing with all manner of people, both the outcasts of society and his followers and the Pharisees. Luke records more of these meals than any other Gospel. While it might seem strange, there are 3 places in Luke where Jesus is reported eating with Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37, 14:1). While we cannot be exactly sure what Jesus' motives were in attending such a variety of meals across several social boundaries, the Gospels present these meals as offering God's acceptance to all people, with the expectation that repentance would be present on the part of the recipient. The story of Zacchaeus is one where a change of heart and lifestyle is the direct result of dining with Jesus (Luke 19:1-10).
In Chapter 7 (pages 165-190), Borg addresses the question of what do the teachings of Jesus tell us about his understanding of the character (and characteristics) of God? Borg enters this discussion from the perspective of Jesus as a teacher of wisdom. John Dominic Crossan is with him in taking this approach. In so doing, Borg refers to other teachers of religious wisdom throughout ancient history (page 166). But Borg makes a distinction between teaching conventional wisdom and challenging conventional wisdom, placing Jesus in the latter category. It seems to me that it makes much more sense to connect Jesus with those teachers of the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) who challenged the conventional wisdom of their day, the Biblical Prophets. Of course, Job and Ecclesiastes also challenged the conventional wisdom in the Old Testament. However, I think a prophet like Elijah or Elisha would be a more fitting comparison, because it is precisely these two prophets who combined both a ministry of the spoken word with a reputation for performing miracles (serving as examples of God's special activity among humanity) (see Luke 4:16-30). So, I think Borg misses the mark on this point.
With his extended discussion of the parable of the Prodigal Son (page 169ff.), Borg uses this parable to highlight the character of God in the teaching of Jesus, and I think he does a good job with it. The parable itself is obviously about the extravagance of divine compassion. The example of the father in this parable would have run counter to social expectations of the behavior of a wealthy land owner, and Jesus uses this piece of fiction to make a point about the character of God.
Similarly with the passage in Matthew on "do not worry," Borg interprets this as a teaching on God's compassionate generosity (page 175). Continuing in a similar line of thought, Borg highlights those aspects of Jesus' teaching that promote imitation of acts of the same kind of compassion that God has shown to humanity. Perhaps the best example in the teaching of Jesus of the connection between God's compassion and the expectation of humans imitating it is found in the parable of the "Unmerciful Servant" (Matthew18:23-34) (page 177). The same holds true in the parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46) (page 179). In the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15), Borg offers both the traditional interpretation of this parable as demonstrating the character of God's generosity, and a more radical interpretation of it as a subversion of the "domination system" (page 182). Maybe I am a bit old-fashioned, but I prefer the traditional interpretation.
In the section on God's passion for justice (pages 185-190), Borg makes a case for viewing Jesus' teachings on the Kingdom of God from the perspective of social justice, that is, they were addressed to the social ills of the day. Many scholars have made the case that Matthew dilutes Jesus' passion for social justice in his Beatitudes, as found in Borg's comparison of the Beatitudes in Luke (6:20-26) and the parallel tradition in Matthew (5:1-12). However, taking a different approach, Borg makes a case that even Matthew's version of the beatitudes begs to be interpreted as a call for social justice, contrary to the typical spiritualized interpretation of these sayings (page 190).
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Block 3 - Fredriksen, Pages 74-119
In this section Fredriksen begins by exploring the crucifixion of Jesus because this is a point of fact agreed upon by all traditions that treat the life and story of Jesus. When she mentions at the bottom of page 75, "Those who take certain strata of Q as the core historical material for Jesus," she is specifically referring to the Jesus Seminar, and no doubt, John Dominic Crossan in particular. Obviously she does not believe this interpretation of Jesus provides a reasonable explanation for why Pilate would want to execute Jesus. Fredriksen proposes that in order to make sense of Jesus as a historical person, it is necessary to find some causal connections between his "mission," his death, and the subsequent Jesus movement (page 77, top). But she is not going to tell us her answer to this question until much later in her book. Her methodology is to approach the task in reverse; go to the earliest extant (meaning still in existence) accounts of the Jesus movement, which are the letters of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. This is assuming that the Gospels were not written until 20 or 30 years later.
Following this approach, Fredriksen begins with an examination of the earliest writing in the New Testament, Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians (composed about 50 CE), to discover what may be known from this writing about the historical Jesus. What is most obvious about 1 Thessalonians is the expectation of a soon to occur dramatic and glorious return of Jesus to earth. And so this is where she begins. This might seem like an odd approach to someone who is writing about the historical Jesus, but it is all part of Fredriksen's attempt to be rigorous in her methodology. She wants to present to the reader what this writing says about Jesus. It would appear that this is more about Paul than Jesus. But her intent is to show that the earliest interest in Jesus (as it would appear from Paul's letters) is on the cosmic Jesus who is soon to reappear on earth, not his earlier earthly ministry.
Lying behind this discussion are some assumptions held by most historical critical scholars. First, that earliest Christianity was preoccupied with the expectation of Jesus' return, thus why Paul writes so much about it in 1 Thessalonians. Secondly, when that did not happen as quickly as expected it precipitated the need to reconsider the issue. That is why some scholars will use the "delay of the parousia" as a crisis of faith for these Christians ("parousia" is the Greek word that Paul uses to refer to the expected reappearance of Jesus on earth). This delayed appearance then causes a reconsideration of the issue which results in statements that people should not expect the end to be soon. A good example of this is the belief by such scholars that some early Christians created the parable of the Talents and put it in the mouth of Jesus as a way of explaining the "delay." A problem I see with this approach is that while some Thessalonian Christians are concerned about the fact that Jesus did not appear before some Christians died, it does not seem to me that there is any place in Paul's letters that he, Paul, is at all concerned about Jesus being later than expected, or worried why Jesus has not appeared. It may be reading too much into 1 Thessalonians to surmise that Paul was just as sure Jesus would appear "any day now" as the Thessalonian Christians seemed to have believed. But there is no question, but that, indeed, most early Christians expected Jesus to return sometime for the final salvation of believers and the final judgment of unbelievers.
In her discussion of the apocalyptic themes in Mark 13 (pages 83-88), Fredriksen seems to imply that she believes that the apocalyptic beliefs so prominent in Paul's letters have been retrojected back onto the earthly Jesus by early Christians who were sure that Jesus believed just as they did. However, she also seems to believe that Jesus' teaching must have had some apocalyptic content. This becomes clearer in the discussion of the tradition of Jesus' resurrection appearances.
Ehrman makes a very interesting point that in order to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, one would have to believe such a thing is possible, and in the Judaism of Jesus' time, the only people who believed such a thing were those with apocalyptic expectations. And so Fredriksen discusses Paul's list of the resurrection appearances, as he had received it from the apostles in Jerusalem (page 90 and following). Some scholars have suggested that this list of appearances is more about apostolic authority than resurrections, in that Paul is establishing himself as equal to the original 12 in his ability to speak for Jesus. Perhaps this may be part of Paul's point in recounting it in 1 Corinthians 15, but it does confirm for us a tradition about Jesus' resurrection.
On page 94 top when Fredriksen mentions "as some scholars have recently argued" that theory that Jesus was focused on reforming society, she is referring specifically to Borg and Crossan. It is interesting that she does so in the context of why did the Jesus movement relocate to Jerusalem after the resurrection? On pages 95-98 it would seem that Fredriksen is finally getting around to making her point. There is much of the behavior of the early Christians that makes perfect sense if it is understood under the umbrella of "Jewish apocalyptic expectation." In such thinking, Jerusalem is where the action will take place. This is still true at the end of the first century in the book of Revelation, where the much of the important action will take place in Jerusalem. Likewise, the mission to the nations (Gentiles) in early Christianity (Paul and numerous others), fits into the same framework in which God's redemptive activity will reach out to the non-Jews (Gentiles) in the end times. Same with the mention of the "Twelve" disciples/apostles. Some scholars (and this seems to include Fredriksen) believe the tradition of the "Twelve" definitely goes back to Jesus and is based on the expectation that in the end times God will bring about the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. This seems the best explanation for the tradition of the "Twelve" in the New Testament, even though the Gospels do no all have the same names on their lists. But the fact that mention of the "Twelve" occurs in a variety of places in the New Testament would indicate that it is a well ingrained part of the Jesus tradition and only makes sense in the context of apocalyptic expectations.
Thus, it would seem to me that from what Fredriksen says about the places where Paul mentions information directly related to the earthly Jesus that she believe such traditions do have a high probability of authenticity, and that they would indicate that the early traditions about Jesus had a strong apocalyptic dimension and that this ultimately must have derived from Jesus himself. Even if the exact wording of many statements in the Gospels attributed to Jesus did not originate with Jesus, the ideas were voiced in some form by Jesus and he must have held to many of the basic apocalyptic expectations of Judaism of his time,and even (in some cases) put his own personal twist on them (such as with the "Twelve").
Following this approach, Fredriksen begins with an examination of the earliest writing in the New Testament, Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians (composed about 50 CE), to discover what may be known from this writing about the historical Jesus. What is most obvious about 1 Thessalonians is the expectation of a soon to occur dramatic and glorious return of Jesus to earth. And so this is where she begins. This might seem like an odd approach to someone who is writing about the historical Jesus, but it is all part of Fredriksen's attempt to be rigorous in her methodology. She wants to present to the reader what this writing says about Jesus. It would appear that this is more about Paul than Jesus. But her intent is to show that the earliest interest in Jesus (as it would appear from Paul's letters) is on the cosmic Jesus who is soon to reappear on earth, not his earlier earthly ministry.
Lying behind this discussion are some assumptions held by most historical critical scholars. First, that earliest Christianity was preoccupied with the expectation of Jesus' return, thus why Paul writes so much about it in 1 Thessalonians. Secondly, when that did not happen as quickly as expected it precipitated the need to reconsider the issue. That is why some scholars will use the "delay of the parousia" as a crisis of faith for these Christians ("parousia" is the Greek word that Paul uses to refer to the expected reappearance of Jesus on earth). This delayed appearance then causes a reconsideration of the issue which results in statements that people should not expect the end to be soon. A good example of this is the belief by such scholars that some early Christians created the parable of the Talents and put it in the mouth of Jesus as a way of explaining the "delay." A problem I see with this approach is that while some Thessalonian Christians are concerned about the fact that Jesus did not appear before some Christians died, it does not seem to me that there is any place in Paul's letters that he, Paul, is at all concerned about Jesus being later than expected, or worried why Jesus has not appeared. It may be reading too much into 1 Thessalonians to surmise that Paul was just as sure Jesus would appear "any day now" as the Thessalonian Christians seemed to have believed. But there is no question, but that, indeed, most early Christians expected Jesus to return sometime for the final salvation of believers and the final judgment of unbelievers.
In her discussion of the apocalyptic themes in Mark 13 (pages 83-88), Fredriksen seems to imply that she believes that the apocalyptic beliefs so prominent in Paul's letters have been retrojected back onto the earthly Jesus by early Christians who were sure that Jesus believed just as they did. However, she also seems to believe that Jesus' teaching must have had some apocalyptic content. This becomes clearer in the discussion of the tradition of Jesus' resurrection appearances.
Ehrman makes a very interesting point that in order to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, one would have to believe such a thing is possible, and in the Judaism of Jesus' time, the only people who believed such a thing were those with apocalyptic expectations. And so Fredriksen discusses Paul's list of the resurrection appearances, as he had received it from the apostles in Jerusalem (page 90 and following). Some scholars have suggested that this list of appearances is more about apostolic authority than resurrections, in that Paul is establishing himself as equal to the original 12 in his ability to speak for Jesus. Perhaps this may be part of Paul's point in recounting it in 1 Corinthians 15, but it does confirm for us a tradition about Jesus' resurrection.
On page 94 top when Fredriksen mentions "as some scholars have recently argued" that theory that Jesus was focused on reforming society, she is referring specifically to Borg and Crossan. It is interesting that she does so in the context of why did the Jesus movement relocate to Jerusalem after the resurrection? On pages 95-98 it would seem that Fredriksen is finally getting around to making her point. There is much of the behavior of the early Christians that makes perfect sense if it is understood under the umbrella of "Jewish apocalyptic expectation." In such thinking, Jerusalem is where the action will take place. This is still true at the end of the first century in the book of Revelation, where the much of the important action will take place in Jerusalem. Likewise, the mission to the nations (Gentiles) in early Christianity (Paul and numerous others), fits into the same framework in which God's redemptive activity will reach out to the non-Jews (Gentiles) in the end times. Same with the mention of the "Twelve" disciples/apostles. Some scholars (and this seems to include Fredriksen) believe the tradition of the "Twelve" definitely goes back to Jesus and is based on the expectation that in the end times God will bring about the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. This seems the best explanation for the tradition of the "Twelve" in the New Testament, even though the Gospels do no all have the same names on their lists. But the fact that mention of the "Twelve" occurs in a variety of places in the New Testament would indicate that it is a well ingrained part of the Jesus tradition and only makes sense in the context of apocalyptic expectations.
Thus, it would seem to me that from what Fredriksen says about the places where Paul mentions information directly related to the earthly Jesus that she believe such traditions do have a high probability of authenticity, and that they would indicate that the early traditions about Jesus had a strong apocalyptic dimension and that this ultimately must have derived from Jesus himself. Even if the exact wording of many statements in the Gospels attributed to Jesus did not originate with Jesus, the ideas were voiced in some form by Jesus and he must have held to many of the basic apocalyptic expectations of Judaism of his time,and even (in some cases) put his own personal twist on them (such as with the "Twelve").
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Block 3 - Ehrman, Pages 183-206
Ehrman takes a different approach than most Jesus scholars, in that he only delves into the externals of Jesus ministry (geographical location, disciples, interaction with other groups) after he has discussed the sayings of Jesus and arrived at his conclusions on that matter. In discussing Jesus' baptism by John (Chapter 11, page 184), as we might expect, he focuses on what he sees as continuity between John and Jesus, in that John's unabashedly apocalyptic message would be reflected in the one who comes after him, meaning that the message of Jesus should be interpreted along the same apocalyptic lines as a matter of logical progression among two associates in the same business. Speaking of associates, Jesus' closest associates, "The Twelve," Ehrman is merely stating the obvious in saying they come from a lower class background.
In his discussion of "The Twelve," Ehrman is responding to the view of John Dominic Crossan who says that "The Twelve" is a Christian fiction that is designed to offer a Christian counterpart to the 12 tribes of Israel, which certainly makes no sense to Crossan in the context of Jesus' ministry in which Jesus is advocating a renewal movement within Judaism. But (for Crossan) "The Twelve" smacks of a Christian viewpoint that sees itself as superseding Judaism, something that would be impossible within Jesus' own earthly lifetime. I do not often agree wholeheartedly with Ehrman, but I do on this point. Ehrman is sure the tradition of "The Twelve" goes back to Jesus. You will find that in many of his conclusions about the life of Jesus, Ehrman is much less skeptical on matters of the historicity of the Gospel accounts than Crossan, or Borg. But part of the reason for Ehrman's embrace of "The Twelve" as belonging to Jesus' ministry is that in Jewish apocalyptic thought in Jesus' time, the restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel is an important theme of the end-times, and Ehrman believes that in the mind of Jesus this restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel is behind Jesus' choosing "The Twelve" and is a part of Jesus' preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God. It all fits together very nicely for Ehrman. I say the Twelve and the restoration of the 12 tribes of Israel makes sense, but does not necessarily require an apocalyptic interpretation. Traditional Christian theology has located the significance of this connection in the "Church" being the earthly manifestation of the restoration of the Twelve tribes.
A note about Ehrman's comment at the bottom of page 185 about having followers (disciples) as an unusual practice: I do not think it is unusual in the context in which we find Jesus. About 25 years ago I read an interesting article on this topic in an obscure publication that proposed a very reasonable theory. We know that before Jesus' time, it was Greek philosophers who were most likely to assemble a limited group of followers. We might think such would be like a small academy to learn the deep thoughts of a certain philosopher. But the philosophers who attracted followers, were not interested in simply attracting students to educate (and so make a living). These philosophers were well educated and often original thinkers who had a very particular philosophy of life and their goal was to teach their disciples this way of life. (Aside: A good 1st century CE example of this is the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who both taught about a creator god and living a moral way of life.) Theory goes, sometime in the century before Jesus, traveling philosophers came through Palestine, the Pharisees are exposed to this method of discipleship, and then take up the practice themselves. (We must remember that the religious influence of the Pharisees in Jesus' time far outweighs their numbers; so their numbers were not large though they loom large in the Gospels). We know the Pharisees had disciples (see Matthew 23:15). Both John the Baptist and Jesus also had disciples, and it seems reasonable to conclude that they picked up this practice from the Pharisees, because all of these groups, as divergent as their views and opinions were on religious matters, they were all interested in promoting a particular way of life, and sought to educate their disciples in that way of life by bringing them into a common life together that embodied the ideal their teacher sought to promote. In this regard the pattern of the Stoic philosopher/teachers is very suitable to these Jewish religious groups because all of these groups desired to inculcate in their disciples a particular way of life.
On Jesus and the Outcasts (page 187-188), I think Ehrman does a good job explaining this. On Jesus and women followers (pages 188-191), it does seem that Jesus was unique in allowing women to have a significant place in his movement. The women around Jesus often crossed well defined social boundaries in their participation in this movement. The reference to a "'radically egalitarian society'" , which is coined by Schussler-Fiorenza and taken up by Crossan and others who sympathize with this understanding of Jesus offering an alternative community, is a major debating point among scholars. How much was Jesus trying to change society here and now? And how much was Jesus looking to a new society when the Kingdom of God would arrive in its fullness? Many middle-of-the-road scholars take a view somewhere between Crossan and Ehrman, that Jesus' life with his disciples and the outcasts and other followers was intended to be a prophetic statement about what life would be like in the Kingdom of God, and may represent a taste of the kingdom now. But a overall change of attitudes on social relations was not Jesus' primary focus. Indeed, the emphasis on Jesus reinventing society, I believe, poses the danger of focusing too much on social issues (i.e. Crossan) when everything (to Jesus) was fundamentally a religious issue. Focusing on social issues is a 20th century American pastime, not something that was a part of ancient religious movements.
When Ehrman speaks (page 191) of the Jesus Seminar and Jesus and Cynic philosophers, he is referring directly to John Dominic Crossan. Having mentioned Crossan so much, you may wonder why I didn't use one of his books in this course. The main reason is that Borg does a better job of portraying that viewpoint, even though many of the significant ideas originated with Crossan. If you are interested in Crossan, I would recommend you try his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. If you are really ambitious you might want to try his The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant. The first book is a summary of The Historical Jesus. The problem with reading The Historical Jesus is that Crossan is so detailed in his discussion of his methodology that it would weary most readers. Indeed, he seems to spend more time justifying his methodology than presenting his conclusions about the historical Jesus. But he is thorough.
Ehrman's comment on page 191 about Jesus and Sepphoris is well stated. Crossan, Borg and others in the Jesus Seminar would like to think that Jesus must have been more cosmopolitan than how he is presented in the Gospels with a Greek speaking metropolis so close by his home town. Even in this day and age there are a number of people in the town I live in who will not drive to Sioux City or Sioux Falls (the nearest cities) because they see no need to go to a large crowded busy city and rarely travel farther than the nearest grocery store. If that can be true today, think of how much more true that would be in a time and place where there was also a language barrier. There are a number of Greek speaking cities that existed in Palestine in Jesus' time. But (as Ehrman points out) there is no record of Jesus going near any of them. Jesus sticks to the small Aramaic speaking towns. Certainly the majority of people living in the Greek speaking cities would have been Jewish. But, the presence of Jewish people in Palestine adopting Greek ways of living goes back to 200 BCE. So, there was certainly a variety of Jewish lifestyles in Palestine in Jesus' time. Rather obviously, Jesus represents the small town and rural label that Ehrman prefers.
Ehrman's discussion of Jesus and his miracles (pages 192-200) I think is rather well done. You should know by now that there is no way Ehrman is going to believe they actually happened as narrated in the Gospels. However, Ehrman does make a very good point that I believe cannot be refuted on historical grounds alone: Jesus had a solid reputation as a healer and an exorcist. The mere fact that so many of the episodes in the Gospels recount an exorcism or a healing make it evident, I believe, that this was perceived as a central feature of Jesus' ministry by his contemporaries. (I will say more about the religious significance of these accounts of miracles in my discussion miracles in Block 4.) Whether or not a modern person believes Jesus performed miracles, it seems quite certain that his disciples believed he performed miracles.
The discussion of the rejection of Jesus (pages 200-202) is fairly well portrayed. Ehrman is attempting to counter the Sunday school curriculum tendency to see Jesus as wildly popular everywhere he went. It is easy for us to want to overlook the references to the rejection of Jesus, but the fact that the Gospels (which are intended to spin the story his way) include references to various types of rejection that Ehrman mentions, makes it clear that such rejection did occur. Indeed, Jesus himself is recorded as making a connection between rejection of him and his message and his eventual death. Of course, there are also prophetic denouncements of those who reject him, but rejected by many he was.
I like Ehrman's discussion of Jesus and the Pharisees (pages 202-206). In particular, I think Ehrman does a fine job of explaining exactly what Jesus and the Pharisees had in common. Why do people in families fight? They fight because they have something in common that is important to them that they want to protect, but they often disagree about who is right. Jesus and the Pharisees both believed the Jewish Law was good, but it is obvious Jesus deeply disagreed with many of the Pharisees' interpretations of that Law. That is what their disagreements were about. Many of the average Jews may well have considered such discussions arcane, but they are central even today to Orthodox Judaism, especially with questions of what can done on the Sabbath. If you want to see that in action, go to the web site for the Orthodox Union and see the rules on the sabbath. Here is the address to that basic information - http://www.ou.org/publications/kaplan/shabbat/work.htm This offers insight into the Jewish way of thinking about these things. It was important to the earliest Christians who were converts from Judaism to offer Jesus' critique of Jewish practices as a defense of their own religious practices. But by 100 CE, the majority of Christians were born pagan and references to Jewish practices probably meant little to them.
In his discussion of "The Twelve," Ehrman is responding to the view of John Dominic Crossan who says that "The Twelve" is a Christian fiction that is designed to offer a Christian counterpart to the 12 tribes of Israel, which certainly makes no sense to Crossan in the context of Jesus' ministry in which Jesus is advocating a renewal movement within Judaism. But (for Crossan) "The Twelve" smacks of a Christian viewpoint that sees itself as superseding Judaism, something that would be impossible within Jesus' own earthly lifetime. I do not often agree wholeheartedly with Ehrman, but I do on this point. Ehrman is sure the tradition of "The Twelve" goes back to Jesus. You will find that in many of his conclusions about the life of Jesus, Ehrman is much less skeptical on matters of the historicity of the Gospel accounts than Crossan, or Borg. But part of the reason for Ehrman's embrace of "The Twelve" as belonging to Jesus' ministry is that in Jewish apocalyptic thought in Jesus' time, the restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel is an important theme of the end-times, and Ehrman believes that in the mind of Jesus this restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel is behind Jesus' choosing "The Twelve" and is a part of Jesus' preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God. It all fits together very nicely for Ehrman. I say the Twelve and the restoration of the 12 tribes of Israel makes sense, but does not necessarily require an apocalyptic interpretation. Traditional Christian theology has located the significance of this connection in the "Church" being the earthly manifestation of the restoration of the Twelve tribes.
A note about Ehrman's comment at the bottom of page 185 about having followers (disciples) as an unusual practice: I do not think it is unusual in the context in which we find Jesus. About 25 years ago I read an interesting article on this topic in an obscure publication that proposed a very reasonable theory. We know that before Jesus' time, it was Greek philosophers who were most likely to assemble a limited group of followers. We might think such would be like a small academy to learn the deep thoughts of a certain philosopher. But the philosophers who attracted followers, were not interested in simply attracting students to educate (and so make a living). These philosophers were well educated and often original thinkers who had a very particular philosophy of life and their goal was to teach their disciples this way of life. (Aside: A good 1st century CE example of this is the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who both taught about a creator god and living a moral way of life.) Theory goes, sometime in the century before Jesus, traveling philosophers came through Palestine, the Pharisees are exposed to this method of discipleship, and then take up the practice themselves. (We must remember that the religious influence of the Pharisees in Jesus' time far outweighs their numbers; so their numbers were not large though they loom large in the Gospels). We know the Pharisees had disciples (see Matthew 23:15). Both John the Baptist and Jesus also had disciples, and it seems reasonable to conclude that they picked up this practice from the Pharisees, because all of these groups, as divergent as their views and opinions were on religious matters, they were all interested in promoting a particular way of life, and sought to educate their disciples in that way of life by bringing them into a common life together that embodied the ideal their teacher sought to promote. In this regard the pattern of the Stoic philosopher/teachers is very suitable to these Jewish religious groups because all of these groups desired to inculcate in their disciples a particular way of life.
On Jesus and the Outcasts (page 187-188), I think Ehrman does a good job explaining this. On Jesus and women followers (pages 188-191), it does seem that Jesus was unique in allowing women to have a significant place in his movement. The women around Jesus often crossed well defined social boundaries in their participation in this movement. The reference to a "'radically egalitarian society'" , which is coined by Schussler-Fiorenza and taken up by Crossan and others who sympathize with this understanding of Jesus offering an alternative community, is a major debating point among scholars. How much was Jesus trying to change society here and now? And how much was Jesus looking to a new society when the Kingdom of God would arrive in its fullness? Many middle-of-the-road scholars take a view somewhere between Crossan and Ehrman, that Jesus' life with his disciples and the outcasts and other followers was intended to be a prophetic statement about what life would be like in the Kingdom of God, and may represent a taste of the kingdom now. But a overall change of attitudes on social relations was not Jesus' primary focus. Indeed, the emphasis on Jesus reinventing society, I believe, poses the danger of focusing too much on social issues (i.e. Crossan) when everything (to Jesus) was fundamentally a religious issue. Focusing on social issues is a 20th century American pastime, not something that was a part of ancient religious movements.
When Ehrman speaks (page 191) of the Jesus Seminar and Jesus and Cynic philosophers, he is referring directly to John Dominic Crossan. Having mentioned Crossan so much, you may wonder why I didn't use one of his books in this course. The main reason is that Borg does a better job of portraying that viewpoint, even though many of the significant ideas originated with Crossan. If you are interested in Crossan, I would recommend you try his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. If you are really ambitious you might want to try his The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant. The first book is a summary of The Historical Jesus. The problem with reading The Historical Jesus is that Crossan is so detailed in his discussion of his methodology that it would weary most readers. Indeed, he seems to spend more time justifying his methodology than presenting his conclusions about the historical Jesus. But he is thorough.
Ehrman's comment on page 191 about Jesus and Sepphoris is well stated. Crossan, Borg and others in the Jesus Seminar would like to think that Jesus must have been more cosmopolitan than how he is presented in the Gospels with a Greek speaking metropolis so close by his home town. Even in this day and age there are a number of people in the town I live in who will not drive to Sioux City or Sioux Falls (the nearest cities) because they see no need to go to a large crowded busy city and rarely travel farther than the nearest grocery store. If that can be true today, think of how much more true that would be in a time and place where there was also a language barrier. There are a number of Greek speaking cities that existed in Palestine in Jesus' time. But (as Ehrman points out) there is no record of Jesus going near any of them. Jesus sticks to the small Aramaic speaking towns. Certainly the majority of people living in the Greek speaking cities would have been Jewish. But, the presence of Jewish people in Palestine adopting Greek ways of living goes back to 200 BCE. So, there was certainly a variety of Jewish lifestyles in Palestine in Jesus' time. Rather obviously, Jesus represents the small town and rural label that Ehrman prefers.
Ehrman's discussion of Jesus and his miracles (pages 192-200) I think is rather well done. You should know by now that there is no way Ehrman is going to believe they actually happened as narrated in the Gospels. However, Ehrman does make a very good point that I believe cannot be refuted on historical grounds alone: Jesus had a solid reputation as a healer and an exorcist. The mere fact that so many of the episodes in the Gospels recount an exorcism or a healing make it evident, I believe, that this was perceived as a central feature of Jesus' ministry by his contemporaries. (I will say more about the religious significance of these accounts of miracles in my discussion miracles in Block 4.) Whether or not a modern person believes Jesus performed miracles, it seems quite certain that his disciples believed he performed miracles.
The discussion of the rejection of Jesus (pages 200-202) is fairly well portrayed. Ehrman is attempting to counter the Sunday school curriculum tendency to see Jesus as wildly popular everywhere he went. It is easy for us to want to overlook the references to the rejection of Jesus, but the fact that the Gospels (which are intended to spin the story his way) include references to various types of rejection that Ehrman mentions, makes it clear that such rejection did occur. Indeed, Jesus himself is recorded as making a connection between rejection of him and his message and his eventual death. Of course, there are also prophetic denouncements of those who reject him, but rejected by many he was.
I like Ehrman's discussion of Jesus and the Pharisees (pages 202-206). In particular, I think Ehrman does a fine job of explaining exactly what Jesus and the Pharisees had in common. Why do people in families fight? They fight because they have something in common that is important to them that they want to protect, but they often disagree about who is right. Jesus and the Pharisees both believed the Jewish Law was good, but it is obvious Jesus deeply disagreed with many of the Pharisees' interpretations of that Law. That is what their disagreements were about. Many of the average Jews may well have considered such discussions arcane, but they are central even today to Orthodox Judaism, especially with questions of what can done on the Sabbath. If you want to see that in action, go to the web site for the Orthodox Union and see the rules on the sabbath. Here is the address to that basic information - http://www.ou.org/publications/kaplan/shabbat/work.htm This offers insight into the Jewish way of thinking about these things. It was important to the earliest Christians who were converts from Judaism to offer Jesus' critique of Jewish practices as a defense of their own religious practices. But by 100 CE, the majority of Christians were born pagan and references to Jewish practices probably meant little to them.
Block 3 - Borg, Pages 109-164
In reading Borg, Chapter 5, on Jesus' experience of God, as in many instances in Life of Jesus studies, we are dealing with two questions: 1) which of the applicable verses from the Gospels actually represent the ideas held by the earthly Jesus, and 2) exactly what message did Jesus intend to convey when he originally spoke these words? Scholars who use the same historical critical method can come to very different conclusions answering these two questions. The resulting "picture" of the historical Jesus of one scholar can end up looking quite different from that of another scholar using the same method, when the conclusions about the authenticity of various sayings reached by the scholars diverge from each other along the way.
On the first page (108) Borg states a fundamental presupposition of his, Jesus - during his earthly ministry - was not God in any sense whatsoever. In a sense this seems to me to be as much a doctrinal position as a conclusion of historical research. As a result, some verses that could be interpreted as referring to Jesus' self-understanding of his being the Son of God (which Borg doubts is true), are interpreted as speaking about Jesus' experience of God, not Jesus being divine.
Many modern New Testament scholars believe that the traditional doctrinal equation between Jesus as the Son of God and Jesus as divine probably was not true in the minds of the Gospel writers and certainly was not true in the mind of Jesus. Therefore, they are inclined to represent Jesus as a prophet, or someone who thought he was a prophet in a mode similar to John the Baptist.
Even though Borg denies the divinity of Jesus, he emphasizes the unmistakable close relationship that Jesus had with his God (at least there is no doubt that Jesus believed he had a close relationship with God). It is this feature which Borg chooses to focus on. It seems to me that what is appealing to Borg in this discussion is Jesus as a model of experiencing God. I suspect the reason Borg focuses on this experiential side of Jesus' relationship with God is because it resonates well with modern people for whom various types of experiential religion have an appeal to them (without a lot of doctrinal baggage), and this appeal of experiential religion may be due to the lack of the perceived presence of God in modern everyday life.
To find a contemporary of Jesus with this same kind of spirituality that Jesus exhibits, Borg mentions Jewish wonder workers Honi the Circledrawer and Hanina ben Dosa (on page 116). It is true there are some parallels, but I think the record of Jesus far surpasses what is related in Rabbinic writing regarding these two, both in terms of the quality of Jesus' relationship with God and the fact that Jesus suggests that others should aspire to the same type of relationship with God. In fact, I cannot help but wonder if Jesus may have been the first person in history to advocate that it is possible for the average person to have a close personal relationship with God. In antiquity, such experiences were limited to those unusual individuals considered prophets, shamans or mystics.
Borg interprets the personal experiential aspects of the stories at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (baptism, time in the wilderness) in terms of charismatic Judaism, with echoes hearkening back to the experiences of the Old Testament prophets. And the connection that Borg makes with the prophets of old, may have been in the background of the presentation of these stories by the Gospel writers (in the sense of the renewal of divine prophecy in their time, even though they certainly believed Jesus to be more than a prophet). But you can be sure wherever there are events and sayings that Borg interprets as placing Jesus within charismatic Judaism, Ehrman will use the same sayings to place Jesus within apocalyptic Judaism, under the assumption that where one is most likely to find charismatic Judaism in Jesus' time is among people who had apocalyptic expectations. Borg is defining charismatic Judaism in the sense of a renewal of the Spirit of prophecy as found in the Old Testament prophets. Ehrman goes in a different direction believing that the Jesus tradition follows the trend found at the end of the Jewish Biblical period of a shift from classical prophecy to apocalyptic predictions (especially the Biblical book of Daniel). Ehrman sees both John the Baptist and Jesus as examples of apocalyptic prophets. See my list of Characteristics of Apocalyptic Literature on Blackboard at Course Documents for a complete description of shift from classical Jewish prophecy to Jewish apocalyptic.
In the section on Jesus and the Spirit (page 125) Borg sees Jesus as a man filled with the spirit of God and uses this as the lens through which he will interpret much of the ministry of Jesus in order to have a way of speaking about the spiritual dimension of Jesus' ministry in language that is already found in the Gospels but also meaningful for modern Americans. This is a way of speaking about Jesus' ministry that Borg believes is credible to a modern reader as well as being useful as an organizing principle for understanding how concepts such as "authority," "presence," prayer and "intimacy with God" can all be connected within the religious experience of Jesus. These same themes are also important in understanding the experiences of the Old Testament prophets, which serves to help bolster (in my mind) the contention that the best way to view Jesus is the way that his disciples viewed him, as a prophet (though Borg prefers Jewish mystic as the unifying principle for understanding Jesus' ministry).
Beginning on page 131 Borg explains what he means by labeling Jesus a Jewish mystic, and he does a good job of explaining how mysticism is understood by modern scholars, but also this definition is quite close to the understanding of mysticism within the Roman Catholic tradition. Whether or not you buy into Borg's use of the category of mysticism to explain and unify Jesus' religious experiences, I believe Borg makes the a good case for his viewpoint, mentioning everything I can think of that would apply to this topic.
In Chapter 6 (page 137), Borg moves on to explain how this Jewish mystic Jesus functions within the context of his earthly ministry. As you may have discovered from the readings so far, there are really only two geographical dimensions to the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels: Galilee and Jerusalem, and Galilee is dominated by events around Capernaum and Jerusalem is dominated by the events of the last week of Jesus' life. (Pet peeve: Capernaum should be pronounced as Kafar-Nahum, village of Nahum, but the "h" sound got lost in the process of rendering it into Greek and Latin, and then the "f" sound got lost in rendering it into English.) What we cannot know for certain is how closely this geographical picture fits the reality of Jesus' ministry. Did Jesus really spend most of his time in Galilee? Probably. Why are there not more stories included about Jesus that took place outside the environs of Capernaum? Good question. Were these stories not available to the Gospel writers, or was there some reason to exclude them? Are the stories in the Gospel of John about Jesus in Judea (in Bethany and near the Jordan river) pure fiction or do they represent something of a tradition of events about Jesus that were unknown to the writers of the synoptic Gospels?
There are hints in the Gospels that Jesus' activity was much greater than what we find recorded in the Gospels (see Matthew 11:20-24). This passage is a word of judgment for unbelief found in the towns of Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida. We have plenty of examples of stories of Jesus placed in Capernaum, but only one in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), and none for Chorazin. So, it would seem that there were numerous miracles Jesus presumably performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida that are not recorded in the Gospels. For some reason only a small slice of the words and deeds of Jesus have been recorded and included in the written Gospels as we have them. If there is any historical value to the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark, it would seem that the author is primarily interested in those events that occurred in the near vicinity of Capernaum. While it is clear even in these few chapters Jesus did much elsewhere, the author's interest is what occurred in or near Capernaum.
Borg's point of "not about heaven" is well put (page 143-144). It is later Christian theology that connects the kingdom of God/Heaven with the traditional Christian concept of heaven. Excluding the Gospel of John, Jesus is much more interested in the way that the Reign of God will come upon earth, than what will happen in heaven. Also Borg's reference to the peasant class as the primary recipients of Jesus' ministry places the events in their proper social context. Borg also speaks briefly of the importance of the healings and exorcisms of Jesus. While it is common for us to read the stories of the exorcisms as healing stories(pages 148-150), I believe they are intended to be understood as a form of spiritual warfare, in which Jesus as the proxy for God combats the proxies of Satan, the demons. I will discuss this in more detail in a later posting on Jesus' miracles.
Borg's section on Jesus' sayings, parables and aphorisms in particular, while limited, gives a very good overview of how these two categories of Jesus' teaching are understood in modern scholarship (pages 150-157). Much of what Borg says on this topic would hold true for conservative scholars as well as liberal scholars. The role that Jesus' meals played in Jesus' ministry is still a topic of debate (pages 157-160). The members of the Jesus' Seminar tend to view this dimension of Jesus' ministry as a central feature in which his dining with "sinners" is an indication of the presence of the Reign of God within the ministry of Jesus. Conservative scholars are not always sure how much weight to give the meals with "sinners" in understanding Jesus' ministry. Certainly they indicate Jesus' love for the outcasts of society, but whether they should be seen as a sign of the presence of the Kingdom (Reign) of God is an open question.
For John Dominic Crossan (key member of the Jesus Seminar) these meals that Jesus partakes of with "sinners" tend to be a central focus of Jesus' ministry and an organizing principle for Crossan in his interpretation of Jesus, that helps explain the significance of what Jesus is saying in his parables that can be connected with embracing the outcasts of society. That message becomes a reality in these meals where Jesus (as God's representative) is dining with the outcasts ("sinners"), and thereby the Reign of God that embraces all people becomes a reality in Jesus' ministry. But it is not so much a central theme for Borg because he uses Jesus the "spirit person" or Jesus as "Jewish mystic" as his organizing principle for comprehending the ministry of Jesus.
ASIDE: An enduring question among scholars is: what did Jesus do that got himself killed? Was he simply misunderstood? Did he use inflammatory rhetoric? More on this when we get to the topic of the death of Jesus. But a common put-down among scholars to disrespect the views of another scholar's reconstruction of the life and message of Jesus is to say: If that's how Jesus lived, it's hardly enough to get himself killed. Bottom line is: Jesus had to have done something brash enough to warrant the death penalty.
On page 163 Borg offers his summary of the chapter. As I mentioned before, it seems to me that for Borg, Jesus the Jewish mystic encompasses the other categories. However, I am not so sure that is the best way to envision this. I think it makes more sense to combine the categories of Jesus as mystic and Jesus as prophet, and maybe even put prophet first, because in the Old Testament, it is the prophets who have what we would call mystical experiences. I do not think the two can be separated. Then the other categories would be dependent upon that understanding of Jesus as a prophet/mystic, especially as that pertains to Jesus as healer and teacher, as one who has the authority of a prophet in the sense of one who speaks for God. Borg limits his definition of prophet here to fit his own personal religious agenda and this offers a perfect example of recasting Jesus in a way that makes him relevant to modern concerns that Borg would support. To say that Jesus' critique of the "domination system" is the reason he was executed is probably too thin, and (in my mind) does not meet the criteria of something "brash enough" to warrant the death penalty. That is, in order to get killed, Jesus must have been perceived as a threat to the system, not just be a nuisance.
On the first page (108) Borg states a fundamental presupposition of his, Jesus - during his earthly ministry - was not God in any sense whatsoever. In a sense this seems to me to be as much a doctrinal position as a conclusion of historical research. As a result, some verses that could be interpreted as referring to Jesus' self-understanding of his being the Son of God (which Borg doubts is true), are interpreted as speaking about Jesus' experience of God, not Jesus being divine.
Many modern New Testament scholars believe that the traditional doctrinal equation between Jesus as the Son of God and Jesus as divine probably was not true in the minds of the Gospel writers and certainly was not true in the mind of Jesus. Therefore, they are inclined to represent Jesus as a prophet, or someone who thought he was a prophet in a mode similar to John the Baptist.
Even though Borg denies the divinity of Jesus, he emphasizes the unmistakable close relationship that Jesus had with his God (at least there is no doubt that Jesus believed he had a close relationship with God). It is this feature which Borg chooses to focus on. It seems to me that what is appealing to Borg in this discussion is Jesus as a model of experiencing God. I suspect the reason Borg focuses on this experiential side of Jesus' relationship with God is because it resonates well with modern people for whom various types of experiential religion have an appeal to them (without a lot of doctrinal baggage), and this appeal of experiential religion may be due to the lack of the perceived presence of God in modern everyday life.
To find a contemporary of Jesus with this same kind of spirituality that Jesus exhibits, Borg mentions Jewish wonder workers Honi the Circledrawer and Hanina ben Dosa (on page 116). It is true there are some parallels, but I think the record of Jesus far surpasses what is related in Rabbinic writing regarding these two, both in terms of the quality of Jesus' relationship with God and the fact that Jesus suggests that others should aspire to the same type of relationship with God. In fact, I cannot help but wonder if Jesus may have been the first person in history to advocate that it is possible for the average person to have a close personal relationship with God. In antiquity, such experiences were limited to those unusual individuals considered prophets, shamans or mystics.
Borg interprets the personal experiential aspects of the stories at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (baptism, time in the wilderness) in terms of charismatic Judaism, with echoes hearkening back to the experiences of the Old Testament prophets. And the connection that Borg makes with the prophets of old, may have been in the background of the presentation of these stories by the Gospel writers (in the sense of the renewal of divine prophecy in their time, even though they certainly believed Jesus to be more than a prophet). But you can be sure wherever there are events and sayings that Borg interprets as placing Jesus within charismatic Judaism, Ehrman will use the same sayings to place Jesus within apocalyptic Judaism, under the assumption that where one is most likely to find charismatic Judaism in Jesus' time is among people who had apocalyptic expectations. Borg is defining charismatic Judaism in the sense of a renewal of the Spirit of prophecy as found in the Old Testament prophets. Ehrman goes in a different direction believing that the Jesus tradition follows the trend found at the end of the Jewish Biblical period of a shift from classical prophecy to apocalyptic predictions (especially the Biblical book of Daniel). Ehrman sees both John the Baptist and Jesus as examples of apocalyptic prophets. See my list of Characteristics of Apocalyptic Literature on Blackboard at Course Documents for a complete description of shift from classical Jewish prophecy to Jewish apocalyptic.
In the section on Jesus and the Spirit (page 125) Borg sees Jesus as a man filled with the spirit of God and uses this as the lens through which he will interpret much of the ministry of Jesus in order to have a way of speaking about the spiritual dimension of Jesus' ministry in language that is already found in the Gospels but also meaningful for modern Americans. This is a way of speaking about Jesus' ministry that Borg believes is credible to a modern reader as well as being useful as an organizing principle for understanding how concepts such as "authority," "presence," prayer and "intimacy with God" can all be connected within the religious experience of Jesus. These same themes are also important in understanding the experiences of the Old Testament prophets, which serves to help bolster (in my mind) the contention that the best way to view Jesus is the way that his disciples viewed him, as a prophet (though Borg prefers Jewish mystic as the unifying principle for understanding Jesus' ministry).
Beginning on page 131 Borg explains what he means by labeling Jesus a Jewish mystic, and he does a good job of explaining how mysticism is understood by modern scholars, but also this definition is quite close to the understanding of mysticism within the Roman Catholic tradition. Whether or not you buy into Borg's use of the category of mysticism to explain and unify Jesus' religious experiences, I believe Borg makes the a good case for his viewpoint, mentioning everything I can think of that would apply to this topic.
In Chapter 6 (page 137), Borg moves on to explain how this Jewish mystic Jesus functions within the context of his earthly ministry. As you may have discovered from the readings so far, there are really only two geographical dimensions to the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels: Galilee and Jerusalem, and Galilee is dominated by events around Capernaum and Jerusalem is dominated by the events of the last week of Jesus' life. (Pet peeve: Capernaum should be pronounced as Kafar-Nahum, village of Nahum, but the "h" sound got lost in the process of rendering it into Greek and Latin, and then the "f" sound got lost in rendering it into English.) What we cannot know for certain is how closely this geographical picture fits the reality of Jesus' ministry. Did Jesus really spend most of his time in Galilee? Probably. Why are there not more stories included about Jesus that took place outside the environs of Capernaum? Good question. Were these stories not available to the Gospel writers, or was there some reason to exclude them? Are the stories in the Gospel of John about Jesus in Judea (in Bethany and near the Jordan river) pure fiction or do they represent something of a tradition of events about Jesus that were unknown to the writers of the synoptic Gospels?
There are hints in the Gospels that Jesus' activity was much greater than what we find recorded in the Gospels (see Matthew 11:20-24). This passage is a word of judgment for unbelief found in the towns of Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida. We have plenty of examples of stories of Jesus placed in Capernaum, but only one in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), and none for Chorazin. So, it would seem that there were numerous miracles Jesus presumably performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida that are not recorded in the Gospels. For some reason only a small slice of the words and deeds of Jesus have been recorded and included in the written Gospels as we have them. If there is any historical value to the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark, it would seem that the author is primarily interested in those events that occurred in the near vicinity of Capernaum. While it is clear even in these few chapters Jesus did much elsewhere, the author's interest is what occurred in or near Capernaum.
Borg's point of "not about heaven" is well put (page 143-144). It is later Christian theology that connects the kingdom of God/Heaven with the traditional Christian concept of heaven. Excluding the Gospel of John, Jesus is much more interested in the way that the Reign of God will come upon earth, than what will happen in heaven. Also Borg's reference to the peasant class as the primary recipients of Jesus' ministry places the events in their proper social context. Borg also speaks briefly of the importance of the healings and exorcisms of Jesus. While it is common for us to read the stories of the exorcisms as healing stories(pages 148-150), I believe they are intended to be understood as a form of spiritual warfare, in which Jesus as the proxy for God combats the proxies of Satan, the demons. I will discuss this in more detail in a later posting on Jesus' miracles.
Borg's section on Jesus' sayings, parables and aphorisms in particular, while limited, gives a very good overview of how these two categories of Jesus' teaching are understood in modern scholarship (pages 150-157). Much of what Borg says on this topic would hold true for conservative scholars as well as liberal scholars. The role that Jesus' meals played in Jesus' ministry is still a topic of debate (pages 157-160). The members of the Jesus' Seminar tend to view this dimension of Jesus' ministry as a central feature in which his dining with "sinners" is an indication of the presence of the Reign of God within the ministry of Jesus. Conservative scholars are not always sure how much weight to give the meals with "sinners" in understanding Jesus' ministry. Certainly they indicate Jesus' love for the outcasts of society, but whether they should be seen as a sign of the presence of the Kingdom (Reign) of God is an open question.
For John Dominic Crossan (key member of the Jesus Seminar) these meals that Jesus partakes of with "sinners" tend to be a central focus of Jesus' ministry and an organizing principle for Crossan in his interpretation of Jesus, that helps explain the significance of what Jesus is saying in his parables that can be connected with embracing the outcasts of society. That message becomes a reality in these meals where Jesus (as God's representative) is dining with the outcasts ("sinners"), and thereby the Reign of God that embraces all people becomes a reality in Jesus' ministry. But it is not so much a central theme for Borg because he uses Jesus the "spirit person" or Jesus as "Jewish mystic" as his organizing principle for comprehending the ministry of Jesus.
ASIDE: An enduring question among scholars is: what did Jesus do that got himself killed? Was he simply misunderstood? Did he use inflammatory rhetoric? More on this when we get to the topic of the death of Jesus. But a common put-down among scholars to disrespect the views of another scholar's reconstruction of the life and message of Jesus is to say: If that's how Jesus lived, it's hardly enough to get himself killed. Bottom line is: Jesus had to have done something brash enough to warrant the death penalty.
On page 163 Borg offers his summary of the chapter. As I mentioned before, it seems to me that for Borg, Jesus the Jewish mystic encompasses the other categories. However, I am not so sure that is the best way to envision this. I think it makes more sense to combine the categories of Jesus as mystic and Jesus as prophet, and maybe even put prophet first, because in the Old Testament, it is the prophets who have what we would call mystical experiences. I do not think the two can be separated. Then the other categories would be dependent upon that understanding of Jesus as a prophet/mystic, especially as that pertains to Jesus as healer and teacher, as one who has the authority of a prophet in the sense of one who speaks for God. Borg limits his definition of prophet here to fit his own personal religious agenda and this offers a perfect example of recasting Jesus in a way that makes him relevant to modern concerns that Borg would support. To say that Jesus' critique of the "domination system" is the reason he was executed is probably too thin, and (in my mind) does not meet the criteria of something "brash enough" to warrant the death penalty. That is, in order to get killed, Jesus must have been perceived as a threat to the system, not just be a nuisance.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Block 3 - The Birth of Jesus
The Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke have always been under suspicion since the inception of the historical critical method. This is for at least two reasons: first, suspicions of the miraculous elements in these stories and also secondly, how much of the stories include private dialogue, which has always been held under suspicion by historical critical scholars. Thus, they are widely held to be legendary material by such scholars. This would include the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The general conclusion is that this location for Jesus' birth was not based on the memory of people who knew Jesus, but rather was suggested to early Christians by the reference to Bethlehem in Micah 5:2 as early Christians searched the Jewish scriptures for clues about Jesus as they tried to piece together his earthly life. Bottom line is: most historical critical scholars believe Jesus' followers only became interested in his early life long after he became the revered savior of his followers.
The traditional opinion has always been that there was continuity between Jesus and the early Christians in Jerusalem by way of the recollections of his disciples and family members who joined up with the church after his resurrection, including at least one brother and his mother. Following this line of thought, the variations in what we find in the two versions of his birth is due to the fact that Matthew presents Joseph's point of view, while Luke tells Mary's side of the story. Obviously, many modern scholars do not find this a credible explanation for the source of these birth narratives.
Borg discusses the birth narratives on pages 61-69. He sees the differences between the two versions as discrepancies which mar their credibility as historical records. The reference to the birth of Caesar Augustus is to show that before the time of Jesus that there was already a practice to tell the story of a famous person's birth by including elements of the miraculous and divine intervention to demonstrate both the divine favor on such an individual and even a divine origin for such a person. Borg's point is that both the Roman government and the early Christians found it useful to invent such stories to promote the divine origin and divine approval of their leader. The other part of Borg's analysis is that there are obvious theological elements in these stories, not because God wanted it to happen that way, but because the Gospel writers used these stories to demonstrate that the birth of Jesus heralded the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between God and his people.
Ehrman does not say much about the birth narratives except to use them as an example of how obvious it is (to Ehrman anyway) that the Gospels as narrated cannot be trusted as historical sources (pages 39-40). Other scholars point out the aspects of the stories that simply seem far-fetched in terms of how things were done in a Roman occupied province like Palestine, especially the tax census in Luke.
Early in the 20th century, scholars were interested in attempting to find sources behind these stories. But in the second half of the 20th century, the focus shifted to the theological motivation of the Gospel writers. Indeed, there are many scholars who are convinced that both Matthew and Luke each created their birth stories to make a theological point, or even to set the theological tone for the entire gospel, by introducing themes that recur throughout each gospel. For Matthew, there is obviously a parallel between Jesus and Moses, with Jesus presented as being greater than Moses. Even conservative scholars will acknowledge this, but say that's because that's the way it happened. In both gospels the birth stories introduce Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God who was sent by God as the savior of not just the people Israel but the savior of the entire world, as marked by the arrival of the Magi in Matthew 2:1-12, and Simeon's allusion to Isaiah 42:6 in Luke 2:32 ("a light to the Gentiles").
In discussing the birth stories, Fredriksen concentrates on the theological motivation of the Gospel authors, believing this is the more reasonable explanation for the shape of these stories, and finds it very unlikely that any events from the memories of Jesus' followers contributed to the formation of these stories. Therefore, Fredriksen sides with those who find no historical value in the birth stories. It seems to me that even though the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke (most likely) do not have a literary common source, that they do have in common the elements of the virginal conception and the birth in Bethlehem. This would say to me that there is some common tradition behind these stories about the circumstances of Jesus' conception and birth that were current among his early followers.
The definitive study on the birth narratives is The Birth of Messiah by Raymond Brown. In this book Brown painstakingly attempts to separate what is tradition that the gospel writers received about the birth of Jesus, and how they reworked and modified that traditional material in the process of incorporating the stories in their gospels. Such an adventure in reconstructing the history of the text is of little interest to most historical critical scholars today. Since (according to the conclusions of historical critical inquiry) none of the material in the birth narratives is historically credible, even the pre-Gospel stories of Jesus' birth are purely legendary, therefore these narratives are of no interest to historical Jesus scholars. On the other hand, there are scholars who are only interested in the final form of the gospels and they are more interested in the literary technique and theological themes employed by the gospel writer, so anything that happened with the gospel traditions (sayings and stories) before they reached the authors who put them in their final gospel form is of no interest to them either.
Conclusion: The Birth Narratives are of no account to most modern Jesus scholars for the reasons mentioned above.
The traditional opinion has always been that there was continuity between Jesus and the early Christians in Jerusalem by way of the recollections of his disciples and family members who joined up with the church after his resurrection, including at least one brother and his mother. Following this line of thought, the variations in what we find in the two versions of his birth is due to the fact that Matthew presents Joseph's point of view, while Luke tells Mary's side of the story. Obviously, many modern scholars do not find this a credible explanation for the source of these birth narratives.
Borg discusses the birth narratives on pages 61-69. He sees the differences between the two versions as discrepancies which mar their credibility as historical records. The reference to the birth of Caesar Augustus is to show that before the time of Jesus that there was already a practice to tell the story of a famous person's birth by including elements of the miraculous and divine intervention to demonstrate both the divine favor on such an individual and even a divine origin for such a person. Borg's point is that both the Roman government and the early Christians found it useful to invent such stories to promote the divine origin and divine approval of their leader. The other part of Borg's analysis is that there are obvious theological elements in these stories, not because God wanted it to happen that way, but because the Gospel writers used these stories to demonstrate that the birth of Jesus heralded the beginning of a new chapter in the relationship between God and his people.
Ehrman does not say much about the birth narratives except to use them as an example of how obvious it is (to Ehrman anyway) that the Gospels as narrated cannot be trusted as historical sources (pages 39-40). Other scholars point out the aspects of the stories that simply seem far-fetched in terms of how things were done in a Roman occupied province like Palestine, especially the tax census in Luke.
Early in the 20th century, scholars were interested in attempting to find sources behind these stories. But in the second half of the 20th century, the focus shifted to the theological motivation of the Gospel writers. Indeed, there are many scholars who are convinced that both Matthew and Luke each created their birth stories to make a theological point, or even to set the theological tone for the entire gospel, by introducing themes that recur throughout each gospel. For Matthew, there is obviously a parallel between Jesus and Moses, with Jesus presented as being greater than Moses. Even conservative scholars will acknowledge this, but say that's because that's the way it happened. In both gospels the birth stories introduce Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God who was sent by God as the savior of not just the people Israel but the savior of the entire world, as marked by the arrival of the Magi in Matthew 2:1-12, and Simeon's allusion to Isaiah 42:6 in Luke 2:32 ("a light to the Gentiles").
In discussing the birth stories, Fredriksen concentrates on the theological motivation of the Gospel authors, believing this is the more reasonable explanation for the shape of these stories, and finds it very unlikely that any events from the memories of Jesus' followers contributed to the formation of these stories. Therefore, Fredriksen sides with those who find no historical value in the birth stories. It seems to me that even though the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke (most likely) do not have a literary common source, that they do have in common the elements of the virginal conception and the birth in Bethlehem. This would say to me that there is some common tradition behind these stories about the circumstances of Jesus' conception and birth that were current among his early followers.
The definitive study on the birth narratives is The Birth of Messiah by Raymond Brown. In this book Brown painstakingly attempts to separate what is tradition that the gospel writers received about the birth of Jesus, and how they reworked and modified that traditional material in the process of incorporating the stories in their gospels. Such an adventure in reconstructing the history of the text is of little interest to most historical critical scholars today. Since (according to the conclusions of historical critical inquiry) none of the material in the birth narratives is historically credible, even the pre-Gospel stories of Jesus' birth are purely legendary, therefore these narratives are of no interest to historical Jesus scholars. On the other hand, there are scholars who are only interested in the final form of the gospels and they are more interested in the literary technique and theological themes employed by the gospel writer, so anything that happened with the gospel traditions (sayings and stories) before they reached the authors who put them in their final gospel form is of no interest to them either.
Conclusion: The Birth Narratives are of no account to most modern Jesus scholars for the reasons mentioned above.
Block 3 - The Jesus Seminar
Robert Funk is a New Testament scholar who never hesitated doing things in an unconventional way. During the early 1980's he became rather annoyed that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other preachers with right-wing politics and large followings could get a hearing on national TV, but the liberal academic viewpoint never attracted any attention in the national media. So, in 1985, with the assistance of some 30 like-minded scholars he established the Jesus Seminar (at its peak nearly 200 New Testament scholars were associated with the Jesus Seminar). The intention was to gather a large number of historical critical New Testament Scholars together, and at the end of lengthy deliberations on the historical veracity of the sayings and deeds of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, using different colored beads they would vote on whether a particular saying was most certainly spoken by Jesus (red bead), probably spoken by Jesus (pink bead), probably not spoken by Jesus (gray bead), certainly not spoken by Jesus (black bead). All of the sayings in the four canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas were broken down into 1,500 individual sayings. Over the course of the next 6 years (1985-1991), the Jesus Seminar met periodically and voted on the sayings of Jesus after due deliberation.
When all was said and done, the results were compiled by Robert Funk into a book entitled: The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (published 1993). As you might imagine, not that many sayings of Jesus were included in the book in red type. The voting was weighted in the direction that authenticity was not assumed, but must be proven. Therefore, at least 75% of the scholars (in attendance when a vote on a particular saying was taken) had to vote with a red bead in order for that saying to be included in the book in red type. It would not take too many gray or black beads to pull a saying out of the red level and on to the pink level, where pink still has a high level of probability but not unanimity among those scholars. To give you a good example of how this plays out in practice, here is the rendering of the Lord's Prayer in Funk's Five Gospels. Funk and his friends also came up with a new translation of the Gospels that fits their conclusions about the meaning of the sayings of Jesus in their original historical context. As will be obvious, any translation is also an interpretation.
Our Father in the heavens, your name be revered, Impose your imperial rule, enact your will on earth as you have in heaven. Provide us with the bread we need for the day. Forgive our debts to the extent that we have forgiven those in debt to us. And please don't subject us to test after test, but rescue us from the evil one.
As you can see, unanimous approval was hard to find. But those words in pink means a majority of the scholars believed those words come from Jesus. Only that which is in Black means that a majority of the scholars who voted thought those words did Not come from Jesus.
Leafing through Funk's book, there is not a lot that gets put in red letters. Most of the red letter sayings are parables, The Leaven in Dough (Mt. 13) , The Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt. 20), The Good Samaritan (Lk. 10), The Dishonest Manager (Lk. 16). Most of the remaining parables are in pink type, meaning that over 50% of the voting scholars were convinced they came from Jesus. Other statements that get red letter treatment are the discourse about "Don't Worry" (Mt. 6), Luke's version of the Beatitudes (Lk. 6), and paying Caesar (Mk. 12).
There are No red letter sayings in the Gospel of John. The only line in the Gospel of John that receives pink letters is a short phrase that appears elsewhere in the Gospels: "A prophet gets no respect on his own turf" (Jn. 4:43). The rest of John is in black type with a few scattered sayings in gray.
Some sayings in the Gospel of Thomas get the red letter treatment, but these tend to be ones that appear also in the Synoptics and were given red letters in the Synoptics.
After completing the project on the sayings of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar undertook the same project with regard to the actions and deeds of Jesus. The results were published in 1998 as: The Acts of Jesus, What Did Jesus Really Do? Very little in this book receives red letter treatment. The few statements that are in red tend to be statements that Jesus was born, Jesus was baptized, Jesus went to Capernaum, Jesus was crucified. Only those actions of Jesus which even the most skeptical scholar would have to admit are historically true are given the red letter treatment.
As the work of the Jesus Seminar progressed, Funk did his best to attract media attention. During this same time, a prominent member of the seminar, Marcus Borg wrote a book on the life of Jesus for a popular audience, and wasted no time in accepting whatever opportunity he could find to discuss his book and the work of the Jesus Seminar on national television. Though other scholars attempted to get a piece of the media spotlight (following Funk's suggestion), Borg was the most successful in coming up with "sound bites" that worked in that medium of national TV coverage. As time went on, John Dominic Crossan, whom I would label the third of the three most important scholars in the Jesus Seminar, did get his face on TV at ABC and PBS and the History Channel, which all produced specials on the Life of Jesus based on the work of the Jesus Seminar.
When all was said and done, the results were compiled by Robert Funk into a book entitled: The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (published 1993). As you might imagine, not that many sayings of Jesus were included in the book in red type. The voting was weighted in the direction that authenticity was not assumed, but must be proven. Therefore, at least 75% of the scholars (in attendance when a vote on a particular saying was taken) had to vote with a red bead in order for that saying to be included in the book in red type. It would not take too many gray or black beads to pull a saying out of the red level and on to the pink level, where pink still has a high level of probability but not unanimity among those scholars. To give you a good example of how this plays out in practice, here is the rendering of the Lord's Prayer in Funk's Five Gospels. Funk and his friends also came up with a new translation of the Gospels that fits their conclusions about the meaning of the sayings of Jesus in their original historical context. As will be obvious, any translation is also an interpretation.
Our Father in the heavens, your name be revered, Impose your imperial rule, enact your will on earth as you have in heaven. Provide us with the bread we need for the day. Forgive our debts to the extent that we have forgiven those in debt to us. And please don't subject us to test after test, but rescue us from the evil one.
As you can see, unanimous approval was hard to find. But those words in pink means a majority of the scholars believed those words come from Jesus. Only that which is in Black means that a majority of the scholars who voted thought those words did Not come from Jesus.
Leafing through Funk's book, there is not a lot that gets put in red letters. Most of the red letter sayings are parables, The Leaven in Dough (Mt. 13) , The Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt. 20), The Good Samaritan (Lk. 10), The Dishonest Manager (Lk. 16). Most of the remaining parables are in pink type, meaning that over 50% of the voting scholars were convinced they came from Jesus. Other statements that get red letter treatment are the discourse about "Don't Worry" (Mt. 6), Luke's version of the Beatitudes (Lk. 6), and paying Caesar (Mk. 12).
There are No red letter sayings in the Gospel of John. The only line in the Gospel of John that receives pink letters is a short phrase that appears elsewhere in the Gospels: "A prophet gets no respect on his own turf" (Jn. 4:43). The rest of John is in black type with a few scattered sayings in gray.
Some sayings in the Gospel of Thomas get the red letter treatment, but these tend to be ones that appear also in the Synoptics and were given red letters in the Synoptics.
After completing the project on the sayings of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar undertook the same project with regard to the actions and deeds of Jesus. The results were published in 1998 as: The Acts of Jesus, What Did Jesus Really Do? Very little in this book receives red letter treatment. The few statements that are in red tend to be statements that Jesus was born, Jesus was baptized, Jesus went to Capernaum, Jesus was crucified. Only those actions of Jesus which even the most skeptical scholar would have to admit are historically true are given the red letter treatment.
As the work of the Jesus Seminar progressed, Funk did his best to attract media attention. During this same time, a prominent member of the seminar, Marcus Borg wrote a book on the life of Jesus for a popular audience, and wasted no time in accepting whatever opportunity he could find to discuss his book and the work of the Jesus Seminar on national television. Though other scholars attempted to get a piece of the media spotlight (following Funk's suggestion), Borg was the most successful in coming up with "sound bites" that worked in that medium of national TV coverage. As time went on, John Dominic Crossan, whom I would label the third of the three most important scholars in the Jesus Seminar, did get his face on TV at ABC and PBS and the History Channel, which all produced specials on the Life of Jesus based on the work of the Jesus Seminar.
Block 3 - The Historical Framework of Jesus' Ministry - Intro
This is a quick introduction to Block 3. My main intent here is that if you are interested in the topic, be sure to read the pages in our three textbooks that address this issue.
First, Borg is much more interested in probing Jesus' personal religious experience than the chronological/geographical dimensions of his ministry. Secondly, it surprises me that with Ehrman's skepticism, he is actually more positive on the historical value of the gospels than the members of the Jesus seminar (represented in this course by Borg). Any time that Ehrman mentions "certain scholars" or "some recent scholars" you can be sure he is referring to scholars involved in the Jesus seminar.
I wish to offer a few comments of my own. First, the idea that Jesus was 30 years old when he began his ministry is found in Luke 3:23. Scholars are divided on how accurate this report might be. If Jesus was born when Herod was alive, that would have been probably somewhere in the years 6-4 BCE. If the basic chronological outline of the story of Jesus' death, as told in the Synoptics, is correct, then (educated guess) Jesus would have died in one of three possible years: 27, 30 or 33 CE (based on chronological reconstructions of what calendar years fit the relationship of Passover and Sabbath as portrayed in the Synoptic Passion Narratives).
Secondly, the traditional view that Jesus' ministry lasted three years is based on the fact that three different Passovers are mentioned in the Gospel of John. However, if the value of the Gospel of John as an historical source is weak, then the idea of a ministry of three years is unlikely. If all we had to go on was the Gospel of Mark, we might be inclined to think of Jesus' earthly ministry as a rather brief enterprise. Everything narrated in the Gospel of Mark could conceivably have taken place in the span of 6-8 weeks. Thus, we really do not know how long Jesus may have engaged in his public ministry.
We will address the historical questions related to the events of Jesus' last week on earth at the end of the semester.
First, Borg is much more interested in probing Jesus' personal religious experience than the chronological/geographical dimensions of his ministry. Secondly, it surprises me that with Ehrman's skepticism, he is actually more positive on the historical value of the gospels than the members of the Jesus seminar (represented in this course by Borg). Any time that Ehrman mentions "certain scholars" or "some recent scholars" you can be sure he is referring to scholars involved in the Jesus seminar.
I wish to offer a few comments of my own. First, the idea that Jesus was 30 years old when he began his ministry is found in Luke 3:23. Scholars are divided on how accurate this report might be. If Jesus was born when Herod was alive, that would have been probably somewhere in the years 6-4 BCE. If the basic chronological outline of the story of Jesus' death, as told in the Synoptics, is correct, then (educated guess) Jesus would have died in one of three possible years: 27, 30 or 33 CE (based on chronological reconstructions of what calendar years fit the relationship of Passover and Sabbath as portrayed in the Synoptic Passion Narratives).
Secondly, the traditional view that Jesus' ministry lasted three years is based on the fact that three different Passovers are mentioned in the Gospel of John. However, if the value of the Gospel of John as an historical source is weak, then the idea of a ministry of three years is unlikely. If all we had to go on was the Gospel of Mark, we might be inclined to think of Jesus' earthly ministry as a rather brief enterprise. Everything narrated in the Gospel of Mark could conceivably have taken place in the span of 6-8 weeks. Thus, we really do not know how long Jesus may have engaged in his public ministry.
We will address the historical questions related to the events of Jesus' last week on earth at the end of the semester.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Block 2 - Fredriksen, Pages 42-73
Fredriksen begins with a portrayal of what a visit to the temple might look like. I get the impression she is trying to represent her view of what Jesus' trip to the temple at age twelve might have looked like (cf. Luke 2:42). A bit of translation in case you did not catch the Hebrew right off: Ya'akov = Jacob, Yehoshua = Joshua or Jesus, Moshe = Moses, Yosef = Joseph, Natzerat = Nazareth, Pesach = Passover. I am sure Fredricksen did this to give her presentation more of a Jewish feeling to it. Also worth noting, "stoa" is the Greek word for porch, and I am not quite sure why she would use that here, unless she wants us to think that maybe the Jews of Jesus' time would have referred to a section of the temple by its Greek name. On page 48 the reference to the purification pools being dark is because any large storage place for water needed to be out of the sunlight, because sunlight would encourage the growth of algae and and other contaminants.
The reason that Fredriksen offers this picture of temple activity is that for the average Jewish person, the temple was still the center of the Jewish religion. The Gospels put more emphasis on Jesus in the synagogues, and when Jesus is in the temple, most of the discussion is about either Jesus teaching or debating with representatives of other Jewish viewpoints (Pharisees and Sadducees). In all likelihood, the average Jewish person thought that the big deal was going to the temple for one of the annual Jewish festivals which are listed in the law. The synagogue was a recent innovation (or so historical critical scholars believe) in the time of Jesus. After the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, the synagogue became the focus of Jewish religious life (though the home always came first). But in the time of Jesus, the temple is where the all important sacrifices took place. The synagogue was merely a place of prayer and instruction. You got right with God at the temple, not the synagogue.
On page 52, Fredriksen makes a good point that is often overlooked in Life of Jesus studies, at the time Jesus lived, the Jerusalem temple with its animal sacrifices was the center of Jewish life, and this phenomenon of animal sacrifices was just as true for all the pagan religions. The only place this would not hold true would be for those people who had latched onto a Greek philosophy as their primary religious viewpoint. But even such people would still participate in the annual pagan festivals that honored the patron gods of their home city, and that would include eating meat that had been slaughtered at a pagan temple.
Fredriksen does a very nice job explaining the basic outlines of the rules of Jewish purity. On pages 68-70, she does a nice job explaining a set of rules that are based on a mindset (pure vs. defiled) that often does not make much sense to modern Americans. As much as I have read about the topic, it still seems a strange way of thinking to me. You would think that contact with a "Gentile" (pagan) would be defiling, but they are not. But I think the basic reason why they are not is that within a Jewish mindset, nobody outside their group really matters. It is as if they do not exist. But since they do not belong, they must be excluded from all places that are "members only" (that is, set aside for a sacred use). Thus the existence at the Jerusalem temple of the court of the Gentiles, but the warning of death to Gentile trespassers into the next area.
It is interesting that for the early Christians that they very quickly decided that participation in the temple sacrifices was no longer necessary after understanding Jesus' death as the final sacrifice for sins. However, the debates about the rules of purity continued for several decades. The first two chapters of Paul's letter to the Christians in Galatia are evidence of this debate, and the fact that by the time he writes Galatians, there are still numerous Christian missionaries advocating that converts to Christianity from paganism must adopt a Jewish lifestyle that includes following the rules of purity. After the destruction of Jerusalem ( 70 CE) the number of Christians advocating the necessity of living a Jewish lifestyle shrank in number and in the book of Acts this debate is played down because the matter is a done deal by the time Acts was written. No longer were there missionaries advocating that converts from paganism had to adopt the Jewish lifestyle.
On page 62, Fredriksen offers a nice summary of the main points of agreement among all Jews in the time of Jesus. In Fredriksen's discussion of Judaism, it is important to keep in mind that the only Bible at the time of Jesus that all Jewish people would agree upon is the Torah, referred to as the Law, which Christians know as the first give books of the Old Testament. Certainly the Pharisees considered the writings of the prophets (including Psalms) as worthy of being called sacred Scripture; this would also hold true for the Qumran Essenes, John the Baptist and Jesus, but many other Jewish people would not. Of course the Pharisees also had an additional set of rules, usually referred to at the oral law (which achieved its final oral form in 200 CE in a collection called the Mishnah and was written down sometime after that).
Overall chapter 2 on God and Israel is a good introduction to the mindset behind the Jewish way of life in the time of Jesus, and especially how this pertained to the actions of Jewish pilgrims in approaching the Jerusalem temple. However, it must be kept in mind, that Judaism is primarily a religion of the home. The daily prayers, the special prayers to begin the sabbath, and how the sabbath was celebrated primarily within the home (since no work was permitted). Even the passover was celebrated more often in homes without the lamb than in Jerusalem with the lamb. Also the responsibility of passing on the Jewish faith was the father's responsibility to teach his sons. Many modern scholars believe the practice of the town rabbi as the primary teacher of Hebrew and reading the Torah occurred long after the time of Jesus, maybe closer to 500 CE. But orthodox Jews would say this practice preceded the time of Jesus.
The reason that Fredriksen offers this picture of temple activity is that for the average Jewish person, the temple was still the center of the Jewish religion. The Gospels put more emphasis on Jesus in the synagogues, and when Jesus is in the temple, most of the discussion is about either Jesus teaching or debating with representatives of other Jewish viewpoints (Pharisees and Sadducees). In all likelihood, the average Jewish person thought that the big deal was going to the temple for one of the annual Jewish festivals which are listed in the law. The synagogue was a recent innovation (or so historical critical scholars believe) in the time of Jesus. After the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, the synagogue became the focus of Jewish religious life (though the home always came first). But in the time of Jesus, the temple is where the all important sacrifices took place. The synagogue was merely a place of prayer and instruction. You got right with God at the temple, not the synagogue.
On page 52, Fredriksen makes a good point that is often overlooked in Life of Jesus studies, at the time Jesus lived, the Jerusalem temple with its animal sacrifices was the center of Jewish life, and this phenomenon of animal sacrifices was just as true for all the pagan religions. The only place this would not hold true would be for those people who had latched onto a Greek philosophy as their primary religious viewpoint. But even such people would still participate in the annual pagan festivals that honored the patron gods of their home city, and that would include eating meat that had been slaughtered at a pagan temple.
Fredriksen does a very nice job explaining the basic outlines of the rules of Jewish purity. On pages 68-70, she does a nice job explaining a set of rules that are based on a mindset (pure vs. defiled) that often does not make much sense to modern Americans. As much as I have read about the topic, it still seems a strange way of thinking to me. You would think that contact with a "Gentile" (pagan) would be defiling, but they are not. But I think the basic reason why they are not is that within a Jewish mindset, nobody outside their group really matters. It is as if they do not exist. But since they do not belong, they must be excluded from all places that are "members only" (that is, set aside for a sacred use). Thus the existence at the Jerusalem temple of the court of the Gentiles, but the warning of death to Gentile trespassers into the next area.
It is interesting that for the early Christians that they very quickly decided that participation in the temple sacrifices was no longer necessary after understanding Jesus' death as the final sacrifice for sins. However, the debates about the rules of purity continued for several decades. The first two chapters of Paul's letter to the Christians in Galatia are evidence of this debate, and the fact that by the time he writes Galatians, there are still numerous Christian missionaries advocating that converts to Christianity from paganism must adopt a Jewish lifestyle that includes following the rules of purity. After the destruction of Jerusalem ( 70 CE) the number of Christians advocating the necessity of living a Jewish lifestyle shrank in number and in the book of Acts this debate is played down because the matter is a done deal by the time Acts was written. No longer were there missionaries advocating that converts from paganism had to adopt the Jewish lifestyle.
On page 62, Fredriksen offers a nice summary of the main points of agreement among all Jews in the time of Jesus. In Fredriksen's discussion of Judaism, it is important to keep in mind that the only Bible at the time of Jesus that all Jewish people would agree upon is the Torah, referred to as the Law, which Christians know as the first give books of the Old Testament. Certainly the Pharisees considered the writings of the prophets (including Psalms) as worthy of being called sacred Scripture; this would also hold true for the Qumran Essenes, John the Baptist and Jesus, but many other Jewish people would not. Of course the Pharisees also had an additional set of rules, usually referred to at the oral law (which achieved its final oral form in 200 CE in a collection called the Mishnah and was written down sometime after that).
Overall chapter 2 on God and Israel is a good introduction to the mindset behind the Jewish way of life in the time of Jesus, and especially how this pertained to the actions of Jewish pilgrims in approaching the Jerusalem temple. However, it must be kept in mind, that Judaism is primarily a religion of the home. The daily prayers, the special prayers to begin the sabbath, and how the sabbath was celebrated primarily within the home (since no work was permitted). Even the passover was celebrated more often in homes without the lamb than in Jerusalem with the lamb. Also the responsibility of passing on the Jewish faith was the father's responsibility to teach his sons. Many modern scholars believe the practice of the town rabbi as the primary teacher of Hebrew and reading the Torah occurred long after the time of Jesus, maybe closer to 500 CE. But orthodox Jews would say this practice preceded the time of Jesus.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Block 2 - Borg, Pages 77-108
Borg's chapter 4, while not thorough, it is a basic introduction to the topic of Judaism in the time of Jesus. Since we are dealing with this topic from a historical perspective, it makes sense that all of these scholars wish to place Jesus within his own proper historical milieu. But there are a variety of dimensions to this project. Sixty years ago Life of Jesus scholars were mostly interested in the various religious groups operating within Palestine during the time of Jesus. But there were two significant developments that has changed how this whole project is undertaken. The FIRST development was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran (just south of modern day Jericho). The scholars who first studied these scrolls wondered if John the Baptist and maybe even Jesus spent time with the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, due to the prevalence of apocalyptic themes of divine judgment in the writings. Few serious scholars today believe there was any direct contact between the Essenes of Qumran and John the Baptist or Jesus (but all three and probably many others were influenced by a literal interpretation of Isaiah 40:3). What this discovery Dead Sea Scrolls accomplished was to force the recognition of the great diversity of Judaism in Palestine in the time of Jesus. The Pharisees were not the "top dogs" in any religious establishment; they simply had a degree of influence that far exceeded their numbers. The Sadducees probably were a much smaller group, but their viewpoint was popular within the high priestly circles. There may have been other prophets of judgment besides John the Baptist, but he was the most significant. The Essenes at Qumran (writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) may not have been the only reclusive group in the desert waiting for a dramatic/apocalyptic divine intervention into history to redeem God's people, Israel. Also recent examination shows that the role of the high priestly families in Palestine during the time of Jesus is as much a story of power politics and big money in Palestine as it is the story of a religious organization.
The SECOND development that has changed the way that scholars view life in Palestine in the time of Jesus is the emergence in the 1960's of social history as we know it today, and asking sociological questions about historical issues and then attempting to examine an ancient society by applying such investigative models to ancient texts (like the New Testament). In other words, there is more to history than the story of the "winners" and "losers." Earlier ways of writing history never thought much about the lives of manual laborers and the servant class, or even the local merchant class. Nor was there much interest in how economic factors affected political and social change. Nor were there academic resources or tools with which to work to discover such things. But more recent examinations of life in Palestine in the time of Jesus using social science models produces a much richer appreciation of the diversity and tensions within Palestinian society in Jesus' time.
Now to Borg, chapter 4. Borg makes reference to "a pre-industrial agricultural domination system," which is a fancy way of saying that life was not all that wonderful in Palestine during Jesus' time. As with most pre-industrial societies, the opportunities for advancing oneself beyond one's parents were practically nil. It also shows that the economy was primarily dependent on agriculture. But not like in the USA a hundred years ago when the majority of Americans lived on family farms. Note the parables of Jesus that speak of absentee landlords (Talents, Wicked Tenants). There was a lot of that in Jesus' time and here is the best answer I have found for why this is so (in addition to what Borg says about Herod's role, but I think he gives Herod too much credit for this phenomenon of absentee landlords).
The biggest industry in Palestine at this time is the Temple in Jerusalem. Some have estimated that it took 1,000 people to run the whole operation. The Gospel of Luke likes to portray the Temple as a place of prayer, but in reality it's primary function was as a major slaughterhouse, with the high priestly families keeping the majority of the profits for themselves. Here is how it worked: ordinary Joe Jew wants to offer a sacrifice at the temple, but it has to be a perfect animal (without blemish). He might own a perfect animal (sheep or goat) suitable for the occasion, but if he walks it all the way to Jerusalem, it might not be perfect when he arrives there, and it is too hot and difficult to carry such an animal. So, a better route (but costlier) is to purchase an already approved animal on the site. But if you carried Roman government coinage you may have to exchange your coinage for the correct currency for temple purchases (for a small exchange fee). Then you have to purchase the animal suitable for the sacrifice, which would be a lot more expensive than market rates. (Now you know the background of the story of Jesus upsetting the tables of the money-changers and letting the animals out of their pens in the temple outer courtyard). By the time Joe has purchased his animal and led it to the priests for sacrifice (death by one quick upward slice into the jugular to make sure all the blood drains out), he has quite an investment in this animal. But after the sacrificial ritual Joe only receives a small portion of the meat in return to share and eat with his family. The priests keep the majority, but they can only eat so much, so they sell the rest to the local butcher shops.
The temple in Jerusalem was a religious monopoly, and the high priestly families worked it to their advantage. They produced significant profits that they then invested in purchasing farm land throughout Palestine. So the average person suffered economically from this religious/economic arrangement. The high priestly family served at the pleasure of the Roman governor, so they had to be on good terms and do nothing to upset the Roman authorities. But the imperial Roman government based in Rome exacted high taxes from the lands they occupied and Palestine was no exception, and these high taxes and the underlying resentment of them by the average person is the background for the question to Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar, in wanting to see if Jesus would advocate tax resistance. But the fact that his questioners had a Roman coin in their possession showed which side of that debate they were on. The high taxation also was a major factor in the revolt that took place in 66 CE. To enforce their rule and put down revolts the Romans garrisoned troops in Palestine, and this was another sore point with the average person. Most people were happy to stay clear of any Romans. To the average rural Galilean, life was just trying to scratch an agricultural living out of rocky soil on land that the person did not even own.
Borg does a good job in chapter 4 presenting background historical information on life in Palestine at the time of Jesus. I would differ on a couple points. First, I think he overplays the role of Herod in the whole economic scheme, at the expense of the political and economic role of the high priestly families (Borg does make my point briefly at the bottom of page 90). The high priestly families were the rulers until the Romans came along and they managed to continue their influence by cooperating first with Herod and later with the provincial Roman governor. Herod needed the high priestly family to provide religious legitimization for his reign. Later, when Rome ruled directly through the local governor (Pontius Pilate in Jesus' time), the high priestly group through the Sanhedrin governed most of the civil affairs in the territory in which Jerusalem sits (Judea).
A major sore point with the working class people was the high rate of taxation. No wonder tax collectors were despised by the local population, in addition to the fact that the tax collectors often over-stated the taxes due and pocketed the difference for themselves (thus the economic/moral significance of the Zacchaeus story in Luke 19). But the smoldering resentment brought on by the economic and political oppression did Not result in a multitude of overt acts of violent resistance during Jesus' time, but only much later became organized into an armed revolt (year 66 CE). It is also possible that scholars like Borg read too much of the oppression-resentment factor into the stories of Jesus. Scholars are divided on exactly how much of a role this oppression-resentment factor actually plays in understanding the life of Jesus, even if it was part of the social background. One thing is for sure, the Romans were brutal in enforcing their control on the land of Palestine and everyone knew it. But on the other hand, democracy did not exist in the world at this time. The entire world was ruled by a variety of autocratic leaders, some tyrannical and some not so bad. Biblical historian E. P. Sanders points out that the Jews living in Palestine during the time of Jesus really did not have it any worse than anyone else in the world in that day and time. Oppressive taxation was common in the ancient world and most of the time people just bore the weight of that burden.
Regarding village life in Nazareth, Borg may be too skeptical about whether Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible. It is rather common for many modern scholars to doubt that Jesus could read, because of his place in the peasant class. But Jesus seems to me to know too much to be relegated to illiterate status. If Borg and others of the Jesus Seminar are correct that Jesus was illiterate, then all of Jesus' activities within synagogues are historically suspect as well as his interactions with the Pharisees, who treat him in the Gospels as if he is a strange version of themselves. We will come back to this in a few weeks. Thus, I am very skeptical about Borg's assertion that Jesus was illiterate.
A few more comments on Borg chapter 4. Herod was called Herod the Great because of his magnificent building projects. After he killed his wife Mariamne and her sons (because she fell out of favor and Herod did not want any of her sons to inherit the throne), it was said that it was safer to be Herod's pig than his son (because he refrained from eating pork so that his subjects would think him more Jewish than he actually was).
On synagogues: it seems that synagogues only began to be built as structures in the first century. Note the line in Luke 7:5 about the centurion who built our synagogue, which implies that Capernaum did not have a synagogue building before that. Orthodox Judaism posits that synagogues began soon after the return from the Babylonian exile. But no structural archaeological evidence prior to the first century has been conclusively labeled a synagogue. Likewise, the widespread existence of schools for boys taught by the local rabbi in the local synagogues may reflect a practice that developed about 500 CE rather than soon after the return from exile as believed by Orthodox Judaism. But that still does not mean that Jesus was illiterate.
A note on identifying dates. Modern scholarship uses CE and BCE to refer to Common Era and Before the Common Era. Of course the line of demarcation is the birth of Jesus. However, modern sensibilities see the continued use of AD (anno domini - year of the Lord) as an imposition of Christian ideas on non-Christians. Interestingly, CE was originally used by non- Christian scholars (Jewish and Muslim) to refer to the "Christian Era" (seeing the use of AD as an endorsement of Christianity). But with a shift toward modern sensibilities of tolerance (and wanting to avoid giving one religious tradition precedence over another), scholarly writing changed this to the more generic Common Era.
The temple in Jerusalem was a religious monopoly, and the high priestly families worked it to their advantage. They produced significant profits that they then invested in purchasing farm land throughout Palestine. So the average person suffered economically from this religious/economic arrangement. The high priestly family served at the pleasure of the Roman governor, so they had to be on good terms and do nothing to upset the Roman authorities. But the imperial Roman government based in Rome exacted high taxes from the lands they occupied and Palestine was no exception, and these high taxes and the underlying resentment of them by the average person is the background for the question to Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar, in wanting to see if Jesus would advocate tax resistance. But the fact that his questioners had a Roman coin in their possession showed which side of that debate they were on. The high taxation also was a major factor in the revolt that took place in 66 CE. To enforce their rule and put down revolts the Romans garrisoned troops in Palestine, and this was another sore point with the average person. Most people were happy to stay clear of any Romans. To the average rural Galilean, life was just trying to scratch an agricultural living out of rocky soil on land that the person did not even own.
Borg does a good job in chapter 4 presenting background historical information on life in Palestine at the time of Jesus. I would differ on a couple points. First, I think he overplays the role of Herod in the whole economic scheme, at the expense of the political and economic role of the high priestly families (Borg does make my point briefly at the bottom of page 90). The high priestly families were the rulers until the Romans came along and they managed to continue their influence by cooperating first with Herod and later with the provincial Roman governor. Herod needed the high priestly family to provide religious legitimization for his reign. Later, when Rome ruled directly through the local governor (Pontius Pilate in Jesus' time), the high priestly group through the Sanhedrin governed most of the civil affairs in the territory in which Jerusalem sits (Judea).
A major sore point with the working class people was the high rate of taxation. No wonder tax collectors were despised by the local population, in addition to the fact that the tax collectors often over-stated the taxes due and pocketed the difference for themselves (thus the economic/moral significance of the Zacchaeus story in Luke 19). But the smoldering resentment brought on by the economic and political oppression did Not result in a multitude of overt acts of violent resistance during Jesus' time, but only much later became organized into an armed revolt (year 66 CE). It is also possible that scholars like Borg read too much of the oppression-resentment factor into the stories of Jesus. Scholars are divided on exactly how much of a role this oppression-resentment factor actually plays in understanding the life of Jesus, even if it was part of the social background. One thing is for sure, the Romans were brutal in enforcing their control on the land of Palestine and everyone knew it. But on the other hand, democracy did not exist in the world at this time. The entire world was ruled by a variety of autocratic leaders, some tyrannical and some not so bad. Biblical historian E. P. Sanders points out that the Jews living in Palestine during the time of Jesus really did not have it any worse than anyone else in the world in that day and time. Oppressive taxation was common in the ancient world and most of the time people just bore the weight of that burden.
Regarding village life in Nazareth, Borg may be too skeptical about whether Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible. It is rather common for many modern scholars to doubt that Jesus could read, because of his place in the peasant class. But Jesus seems to me to know too much to be relegated to illiterate status. If Borg and others of the Jesus Seminar are correct that Jesus was illiterate, then all of Jesus' activities within synagogues are historically suspect as well as his interactions with the Pharisees, who treat him in the Gospels as if he is a strange version of themselves. We will come back to this in a few weeks. Thus, I am very skeptical about Borg's assertion that Jesus was illiterate.
A few more comments on Borg chapter 4. Herod was called Herod the Great because of his magnificent building projects. After he killed his wife Mariamne and her sons (because she fell out of favor and Herod did not want any of her sons to inherit the throne), it was said that it was safer to be Herod's pig than his son (because he refrained from eating pork so that his subjects would think him more Jewish than he actually was).
On synagogues: it seems that synagogues only began to be built as structures in the first century. Note the line in Luke 7:5 about the centurion who built our synagogue, which implies that Capernaum did not have a synagogue building before that. Orthodox Judaism posits that synagogues began soon after the return from the Babylonian exile. But no structural archaeological evidence prior to the first century has been conclusively labeled a synagogue. Likewise, the widespread existence of schools for boys taught by the local rabbi in the local synagogues may reflect a practice that developed about 500 CE rather than soon after the return from exile as believed by Orthodox Judaism. But that still does not mean that Jesus was illiterate.
A note on identifying dates. Modern scholarship uses CE and BCE to refer to Common Era and Before the Common Era. Of course the line of demarcation is the birth of Jesus. However, modern sensibilities see the continued use of AD (anno domini - year of the Lord) as an imposition of Christian ideas on non-Christians. Interestingly, CE was originally used by non- Christian scholars (Jewish and Muslim) to refer to the "Christian Era" (seeing the use of AD as an endorsement of Christianity). But with a shift toward modern sensibilities of tolerance (and wanting to avoid giving one religious tradition precedence over another), scholarly writing changed this to the more generic Common Era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)