You will find that most historical critical scholars will say either that Jesus did Not rise bodily from the dead (since miracles like this do not happen), or that there is no way of knowing, since all we have to go on is some reports (reputedly from his followers) that say they had seen him alive after his crucifixion. We have no information to work with other than the reports of those who believed they had seen him alive. Then the scholarly discussion turns to the credibility of these reports and the question of what exactly did these followers see? Did they see a vision? Did they see an actual physical (or some kind of tangible) body? Were they delusional? Was it a case of mistaken identity? Regardless of the options, the underlying supposition among historical critical scholars is that the resurrection of Jesus did Not happen the way the Gospels record the event, and most likely did Not happen at all.
These underlying suppositions are the reason that Borg approaches the story of the resurrection in Mark by calling it a parabolic narrative (Borg, page 283). What he means here is that the events most certainly did not transpire literally as reported in Mark, but the story rather reflects a spiritual transformation in the lives of Jesus' followers that can serve as a parable for others. This follows right in line with what Borg was saying earlier about much of the material in the Gospels being metaphorical narrative. Most historical critical scholars view Jesus' parables as "extended metaphors." So Borg simply expands on this definition to say that the concept of metaphor applies to much of the Gospel material, especially that which was created for the edification and instruction of Christians without any concern for historical veracity (page 281 top half).
The resurrection narrative has a positive religious meaning in Borg's mind, as long as people are not so naive as to read it literally. From Borg's point of view, the emphasis in interpretation should be on the power of Jesus to transform people's lives spiritually, not the question of what does this say about the divinity of Jesus or the question of where exactly are his physical remains right now (pages 287-288). Borg's position represents the viewpoint of someone who is a child of the enlightenment, but who also wishes to believe there is spiritual value in the Jesus story, even if it is not all literally historically true. The focus of such interpretation is on the spiritual/religious experiences of Jesus' followers then and how that can serve as a model and motivation for the kind of spiritual/religious experiences sought by Jesus' followers today.
Like Borg, Ehrman believes that the Gospel narratives of the events surrounding Jesus' resurrection are almost certainly historically false. Dead bodies do not get up and walk. And there is no way of proving that Jesus did get up and walk (even if it were true), since we are examining the question from our great historical distance from the actual event (pages 227-228). While Borg is still looking for something to believe in when reading the resurrection narratives, Ehrman is primarily interested in showing how utterly preposterous it is to believe such stories are historically true. Not surprisingly, he focuses on what he sees as discrepancies in the various accounts of Jesus' resurrection when comparing all four Gospels (see Ehrman, page 228.) Since the accounts have such significant differences (in Ehrman's opinion), even if one version were true, there is no way they could all be true, because they have the disciples going in different directions.
One thing Ehrman can take from the resurrection narratives is that (at least from the perspective of the Apostle Paul) Jesus' resurrection means that the end times have commenced (pages 232-233). The early Christians believed that all bodies would rise at the end time for a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment. Paul clearly takes Jesus' resurrection as an indication that the end time resurrection has begun and the conclusion of human history should be coming shortly (at least this is Ehrman's interpretation of Paul; Ehrman, page 233). But this does make some sense since the very possibility of a resurrection from the dead was only accepted by those who had an apocalyptic outlook on God, human history and the future.
Like most historical critical scholars, Ehrman does Not believe the disciples ever thought of Jesus as a Messiah or Son of God until after his resurrection appearances and the disciples were convinced he was alive, which lead the disciples to reassess their understanding of who Jesus was, and concluded that his resurrection was a vindication of his message and he must be someone unusually powerful in relation to God (more than a prophet) (Ehrman page 233). So it was only after the resurrection appearances that the disciples began to develop their ideas of the divine identity of Jesus, which probably never occurred to them before hand (at least this view is very popular among historical critical scholars). For Ehrman, Christianity begins with the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, because there is no way to verify historically that a resurrection actually took place (pages 230-231).
A NOTE on the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The oldest versions of the Gospel of Mark (that exist today) end with verse 16:8, "For they were afraid." Some modern scholars think this abrupt ending with no resurrection appearance indicates a sophisticated literary device on the part of the author of Mark's Gospel, to leave the ending hanging, implying that the reader must supply the ending her/himself. A more conservative interpretation of this phenomenon is that the original ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost and the variety of endings that show up in later manuscripts demonstrate that in ancient times Christians believed the Gospel with out a resurrection appearance made no sense whatsoever, and so they brought in a resurrection story known to them from another source. Almost all historical critical scholars and even some conservative scholars believe the resurrection appearances that make up the various endings that were supplied as an ending to Mark in antiquity are probably all apocryphal and without historical foundation.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Jesus' Crucifixion - John Dominic Crossan
I would be remiss if I did not speak of the theory of John Dominic Crossan concerning the death of Jesus. Crossan's ideas have influenced many American New Testament scholars, but few scholars accept all of his ideas, since, as you will soon see, they are novel if not far-fetched. But his views make the opinions of the three scholars we are reading for this course seem very mainstream by comparison.
The key component of Crossan's theory of the composition of the "Passion Narrative" of the events surrounding Jesus' death is the belief that the operative principle in its composition is "prophecy historicized". Most New Testament scholars, even most historical critical scholars, believe the basis of the Passion Narrative is "history remembered." That is the accounts are based on the what the participants remembered happened during that time. The degree of historical accuracy that a scholar attributes to these accounts depends on how faithful that scholar believes the memories of the people involved were to the actual events. Most historical critical scholars assume that with the passage of time and the oral handing down of these stories that the accounts of Jesus' death might be modified to meet the needs and concerns of Christians in the decades following Jesus' death. The more conservative scholars believe that these accounts are faithful to the events as they actually happened. The more liberal (skeptical) scholars believe substantial alteration has occurred, even to the point that the gospel writers themselves rewrote the stories to make these accounts state the theological points they believed to be most important.
We have seen how the three scholars we are reading all believe that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are largely legend and created when Christians searched the Jewish scriptures for passages they could interpret as prophecies about the coming of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Based on those prophecies, the gospel writers composed their narratives (since they probably had very little information of the event to work with). Crossan says the exact same thing happened with the Passion Narratives.
Crossan deals with this topic in most of the books he has written in the past 20 years, but he addresses it in detail in: Who Killed Jesus? (1995). Crossan is convinced that the disciples had virtually no knowledge whatsoever of the events surrounding the death of Jesus, other than the inescapable fact that he was crucified. How then did the disciples discover what occurred after they fled the scene the night before? They examined the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) for prophecies that might explain what transpired. Every place in any of the Passion Narratives that parallels a passage of Jewish prophecy, this did not end up in the text because the events were a fulfillment of prophecy. Rather, Crossan says the events were created by the disciples and other early Christians on the supposition that if a particular passage of prophecy might apply to the death of Jesus, then the event was created in the narrative to reflect that prophecy, assuming it must have happened that way. For instance, Psalm 22, "My God why have you forsaken me?" Sounds like something someone might say when being crucified. Therefore, Jesus must have said it while dying. Good idea, write that into the story. Crossan believes the entire Passion Narratives were composed in just this fashion. Not all at once, but gradually over time.
Here are some additional examples of how Crossan believed this phenomenon functioned. The reference to three hours of darkness while Jesus was on the cross comes from Amos 8:9-10, "On that day ... I will make the sun go down at noon ... I will make it like the mourning for an only son" (Who Killed Jesus?, page 3). The reference to Jesus being very agitated in Mark 14:33-35 is similar to 2 Samuel 15:30 (David pleading before God), therefore, Crossan is sure that the David passage gave rise to the Mark passage (the prophecy dictated what must have happened therefore, report it as having happened even though they knew they did not have confirmation from any eye-witness (Who Killed Jesus?, page 77). Mark 15:36, "Someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick and give it to him to drink" corresponds to Psalm 69:21, "they gave me vinegar to drink." Mark 15:24, "they divided his clothes among them casting lots" corresponds to Psalm 22:18, "for my clothing they cast lots." John 19:34, "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear" corresponds to Zechariah 12:10, "when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child." Or consider the fact that Jesus was crucified between two bandits plus the fact that he was buried in a wealthy man's tomb and see these in light of Isaiah 53:9, "They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich."
I think you should be getting the idea now. Crossan says traditional Christianity had it all wrong. These events did not happen to Jesus to fulfill prophecy. Rather since these numerous prophecies seem applicable to Jesus and what may have happened to Jesus, then they must have happened (so the early Christians supposed), even though they had no eye-witness accounts of the crucifixion events to verify their conclusions. Crossan believes the early Christians arrived at all of their information about the crucifixion through various prophetic writings. Since no one connected with Jesus was present at the crucifixion (they had all scattered), there were no witnesses that were sympathetic to Jesus to remember these events, and therefore there was nothing seen to remember.
So, what does Crossan believe actually happened to Jesus? He says Jesus was crucified, left on the cross for a while and probably munched on by dogs, and finally tossed into a common grave with the remains of others who had been crucified.
Another creative theory from Crossan worth mentioning is his belief that the author of the Gospel of Mark created the story of the empty tomb. Certainly there had been stories of people claiming to see Jesus alive from early on, as referenced in Paul's letter 1 Corinthians, chapter 15. But the empty tomb idea was created by the author of Mark (says Crossan) as a way of demonstrating that Jesus as risen was absent from the church until his return.
Most New Testament scholars (even scholars skeptical of the Gospels' historicity) do not buy the idea that the author of Mark created the empty tomb story. That theory requires that the author of the Gospel of John had access to a copy of the Gospel of Mark and that does not seem likely at all (Crossan's theory raises more questions than it answers). Likewise, even the more skeptical scholars are prone to believe that there are some historical reminiscences behind the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Crossan's idea that nothing is known about what took place at Jesus' crucifixion has not found many sympathizers. Crossan gets very creative in his biblical interpretations. But where he gets most creative, he finds himself largely alone among scholars.
.
The key component of Crossan's theory of the composition of the "Passion Narrative" of the events surrounding Jesus' death is the belief that the operative principle in its composition is "prophecy historicized". Most New Testament scholars, even most historical critical scholars, believe the basis of the Passion Narrative is "history remembered." That is the accounts are based on the what the participants remembered happened during that time. The degree of historical accuracy that a scholar attributes to these accounts depends on how faithful that scholar believes the memories of the people involved were to the actual events. Most historical critical scholars assume that with the passage of time and the oral handing down of these stories that the accounts of Jesus' death might be modified to meet the needs and concerns of Christians in the decades following Jesus' death. The more conservative scholars believe that these accounts are faithful to the events as they actually happened. The more liberal (skeptical) scholars believe substantial alteration has occurred, even to the point that the gospel writers themselves rewrote the stories to make these accounts state the theological points they believed to be most important.
We have seen how the three scholars we are reading all believe that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are largely legend and created when Christians searched the Jewish scriptures for passages they could interpret as prophecies about the coming of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Based on those prophecies, the gospel writers composed their narratives (since they probably had very little information of the event to work with). Crossan says the exact same thing happened with the Passion Narratives.
Crossan deals with this topic in most of the books he has written in the past 20 years, but he addresses it in detail in: Who Killed Jesus? (1995). Crossan is convinced that the disciples had virtually no knowledge whatsoever of the events surrounding the death of Jesus, other than the inescapable fact that he was crucified. How then did the disciples discover what occurred after they fled the scene the night before? They examined the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) for prophecies that might explain what transpired. Every place in any of the Passion Narratives that parallels a passage of Jewish prophecy, this did not end up in the text because the events were a fulfillment of prophecy. Rather, Crossan says the events were created by the disciples and other early Christians on the supposition that if a particular passage of prophecy might apply to the death of Jesus, then the event was created in the narrative to reflect that prophecy, assuming it must have happened that way. For instance, Psalm 22, "My God why have you forsaken me?" Sounds like something someone might say when being crucified. Therefore, Jesus must have said it while dying. Good idea, write that into the story. Crossan believes the entire Passion Narratives were composed in just this fashion. Not all at once, but gradually over time.
Here are some additional examples of how Crossan believed this phenomenon functioned. The reference to three hours of darkness while Jesus was on the cross comes from Amos 8:9-10, "On that day ... I will make the sun go down at noon ... I will make it like the mourning for an only son" (Who Killed Jesus?, page 3). The reference to Jesus being very agitated in Mark 14:33-35 is similar to 2 Samuel 15:30 (David pleading before God), therefore, Crossan is sure that the David passage gave rise to the Mark passage (the prophecy dictated what must have happened therefore, report it as having happened even though they knew they did not have confirmation from any eye-witness (Who Killed Jesus?, page 77). Mark 15:36, "Someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick and give it to him to drink" corresponds to Psalm 69:21, "they gave me vinegar to drink." Mark 15:24, "they divided his clothes among them casting lots" corresponds to Psalm 22:18, "for my clothing they cast lots." John 19:34, "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear" corresponds to Zechariah 12:10, "when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child." Or consider the fact that Jesus was crucified between two bandits plus the fact that he was buried in a wealthy man's tomb and see these in light of Isaiah 53:9, "They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich."
I think you should be getting the idea now. Crossan says traditional Christianity had it all wrong. These events did not happen to Jesus to fulfill prophecy. Rather since these numerous prophecies seem applicable to Jesus and what may have happened to Jesus, then they must have happened (so the early Christians supposed), even though they had no eye-witness accounts of the crucifixion events to verify their conclusions. Crossan believes the early Christians arrived at all of their information about the crucifixion through various prophetic writings. Since no one connected with Jesus was present at the crucifixion (they had all scattered), there were no witnesses that were sympathetic to Jesus to remember these events, and therefore there was nothing seen to remember.
So, what does Crossan believe actually happened to Jesus? He says Jesus was crucified, left on the cross for a while and probably munched on by dogs, and finally tossed into a common grave with the remains of others who had been crucified.
Another creative theory from Crossan worth mentioning is his belief that the author of the Gospel of Mark created the story of the empty tomb. Certainly there had been stories of people claiming to see Jesus alive from early on, as referenced in Paul's letter 1 Corinthians, chapter 15. But the empty tomb idea was created by the author of Mark (says Crossan) as a way of demonstrating that Jesus as risen was absent from the church until his return.
Most New Testament scholars (even scholars skeptical of the Gospels' historicity) do not buy the idea that the author of Mark created the empty tomb story. That theory requires that the author of the Gospel of John had access to a copy of the Gospel of Mark and that does not seem likely at all (Crossan's theory raises more questions than it answers). Likewise, even the more skeptical scholars are prone to believe that there are some historical reminiscences behind the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Crossan's idea that nothing is known about what took place at Jesus' crucifixion has not found many sympathizers. Crossan gets very creative in his biblical interpretations. But where he gets most creative, he finds himself largely alone among scholars.
.
Block 7 - Crucifixion, Ehrman, Pages 207-225
While Borg is very vague on what events actually happened that precipitated Jesus' death, Ehrman is very certain he knows. On page 208 (bottom paragraph), Ehrman lays out his theory of the why and wherefore of Jesus' last week on earth. Jesus was in Jerusalem to announce that the Son of Man would soon arrive and destroy all those who opposed God and destroy the temple as well. Jesus causes a "mild ruckus" overturning some tables. Fearing an uprising the priests confer, arrest Jesus, question him about his statements against the temple, decide that he is too incendiary as an anti-temple activist, so they arrange for his elimination.
While it is now a cliche of scholarship, Ehrman still mentions the scholarly position I mentioned in the Borg entry that "the Gospels are Passion narratives with long introductions" (this is especially true for Mark, where the resurrection plays a small role. But in the other three Gospels the central feature is crucifixion plus resurrection.)
Ehrman is a little inconsistent on page 210. On the one hand he says that Jesus' actions in Jerusalem are "well thought out." But then later on the same page he says that the ride on the donkey could not have been historical because it is too neat of a fit with the corresponding prophecies. Or if Jesus did ride on a donkey the disciples (long after the fact) read more into the event than Jesus intended. (I say, maybe Jesus really planned the ride on the donkey to fulfill the prophecies.) If Ehrman does not believe Jesus' ride on the donkey is historical and intentional, on what basis does he conclude that Jesus actions are "well thought out"?
In the section on the Temple Incident, Ehrman gives his reasoning why he believes that what Jesus did in the temple (the "mild ruckus") was the immediate cause of his death. Ehrman may well be right that Jesus' actions (and words) in the temple (that caused the "mild ruckus") were intended as a "prophetic gesture, an enacted parable" that "demonstrated on a small scale what was soon to happen in a big way on the coming day of judgment," the destruction of the temple (page 213). The question is whether the intent of Jesus' actions was none other than a condemnation of the entire temple business or rather a warning or a call to clean up the corruption. But given the fact that the temple did come down in 70 CE, the early Christians interpreted the event as justified punishment of the Jerusalem Jews for rejecting the Messiah.
And from the perspective of the early Christians, Jesus' death ended the need for temple sacrifices, and they probably interpreted Jesus' actions in the temple in this way. But scholars debate whether Jesus thought along such lines himself. For Ehrman, Jesus believed that when the new kingdom of God arrived, there would be no longer any need for temple sacrifices, and therefore, no need for a temple (page 214 top). For Borg and Ehrman, Jesus would not have thought of his death as providing an end to the need for sacrifices, because that would have required Jesus to think of his own death as a sacrifice for human sins. And for most historical critical scholars, Jesus had no such notions about himself whatsoever. At this point it is obvious that such conclusions by these scholars are really subjective value judgments that do not really have a firm basis in any historical fact. Rather the only basis for such conclusions are their own theoretical reconstructions of the message and ministry of Jesus.
Like Borg, Ehrman is quite vague on how much of the account of Jesus' arrest and death can be considered historically accurate. For instance, regarding the events surrounding Jesus' last supper with his disciples (page 215), Ehrman echoes what numerous Jesus scholars have been saying for the last 50 years, that what Jesus says at the last supper about the bread and the cup is so highly Christianized that it tells us more about the church practices of early Christians (just 20 years after Jesus' death) than it tells us anything about the events of that passover meal. (And it may well not have been a passover meal at all, some scholars would argue. But instead the account of the last supper was changed to a passover meal later, in oral tradition, by the early Christians for theological purposes).
Ehrman is certain that the betrayal element in the arrest of Jesus is historical, because it is Not something you would create to make your leader look greater. Ehrman takes a stance similar to Borg concerning Jesus' trial before the high priest. The charges that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God (to which Jesus offers his assent) are not statements that Ehrman believes Jesus would have said publicly about himself, given Ehrman's application of the criteria of authenticity (page 216 middle). Strangely enough though, Ehrman turns around and says that the charges against Jesus were real, and the chief priests got the information from Judas the betrayer, who was divulging Jesus' private teachings. In order for this theory of Ehrman's to make sense Jesus would have had to believe that he was the Messiah, and that he himself would have been enthroned, and that he taught this to his disciples (page 217 middle). Furthermore, this theory requires that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah but not the Son of Man! This is a very curious arrangement indeed in these suppositions of Ehrman.
I find it methodologically suspect, if not strange, to use a strict historical methodology to identify Jesus' public teachings, and then throw in (from who knows where) the idea that Jesus engaged in a whole series of private teachings that Ehrman was privy to knowledge of their historical veracity, but they don't measure up as believable by the standards of the historical critical method. For some reason Ehrman wants to believe Jesus thought he would be the Messiah, and even if it does not pass muster by his criteria of authenticity, he simply says, they were private teachings.
Then, at the top of page 218 we find Ehrman's statement that is a crucial piece for this theory. Ehrman concludes that the only way that Jesus' followers would believe he was the Messiah after his death was if some disciples believed he was the Messiah before his death. And why would the disciples think Jesus was the Messiah, unless he had taught them as much? Jesus meant it in an apocalyptic sense, but the disciples took it in a "this worldly" sense (page 218 bottom). So goes Ehrman's thinking on this topic. (Many historical critical scholars attribute the disciples' belief in Jesus as the Messiah to the implications the disciples drew from their belief that he had risen from the dead.)
As with Borg, Ehrman says "we have no reliable way of knowing what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas" the high priest (page 220). This means that like Borg and others, Ehrman does not believe there is any reliable historical information in the accounts of Jesus' "trial" before the high priest. And then Ehrman gives his reasons why he discredits the historical reliability of the account of the trial, and they are very similar to what Borg mentioned. An important assumption made by both Borg and Ehrman is that there is no reason to believe the high priest would ever transgress legal protocol. But I not know how we can be so sure (Jesus had just accused them of corruption with his "mild ruckus" in the temple). But I don't doubt that the high priest and his male relatives (which the gospels call the chief priests) had sufficient power at their disposal that they could have simply turned Jesus over to the Romans for execution if they so chose (and they could have fabricated the reason to fit the occasion). But the Gospels specifically mention the Sanhedrin (the Jerusalem city council) convening to interrogate Jesus, and it does seem very odd to have a meeting late in the evening, especially since Passover began at sundown. (Some scholars believe the trial before the chief priests was invented by the early Christians to cast the blame for Jesus death on the Jews and in the process take some of the blame off of Pilate, who, by Josephus' account, was quite ruthless in dealing with potential revolutionaries.
In discussing the trial before Pilate (page 221), Ehrman points out that we are on more solid historical ground here since both Josephus and Tactitus attribute Jesus' execution to a sentence imposed by Pilate. In the Roman provinces (that is outside of Italy), the Roman governors had great leeway in how they dealt with trouble makers. Unless a person was a Roman citizen could they lay any claim to what we think of as "due process." But few people outside of metropolitan Rome were actually Roman citizens, unless they had been given citizenship as a gift by the government or had purchased citizenship. But it was only Roman citizens who could claim the right to "due process" (as we know it) in a legal proceeding. Otherwise, the accused was literally at the mercy of the regional governor, who had the final say in legal matters concerning the affairs of the Roman empire within the province he governed. This seemed to be particularly true in capital cases, matters of life and death.
Concerning the death of Jesus, Ehrman does a good job of reminding us that the purpose of execution by crucifixion was to be a cruel, violent death that would serve as a deterrent to the general public not to engage in the same kind of activity that got this guy killed. Contrary to Crossan who believes that maybe Jesus' body was not attended to by his disciples (I will mention this in detail in a later entry on the death of Jesus), Ehrman makes a very good point as to why Jesus could not have hung on the cross for very long. The Romans sometimes insisted that the corpse hang on the cross for days (if not weeks) as a warning to others and a punishment to the family of the executed man by denying a proper burial. However, Ehrman points out that the disciples would have had to have known something about Jesus' burial or else they would not have been proclaiming he had risen from the dead if his body was still hanging on the cross two weeks after he had died (page 225). Note: it is Crossan that Ehrman is referring to as the scholars who suggests that Jesus' body was probably eaten by dogs.
While it is now a cliche of scholarship, Ehrman still mentions the scholarly position I mentioned in the Borg entry that "the Gospels are Passion narratives with long introductions" (this is especially true for Mark, where the resurrection plays a small role. But in the other three Gospels the central feature is crucifixion plus resurrection.)
Ehrman is a little inconsistent on page 210. On the one hand he says that Jesus' actions in Jerusalem are "well thought out." But then later on the same page he says that the ride on the donkey could not have been historical because it is too neat of a fit with the corresponding prophecies. Or if Jesus did ride on a donkey the disciples (long after the fact) read more into the event than Jesus intended. (I say, maybe Jesus really planned the ride on the donkey to fulfill the prophecies.) If Ehrman does not believe Jesus' ride on the donkey is historical and intentional, on what basis does he conclude that Jesus actions are "well thought out"?
In the section on the Temple Incident, Ehrman gives his reasoning why he believes that what Jesus did in the temple (the "mild ruckus") was the immediate cause of his death. Ehrman may well be right that Jesus' actions (and words) in the temple (that caused the "mild ruckus") were intended as a "prophetic gesture, an enacted parable" that "demonstrated on a small scale what was soon to happen in a big way on the coming day of judgment," the destruction of the temple (page 213). The question is whether the intent of Jesus' actions was none other than a condemnation of the entire temple business or rather a warning or a call to clean up the corruption. But given the fact that the temple did come down in 70 CE, the early Christians interpreted the event as justified punishment of the Jerusalem Jews for rejecting the Messiah.
And from the perspective of the early Christians, Jesus' death ended the need for temple sacrifices, and they probably interpreted Jesus' actions in the temple in this way. But scholars debate whether Jesus thought along such lines himself. For Ehrman, Jesus believed that when the new kingdom of God arrived, there would be no longer any need for temple sacrifices, and therefore, no need for a temple (page 214 top). For Borg and Ehrman, Jesus would not have thought of his death as providing an end to the need for sacrifices, because that would have required Jesus to think of his own death as a sacrifice for human sins. And for most historical critical scholars, Jesus had no such notions about himself whatsoever. At this point it is obvious that such conclusions by these scholars are really subjective value judgments that do not really have a firm basis in any historical fact. Rather the only basis for such conclusions are their own theoretical reconstructions of the message and ministry of Jesus.
Like Borg, Ehrman is quite vague on how much of the account of Jesus' arrest and death can be considered historically accurate. For instance, regarding the events surrounding Jesus' last supper with his disciples (page 215), Ehrman echoes what numerous Jesus scholars have been saying for the last 50 years, that what Jesus says at the last supper about the bread and the cup is so highly Christianized that it tells us more about the church practices of early Christians (just 20 years after Jesus' death) than it tells us anything about the events of that passover meal. (And it may well not have been a passover meal at all, some scholars would argue. But instead the account of the last supper was changed to a passover meal later, in oral tradition, by the early Christians for theological purposes).
Ehrman is certain that the betrayal element in the arrest of Jesus is historical, because it is Not something you would create to make your leader look greater. Ehrman takes a stance similar to Borg concerning Jesus' trial before the high priest. The charges that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God (to which Jesus offers his assent) are not statements that Ehrman believes Jesus would have said publicly about himself, given Ehrman's application of the criteria of authenticity (page 216 middle). Strangely enough though, Ehrman turns around and says that the charges against Jesus were real, and the chief priests got the information from Judas the betrayer, who was divulging Jesus' private teachings. In order for this theory of Ehrman's to make sense Jesus would have had to believe that he was the Messiah, and that he himself would have been enthroned, and that he taught this to his disciples (page 217 middle). Furthermore, this theory requires that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah but not the Son of Man! This is a very curious arrangement indeed in these suppositions of Ehrman.
I find it methodologically suspect, if not strange, to use a strict historical methodology to identify Jesus' public teachings, and then throw in (from who knows where) the idea that Jesus engaged in a whole series of private teachings that Ehrman was privy to knowledge of their historical veracity, but they don't measure up as believable by the standards of the historical critical method. For some reason Ehrman wants to believe Jesus thought he would be the Messiah, and even if it does not pass muster by his criteria of authenticity, he simply says, they were private teachings.
Then, at the top of page 218 we find Ehrman's statement that is a crucial piece for this theory. Ehrman concludes that the only way that Jesus' followers would believe he was the Messiah after his death was if some disciples believed he was the Messiah before his death. And why would the disciples think Jesus was the Messiah, unless he had taught them as much? Jesus meant it in an apocalyptic sense, but the disciples took it in a "this worldly" sense (page 218 bottom). So goes Ehrman's thinking on this topic. (Many historical critical scholars attribute the disciples' belief in Jesus as the Messiah to the implications the disciples drew from their belief that he had risen from the dead.)
As with Borg, Ehrman says "we have no reliable way of knowing what happened when Jesus appeared before Caiaphas" the high priest (page 220). This means that like Borg and others, Ehrman does not believe there is any reliable historical information in the accounts of Jesus' "trial" before the high priest. And then Ehrman gives his reasons why he discredits the historical reliability of the account of the trial, and they are very similar to what Borg mentioned. An important assumption made by both Borg and Ehrman is that there is no reason to believe the high priest would ever transgress legal protocol. But I not know how we can be so sure (Jesus had just accused them of corruption with his "mild ruckus" in the temple). But I don't doubt that the high priest and his male relatives (which the gospels call the chief priests) had sufficient power at their disposal that they could have simply turned Jesus over to the Romans for execution if they so chose (and they could have fabricated the reason to fit the occasion). But the Gospels specifically mention the Sanhedrin (the Jerusalem city council) convening to interrogate Jesus, and it does seem very odd to have a meeting late in the evening, especially since Passover began at sundown. (Some scholars believe the trial before the chief priests was invented by the early Christians to cast the blame for Jesus death on the Jews and in the process take some of the blame off of Pilate, who, by Josephus' account, was quite ruthless in dealing with potential revolutionaries.
In discussing the trial before Pilate (page 221), Ehrman points out that we are on more solid historical ground here since both Josephus and Tactitus attribute Jesus' execution to a sentence imposed by Pilate. In the Roman provinces (that is outside of Italy), the Roman governors had great leeway in how they dealt with trouble makers. Unless a person was a Roman citizen could they lay any claim to what we think of as "due process." But few people outside of metropolitan Rome were actually Roman citizens, unless they had been given citizenship as a gift by the government or had purchased citizenship. But it was only Roman citizens who could claim the right to "due process" (as we know it) in a legal proceeding. Otherwise, the accused was literally at the mercy of the regional governor, who had the final say in legal matters concerning the affairs of the Roman empire within the province he governed. This seemed to be particularly true in capital cases, matters of life and death.
Concerning the death of Jesus, Ehrman does a good job of reminding us that the purpose of execution by crucifixion was to be a cruel, violent death that would serve as a deterrent to the general public not to engage in the same kind of activity that got this guy killed. Contrary to Crossan who believes that maybe Jesus' body was not attended to by his disciples (I will mention this in detail in a later entry on the death of Jesus), Ehrman makes a very good point as to why Jesus could not have hung on the cross for very long. The Romans sometimes insisted that the corpse hang on the cross for days (if not weeks) as a warning to others and a punishment to the family of the executed man by denying a proper burial. However, Ehrman points out that the disciples would have had to have known something about Jesus' burial or else they would not have been proclaiming he had risen from the dead if his body was still hanging on the cross two weeks after he had died (page 225). Note: it is Crossan that Ehrman is referring to as the scholars who suggests that Jesus' body was probably eaten by dogs.
Block 7 - Crucifixion, Borg, Pages 261-274
As Borg points out at the beginning of chapter ten (page 261), in the Gospels, what began as a string of episodic narrative pieces switches to continuous narrative when we get to the events surrounding the death of Jesus. (Scholars often refer to the events surrounding the death of Jesus as his "passion", which is the Latin word for suffering. Therefore, the story of Jesus' arrest, trial and crucifixion are often referred to as the "Passion Narrative"). As Borg mentions, Jesus' activities of that last week are a day by day narrative and by Friday morning it is literally an hour by hour account of these events. Indeed, some scholars in the mid-20th century referred to the Gospel of Mark as a Passion Narrative with an extended introduction. Not exactly accurate, but it does make the point that the death of Jesus is the key event in Mark's gospel.
Borg is really rather vague in his comments on the events of Jesus' last week on earth. Borg mentions the variety of ways that the gospel writers describe what transpired. But Borg strangely does not make a judgment about which events he believes have a greater likelihood of actually having occurred and which may have been made up by the early Christians. On page 263, Borg does note that the high priest's questions and Jesus' responses sound (to Borg) more like something that would have come from the early church than what probably transpired at Jesus' trial (especially the references to Jesus as Messiah and Christ and Son of the Blessed One). Though Borg does not come right out and state it, he obviously doubts that Jesus had a real "trial" with the high priest after his arrest.
The events described in the Gospels concerning Jesus and the high priest are contrary to anything that would have been the proper procedure for holding a trial. Every scholar knows this. The more skeptical ones say: this is evidence that this so-called trial probably never happened as narrated. The more believing scholars say: goes to show how eager the chief priests were to eliminate Jesus that they would hold an illegal trial. The more skeptical scholars think that most of the responsibility for Jesus' execution rests on the Romans, not the priests. And the clincher for the more skeptical scholars has always been: who was there taking notes while Jesus was being examined by the chief priests? The disciples had all fled. Of course, there is always the outside possibility that an observer to these proceedings later became a Christian and provided the details. But many historical critical scholars doubt such a trial ever happened, and Jesus was simply detained overnight by the high priest (there was a large jail in his basement, so say the archaeologists), and Jesus was turned over to Pilate in the morning.
On page 265, Borg discusses in some detail Mark's crucifixion narrative, and implicit in his comments is the belief that the narrative is so replete with metaphorical allusions that there is no way of telling how much is representative of what really happened (other than the fact that we can be very sure Jesus died by crucifixion). Historical critical scholars have noticed for a long time that the reference to the tearing of the curtain in the temple is such a loaded theological statement that (and so convenient for Christian apologists wanting to show that Jesus is the final sacrifice) that the chances this really happened are slim at best (in their opinion). It seems rather odd to me that Borg does not analyze the historical probability of the events surrounding the death of Jesus. This makes me think that he has serious doubts that any of it can be known with any certainty.
In the section on Why Did It Happen (pages 267-271), Borg offers his opinion on why he believes the substitutionary atonement theory is bad theology. Traditional western European Christianity (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) has always held that interpreting Jesus' death as a substitutionary atonement is a fundamental datum of the faith. However, this has not been a central theme in the theology of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Indeed, because of the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, a number of Eastern Orthodox theologians (especially Russian and Greek Orthodox) go so far as to say Roman Catholicism has more in common with Protestantism than with Eastern Orthodoxy.
In the section on Did It Have to Happen (page 272), Borg explains why he does not believe that Jesus' death was part of some grand divine plan of salvation. But then, it would seem that for Borg, God does not make and grand plans that he will make sure come to pass as planned. Borg's God simply does not work that way. Of course, if a person (like Borg) does not believe that Jesus' death was an atonement for sin, then that means he does not consider human sin as serious a matter for people to worry about regarding their eternal destiny, as has been the case traditionally in Christianity. In the end, (for Borg) Jesus died because he challenged the domination system in place at the time, and the brutal domination system responded predictably.
Borg is really rather vague in his comments on the events of Jesus' last week on earth. Borg mentions the variety of ways that the gospel writers describe what transpired. But Borg strangely does not make a judgment about which events he believes have a greater likelihood of actually having occurred and which may have been made up by the early Christians. On page 263, Borg does note that the high priest's questions and Jesus' responses sound (to Borg) more like something that would have come from the early church than what probably transpired at Jesus' trial (especially the references to Jesus as Messiah and Christ and Son of the Blessed One). Though Borg does not come right out and state it, he obviously doubts that Jesus had a real "trial" with the high priest after his arrest.
The events described in the Gospels concerning Jesus and the high priest are contrary to anything that would have been the proper procedure for holding a trial. Every scholar knows this. The more skeptical ones say: this is evidence that this so-called trial probably never happened as narrated. The more believing scholars say: goes to show how eager the chief priests were to eliminate Jesus that they would hold an illegal trial. The more skeptical scholars think that most of the responsibility for Jesus' execution rests on the Romans, not the priests. And the clincher for the more skeptical scholars has always been: who was there taking notes while Jesus was being examined by the chief priests? The disciples had all fled. Of course, there is always the outside possibility that an observer to these proceedings later became a Christian and provided the details. But many historical critical scholars doubt such a trial ever happened, and Jesus was simply detained overnight by the high priest (there was a large jail in his basement, so say the archaeologists), and Jesus was turned over to Pilate in the morning.
On page 265, Borg discusses in some detail Mark's crucifixion narrative, and implicit in his comments is the belief that the narrative is so replete with metaphorical allusions that there is no way of telling how much is representative of what really happened (other than the fact that we can be very sure Jesus died by crucifixion). Historical critical scholars have noticed for a long time that the reference to the tearing of the curtain in the temple is such a loaded theological statement that (and so convenient for Christian apologists wanting to show that Jesus is the final sacrifice) that the chances this really happened are slim at best (in their opinion). It seems rather odd to me that Borg does not analyze the historical probability of the events surrounding the death of Jesus. This makes me think that he has serious doubts that any of it can be known with any certainty.
In the section on Why Did It Happen (pages 267-271), Borg offers his opinion on why he believes the substitutionary atonement theory is bad theology. Traditional western European Christianity (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) has always held that interpreting Jesus' death as a substitutionary atonement is a fundamental datum of the faith. However, this has not been a central theme in the theology of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Indeed, because of the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, a number of Eastern Orthodox theologians (especially Russian and Greek Orthodox) go so far as to say Roman Catholicism has more in common with Protestantism than with Eastern Orthodoxy.
In the section on Did It Have to Happen (page 272), Borg explains why he does not believe that Jesus' death was part of some grand divine plan of salvation. But then, it would seem that for Borg, God does not make and grand plans that he will make sure come to pass as planned. Borg's God simply does not work that way. Of course, if a person (like Borg) does not believe that Jesus' death was an atonement for sin, then that means he does not consider human sin as serious a matter for people to worry about regarding their eternal destiny, as has been the case traditionally in Christianity. In the end, (for Borg) Jesus died because he challenged the domination system in place at the time, and the brutal domination system responded predictably.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Block 6 - Jesus as Messiah, Fredriksen, Pages 184-218
In pages 155-183, Fredriksen provides some interesting background information about the social and political landscape of Palestine. These pages are not required reading, but I wish to offer a few observations in connection with this part of Fredriksen's chapter 4. Her primary focus in these pages is Judaism as a lived religion within the Roman empire and the effects of interaction with pagan peoples upon Palestinian Judaism. In the process of describing in greater detail the social and political dimensions of Judaism in the time of Jesus, Fredriksen addresses several popular theories about Jesus and Judaism in relation to pagan influences during the time of Jesus. John Dominic Crossan and other scholars have speculated that Jesus probably knew Greek and visited the Greek city Sepphoris near Nazareth (see pages 162-164). Quite rightly I believe, Fredriksen explains why this is highly unlikely. Crossan and others seem to think that Sepphoris would have had a significant pagan population, but the residents were overwhelmingly Jewish. Even an highly educated aristocratic Jew like Josephus admits he had difficulty speaking Greek precisely (he could write it quite well, but also used capable assistants). Therefore, the plausibility of Jesus speaking much Greek is nil.
A second issue that Fredriksen addresses in pages 155-183 is the Roman army of occupation. The governor in Judea (called a "prefect", the best known is Pontius Pilate) lived by the Mediterranean Sea in Caesarea with 3,000 soldiers at his disposal, most of whom were stationed in Caesarea. They were available if needed to quell dissent. But would usually remain in Caesarea unless the governor went elsewhere, such as Jerusalem. The army of 25,000 men that was charged with protecting the borders of the empire was stationed in Syria. Thus, Fredriksen makes the point that for the most part, the day to day governance of Judea was handled by the Jewish leaders. Therefore, the Roman occupation of Judea may not have been as oppressive as many scholars like to paint it.
The third issue that Fredriksen addresses in pages 155-183 is the role of the Romans in relation to the Jewish religion. By ancient standards the Romans were quite tolerant and gave the Jewish people great freedom to practice their religion (pages 174-176). Their protections had been written into Roman law. The Christians did not suffer any empire sponsored persecutions until 250 CE, and even then they were persecuted only because they refused to honor the most important Roman gods, not because they were Christians (pages 175-176). Also Fredriksen addresses the notion that has become popular among some scholars in the last 30 years that the Jews of Galilee held great disdain for the Jews of Jerusalem. Fredriksen shows that the well-being of the Jews in Judea was of great concern to the Jews in Galilee and that any supposition of animosity between them is greatly overstated (pages 180-183).
The Mission of John, pages 184-191: Using the criteria of authenticity, beginning with dissimilarity and moving on to embarrassment, Fredriksen makes the case that the fact of Jesus' baptism by John as well as John's apocalyptic preaching is on solid historical footing. She then goes on to compare Mark's record of John's preaching with that recorded by Josephus, noting a number of similarities, and concluding that where these reports mention the same information, that information can be taken as historically reliable. Clearly, John was widely known for his message of a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Josephus actually has more information on John the Baptist than he does for Jesus because he considered John a more important religious figure.
Fredriksen also addresses the very important issue of why John was in the wilderness. You can be sure it had nothing to do with "roughing it" and everything to do with theological geography. This might seem like an odd phrase, but consider the significance of the temple in Jerusalem, the location is of vital theological importance to Judaism, and for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it is the hill top (so believed) where Abraham took Isaac for the sacrifice (see Genesis 22). In the case of John the Baptist and many other apocalyptic preachers, Isaiah 40:3 ("A voice crying in the wilderness") is a critical piece of prophecy. If God's great coming will happen in the wilderness, the assumption is that wilderness will be the Judean wilderness down near the Dead Sea (south of Jericho). However John might have interpreted this, it required his activity take place in the wilderness, even though his message was primarily a call for repentance. Unlike others, there is no expectation that John expects to take any kind of leadership roll in God's big doings. John is the messenger to prepare the people so they will be ready when God's big thing actually happens.
With regard to the death of John, the report of Josephus hardly seems (to me) to be credible, that John's preaching would lead to some form of sedition (see page 191). But Fredriksen sees Mark's answer to that question (Mark 6:17-29) as pure folklore. Even though Fredriksen is not convinced, it does seem to me, that the Biblical explanation that it was John's public criticism of Herod Antipas' presumption to marry his brother's wife without his brother's permission is grounds enough to want to be rid of such a pious moral pest as John.
John, Jesus and Repentance, pages 191-197: As do many historical critical scholars, Fredriksen is sure that John's message had a great influence on the teachings of Jesus. Of course, Ehrman would fully agree with this since Ehrman is convinced Jesus was also an apocalyptic prophet. Borg would disagree on this account, especially since he is quite sure there is little of Jesus' message that actually had an apocalyptic content, and the apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus were added later by apocalyptic minded Christians. Fredriksen sees John as a mentor of sorts to Jesus, but not a model of prophetic activity. Fredriksen is really pointing out the obvious when she writes that John's and Jesus' moral teachings were very similar but their lifestyles were vastly different (page 193). While there are a number of saying attributed to Jesus that emphasize divine judgment upon the unrepentant (similar to John) there is much in Jesus' kingdom teaching that goes beyond John, especially Fredriksen notes the expectation of the reversal of fortunes when the kingdom arrives in its fullness (see page 194). As I noted in my Blog entry on the Parables, the parables of reversal are an important part of Jesus' teaching. An important point that Fredriksen makes at the top of 196 is that the reason that the call to reform uttered by Jesus and John would cause the people to view them as prophets is the urgency of their proclamation because of the need to prepare for the fast-approaching Kingdom. (And I would add to that, that the way they spoke implied that they spoke for God, and therefore, their message was perceived as coming with authority because both of them were sure they were speaking what God had told them to say.)
Jesus and Purity, pages 197-207: Most New Testament scholars do not spend much time discussing the whole issue of "purity" as it pertains to the life and message of Jesus (since this feature of Judaism was left by the wayside as soon as Christianity became predominantly comprised of converts from paganism. But we have seen from the beginning of her book that Fredriksen believes the issue is central to understanding who Jesus was, because the whole business of purity was central to the Jewish faith. At the bottom of page 198, Fredriksen makes reference to scholars who argue that "Jesus took his stand precisely against the biblical laws of purity." She then mentions "a commitment to radical social egalitarianism," which is a clear reference to the writings of John Dominic Crossan and also Borg by implication (the continued critique on page 199 is directed specifically against Crossan and including much of the Jesus Seminar by implication). Obviously Fredriksen believes that such a cavalier dismissal of Jesus as believing in any value to the law of purity does a great disservice to an understanding of the teaching of Jesus. Now Fredriksen does have a road to climb to maker her point because there are a number of stories, such as the healings on the Sabbath, in which the Pharisees criticize Jesus for transgressing the Sabbath prohibition against work. That might not be a purity rule per se (more of a Sabbath rule). But then consider the parable of the Good Samaritan in which the whole purity issue of no contact with a corpse puts the priest and the Levite in such a bad light. It would seem that Jesus does not care much for the rules of purity.
But Fredriksen argues on pages 200-201 that much of modern New Testament scholarship has misunderstood how the laws of purity actually operated in society in Jesus' time, whether the person was a peasant, a Pharisee or a priest. And everyone knew there was a need for regular purification rituals (a quick dip in a ritual bath). So impurity would happen on a regular basis and some impurities would need a quicker response than others, and some things that many New Testament scholars believe would cause impurity (eating with sinners) really would not render them ritually unclean (impure). She then goes on to claim (page 202) that such modern reconstructions of Jesus message and our understanding of the culture in which he spoke it (such as Crossan's) are easily open to gross misrepresentations of the ways things really were, as modern Americans foist their values and their value judgments onto an ancient culture that bears little resemblance to our own.
Fredriksen's main point is that just because 50 years after the death of Jesus the vast majority of Christians did not even know of or comprehend the Jewish laws of purity, this does not mean that such rules were unimportant to Jesus, even if the Gospels might paint Jesus as disdaining the rules of purity. Fredriksen says we must proceed with the assumption that Jesus followed the standard Jewish laws of purity unless there is strong indication to the contrary. How else could he function in Jewish society as a presumed spokesman for God unless he behaved like someone who respected the Jewish law, which includes the laws of purity. She goes on to state (pages 204-206) that any occasions reported in the Gospels in which Jesus is portrayed as Torah observant should probably be viewed as being historically accurate, since by the time the Gospels were written the vast majority of Christians were not Torah observant. She also states that the reason Jesus arrived in Jerusalem a week before the Passover (on what Christians refer to as Palm Sunday) is because the Passover must be eaten in a state of ritual purity and the public rites of purification took place over the course of the week before the Passover, this necessitating the arrival of pilgrims a week early (page 206).
The Cleansing of the Temple, pages 207-214: First off, Fredriksen does not believe that the event to which most Christian commentators give this label is at all accurate. Certainly the Gospels portray Jesus as condemning the temple transactions as dishonest. But she believes that this is a misrepresentation of the "morality" of temple practice and by implication a misunderstanding of Jesus' actions in the temple (the overturning the tables of the money-changers). The sacrificial animals were offered for sale in the temple courtyard as a matter of convenience for the worshipers by making available an already approved animal that was certified to be free of defect or blemish as prescribed by the law. That would save a lot of trouble in trying to find a priest willing to take the time to inspect the animal you brought from your own flock.
Making a point she has made before, on page 209 Fredriksen states that Jesus could not have been condemning the practice of animal sacrifice since that practice was universal among Jews and pagans. The Essenes did not approve of the Jerusalem temple sacrifices because the wrong priests were in charge of the temple, not because they were against the practice itself. Fredriksen concludes that Jesus' actions in the temple causing the ruckus must be understood as "symbolically enacting an apocalyptic prophecy" of the soon to happen destruction of the current temple by God to replace it with the "eschatological temple" at the end of the age (page 210 middle).
Beginning at the top of page 211 (continuing onto 212), the critique of a nonapocalyptic Jesus as a Jewish peasant Cynic is another direct reference to John Dominic Crossan and his reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Fredriksen contends that these nonapocalyptic egalitarian reconstructions of Jesus' life and message fail to the account for two important "bedrock facts" about Jesus, that he was called "messiah" and "that Rome put him to death" (which implies Jesus must have done or said something offensive enough that the Roman governor believed he had good reason to execute Jesus (page 212 bottom).
The Followers of Jesus, pages 214-218: In attempting to min down when it was that Jesus was first was called messiah by his followers, Fredriksen states such statements that are attributed to Jesus while in Galilee are not credible, mainly because Mark does not support such a view. Which means that this must have taken place in Jerusalem, presumably during the last week of Jesus' earthly life (page 218). It is good to note here that Fredriksen is not going the way of Borg who insists that Jesus would not have called himself messiah and probably his disciples did not do so either. But Fredriksen is leaning in Ehrman's direction that Jesus actually believed he was the messiah and encouraged his disciples to believe likewise.
.
A second issue that Fredriksen addresses in pages 155-183 is the Roman army of occupation. The governor in Judea (called a "prefect", the best known is Pontius Pilate) lived by the Mediterranean Sea in Caesarea with 3,000 soldiers at his disposal, most of whom were stationed in Caesarea. They were available if needed to quell dissent. But would usually remain in Caesarea unless the governor went elsewhere, such as Jerusalem. The army of 25,000 men that was charged with protecting the borders of the empire was stationed in Syria. Thus, Fredriksen makes the point that for the most part, the day to day governance of Judea was handled by the Jewish leaders. Therefore, the Roman occupation of Judea may not have been as oppressive as many scholars like to paint it.
The third issue that Fredriksen addresses in pages 155-183 is the role of the Romans in relation to the Jewish religion. By ancient standards the Romans were quite tolerant and gave the Jewish people great freedom to practice their religion (pages 174-176). Their protections had been written into Roman law. The Christians did not suffer any empire sponsored persecutions until 250 CE, and even then they were persecuted only because they refused to honor the most important Roman gods, not because they were Christians (pages 175-176). Also Fredriksen addresses the notion that has become popular among some scholars in the last 30 years that the Jews of Galilee held great disdain for the Jews of Jerusalem. Fredriksen shows that the well-being of the Jews in Judea was of great concern to the Jews in Galilee and that any supposition of animosity between them is greatly overstated (pages 180-183).
The Mission of John, pages 184-191: Using the criteria of authenticity, beginning with dissimilarity and moving on to embarrassment, Fredriksen makes the case that the fact of Jesus' baptism by John as well as John's apocalyptic preaching is on solid historical footing. She then goes on to compare Mark's record of John's preaching with that recorded by Josephus, noting a number of similarities, and concluding that where these reports mention the same information, that information can be taken as historically reliable. Clearly, John was widely known for his message of a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Josephus actually has more information on John the Baptist than he does for Jesus because he considered John a more important religious figure.
Fredriksen also addresses the very important issue of why John was in the wilderness. You can be sure it had nothing to do with "roughing it" and everything to do with theological geography. This might seem like an odd phrase, but consider the significance of the temple in Jerusalem, the location is of vital theological importance to Judaism, and for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it is the hill top (so believed) where Abraham took Isaac for the sacrifice (see Genesis 22). In the case of John the Baptist and many other apocalyptic preachers, Isaiah 40:3 ("A voice crying in the wilderness") is a critical piece of prophecy. If God's great coming will happen in the wilderness, the assumption is that wilderness will be the Judean wilderness down near the Dead Sea (south of Jericho). However John might have interpreted this, it required his activity take place in the wilderness, even though his message was primarily a call for repentance. Unlike others, there is no expectation that John expects to take any kind of leadership roll in God's big doings. John is the messenger to prepare the people so they will be ready when God's big thing actually happens.
With regard to the death of John, the report of Josephus hardly seems (to me) to be credible, that John's preaching would lead to some form of sedition (see page 191). But Fredriksen sees Mark's answer to that question (Mark 6:17-29) as pure folklore. Even though Fredriksen is not convinced, it does seem to me, that the Biblical explanation that it was John's public criticism of Herod Antipas' presumption to marry his brother's wife without his brother's permission is grounds enough to want to be rid of such a pious moral pest as John.
John, Jesus and Repentance, pages 191-197: As do many historical critical scholars, Fredriksen is sure that John's message had a great influence on the teachings of Jesus. Of course, Ehrman would fully agree with this since Ehrman is convinced Jesus was also an apocalyptic prophet. Borg would disagree on this account, especially since he is quite sure there is little of Jesus' message that actually had an apocalyptic content, and the apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus were added later by apocalyptic minded Christians. Fredriksen sees John as a mentor of sorts to Jesus, but not a model of prophetic activity. Fredriksen is really pointing out the obvious when she writes that John's and Jesus' moral teachings were very similar but their lifestyles were vastly different (page 193). While there are a number of saying attributed to Jesus that emphasize divine judgment upon the unrepentant (similar to John) there is much in Jesus' kingdom teaching that goes beyond John, especially Fredriksen notes the expectation of the reversal of fortunes when the kingdom arrives in its fullness (see page 194). As I noted in my Blog entry on the Parables, the parables of reversal are an important part of Jesus' teaching. An important point that Fredriksen makes at the top of 196 is that the reason that the call to reform uttered by Jesus and John would cause the people to view them as prophets is the urgency of their proclamation because of the need to prepare for the fast-approaching Kingdom. (And I would add to that, that the way they spoke implied that they spoke for God, and therefore, their message was perceived as coming with authority because both of them were sure they were speaking what God had told them to say.)
Jesus and Purity, pages 197-207: Most New Testament scholars do not spend much time discussing the whole issue of "purity" as it pertains to the life and message of Jesus (since this feature of Judaism was left by the wayside as soon as Christianity became predominantly comprised of converts from paganism. But we have seen from the beginning of her book that Fredriksen believes the issue is central to understanding who Jesus was, because the whole business of purity was central to the Jewish faith. At the bottom of page 198, Fredriksen makes reference to scholars who argue that "Jesus took his stand precisely against the biblical laws of purity." She then mentions "a commitment to radical social egalitarianism," which is a clear reference to the writings of John Dominic Crossan and also Borg by implication (the continued critique on page 199 is directed specifically against Crossan and including much of the Jesus Seminar by implication). Obviously Fredriksen believes that such a cavalier dismissal of Jesus as believing in any value to the law of purity does a great disservice to an understanding of the teaching of Jesus. Now Fredriksen does have a road to climb to maker her point because there are a number of stories, such as the healings on the Sabbath, in which the Pharisees criticize Jesus for transgressing the Sabbath prohibition against work. That might not be a purity rule per se (more of a Sabbath rule). But then consider the parable of the Good Samaritan in which the whole purity issue of no contact with a corpse puts the priest and the Levite in such a bad light. It would seem that Jesus does not care much for the rules of purity.
But Fredriksen argues on pages 200-201 that much of modern New Testament scholarship has misunderstood how the laws of purity actually operated in society in Jesus' time, whether the person was a peasant, a Pharisee or a priest. And everyone knew there was a need for regular purification rituals (a quick dip in a ritual bath). So impurity would happen on a regular basis and some impurities would need a quicker response than others, and some things that many New Testament scholars believe would cause impurity (eating with sinners) really would not render them ritually unclean (impure). She then goes on to claim (page 202) that such modern reconstructions of Jesus message and our understanding of the culture in which he spoke it (such as Crossan's) are easily open to gross misrepresentations of the ways things really were, as modern Americans foist their values and their value judgments onto an ancient culture that bears little resemblance to our own.
Fredriksen's main point is that just because 50 years after the death of Jesus the vast majority of Christians did not even know of or comprehend the Jewish laws of purity, this does not mean that such rules were unimportant to Jesus, even if the Gospels might paint Jesus as disdaining the rules of purity. Fredriksen says we must proceed with the assumption that Jesus followed the standard Jewish laws of purity unless there is strong indication to the contrary. How else could he function in Jewish society as a presumed spokesman for God unless he behaved like someone who respected the Jewish law, which includes the laws of purity. She goes on to state (pages 204-206) that any occasions reported in the Gospels in which Jesus is portrayed as Torah observant should probably be viewed as being historically accurate, since by the time the Gospels were written the vast majority of Christians were not Torah observant. She also states that the reason Jesus arrived in Jerusalem a week before the Passover (on what Christians refer to as Palm Sunday) is because the Passover must be eaten in a state of ritual purity and the public rites of purification took place over the course of the week before the Passover, this necessitating the arrival of pilgrims a week early (page 206).
The Cleansing of the Temple, pages 207-214: First off, Fredriksen does not believe that the event to which most Christian commentators give this label is at all accurate. Certainly the Gospels portray Jesus as condemning the temple transactions as dishonest. But she believes that this is a misrepresentation of the "morality" of temple practice and by implication a misunderstanding of Jesus' actions in the temple (the overturning the tables of the money-changers). The sacrificial animals were offered for sale in the temple courtyard as a matter of convenience for the worshipers by making available an already approved animal that was certified to be free of defect or blemish as prescribed by the law. That would save a lot of trouble in trying to find a priest willing to take the time to inspect the animal you brought from your own flock.
Making a point she has made before, on page 209 Fredriksen states that Jesus could not have been condemning the practice of animal sacrifice since that practice was universal among Jews and pagans. The Essenes did not approve of the Jerusalem temple sacrifices because the wrong priests were in charge of the temple, not because they were against the practice itself. Fredriksen concludes that Jesus' actions in the temple causing the ruckus must be understood as "symbolically enacting an apocalyptic prophecy" of the soon to happen destruction of the current temple by God to replace it with the "eschatological temple" at the end of the age (page 210 middle).
Beginning at the top of page 211 (continuing onto 212), the critique of a nonapocalyptic Jesus as a Jewish peasant Cynic is another direct reference to John Dominic Crossan and his reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Fredriksen contends that these nonapocalyptic egalitarian reconstructions of Jesus' life and message fail to the account for two important "bedrock facts" about Jesus, that he was called "messiah" and "that Rome put him to death" (which implies Jesus must have done or said something offensive enough that the Roman governor believed he had good reason to execute Jesus (page 212 bottom).
The Followers of Jesus, pages 214-218: In attempting to min down when it was that Jesus was first was called messiah by his followers, Fredriksen states such statements that are attributed to Jesus while in Galilee are not credible, mainly because Mark does not support such a view. Which means that this must have taken place in Jerusalem, presumably during the last week of Jesus' earthly life (page 218). It is good to note here that Fredriksen is not going the way of Borg who insists that Jesus would not have called himself messiah and probably his disciples did not do so either. But Fredriksen is leaning in Ehrman's direction that Jesus actually believed he was the messiah and encouraged his disciples to believe likewise.
.
Block 6 - Jesus as Messiah, Fredriksen, Pages 119-154
While the beginning of this section might look like an out of place history lesson about what was going on with Judaism in Judea in the time just before Jesus, Fredriksen is really setting the scene to discuss what it means to speak of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (a Hebrew word meaning "anointed one", the Greek word for Messiah is Christ). This does not mean that Fredriksen necessarily believes Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, nor does it mean that she is sure Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah. She is beginning with the fact that Christians quickly attributed to Jesus the status of being the Jewish Messiah, even if he did not fit the variety of expectations of a Messiah that were common in Palestinian Judaism in Jesus' time. For Fredriksen, the fact that Jesus is so UN-like any of the popular expectations of a Jewish Messiah surprises her that the Christians would ever think to give Jesus that title. Another factor to keep in mind is that expectations of a coming Jewish Messiah were found only among people who also held apocalyptic expectations that God was about to do something "Big" in the present or soon to arrive end-times.
In the section on Christ in Paul (pages 125-137) Fredriksen examines the way that the earliest Christian writings (the letters of Paul) shed light on the origin of the use of Christ in relation to Jesus. Fredriksen finds it telling that even though Paul uses the term Christ in connection with Jesus more than 140 times, Paul really sees no need to justify his use of the term to refer to Jesus. The word Christ (as the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah) is an assumed piece of information for all Christians and requires no explanation. Indeed, Paul even uses the word Christ in such a familiar way that it is no longer a title of Jesus being God's chosen and anointed savior, but Paul sometimes uses the word as if it is Jesus second name.
Fredriksen does make an interesting connection in this passage, and that is that Paul's use of the title Son of God in connection with Jesus should be seen as part of the apocalyptic understanding of the identity of the Messiah and his relationship with God. So Fredriksen is claiming that the title Son of God in relationship to Jesus must be seen as part of the apocalyptic expectations of the early Christians (see page 126).
Also directly connected with the apocalyptic dimension of earliest Christianity (in Fredriksen's interpretation) is the fact that Jesus' first appearance had not been "messianic" in the sense of a savior figure coming with glorious and overwhelming divine power. But in his second coming Jesus Christ would be with the great and awesome power and authority that the royal Messiah is expected to possess (see page 135).
An interesting detour that Fredriksen takes in her discussion apocalyptic traits of early Christianity is the factor of religious "conversion" in the ancient world. In the Old Testament prophets we find the expectation that in the end-times the nations (Gentiles, pagans, use whichever word you prefer) would abandon their pagan Gods and worship the God of Israel (see page 133). Fredriksen sees this viewpoint as the apocalyptic lens through which to view Paul's insistence that converts to Christianity worship only the Jewish God. It is not just a matter of exclusive monotheism, but it is also required because they were living in the end-times, when these prophecies would be fulfilled.
The conversion of a pagan to the religion of Jesus that Paul preached would require a complete conversion (abandoning one's native gods) and worshiping only the Jewish God (and Jesus). Paul demands that this be understood as the only acceptable worship for Christians. But such converts would be worshiping the Jewish God, but without the protection afforded to the Jewish people, since they were begrudgingly tolerated because they were belonged to an ancient religion. This opened the Christians to all manner of harassment (and even persecution) for abandoning the gods that protected their city and failing to honor the gods of their homeland. But Christianity would not tolerate the interested pagans who participated in Judaism when they still honored their pagan gods. I had always thought that Christianity offered these pagans a way of benefiting from all of God's promises given to the Jewish people without the hassle of circumcision or keeping the kosher and purity rules. I had not considered before the severity of the penalties that the conversion to Christianity might bring upon such pagan converts because they in effect had renounced their native gods (pages 130-133).
When Fredriksen shifts her attention to the title of "Christ" in the Gospels (pages 137-154), she does so because every thing she looks at in Paul's letters presumes everyone would accept and understand that Jesus is the Christ, and that since Paul sees no need to even explain the title of Christ in connection with Jesus, that perhaps the connection goes back to Jesus' earthly lifetime. So Fredriksen is looking for solid evidence in the Gospels that would connect the title of Messiah/Christ with Jesus in his earthly lifetime. Of course this means ruling out any statements that were put into Jesus' mouth after the fact.
In this section most of the discussion is about what Fredriksen perceives as embellishments that the Gospel writers make on the story of Jesus. In particular she spends several pages discussion how the theological motivations of Matthew and Luke directed their presentation of Jesus as the assuredly Davidic Messiah from his birth and that this was evident to those around Jesus (pages 144-148). What is all comes down to for Fredriksen is the crucifixion of Jesus and the apparent consensus of all sources that Jesus was executed for either claiming to be a king or that his followers openly gave him such a title. Otherwise, Fredriksen does not see how this discussion in all the Gospels about Jesus and his kingship would be there unless it is well embedded in the earliest tradition about what happened at Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, it is the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus that convince Fredriksen that the connection between Jesus and title of Messiah/Christ arises out of the connection between Jesus' condemnation to death and attaching the claim of "King of the Jews" on Jesus.
Fredriksen does not give much historical credence to much of what the Gospels say about Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, but she does make a good argument from a historical critical perspective for placing the origin of that title of Messiah/Christ for Jesus back in the earthly lifetime of Jesus.
In the section on Christ in Paul (pages 125-137) Fredriksen examines the way that the earliest Christian writings (the letters of Paul) shed light on the origin of the use of Christ in relation to Jesus. Fredriksen finds it telling that even though Paul uses the term Christ in connection with Jesus more than 140 times, Paul really sees no need to justify his use of the term to refer to Jesus. The word Christ (as the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah) is an assumed piece of information for all Christians and requires no explanation. Indeed, Paul even uses the word Christ in such a familiar way that it is no longer a title of Jesus being God's chosen and anointed savior, but Paul sometimes uses the word as if it is Jesus second name.
Fredriksen does make an interesting connection in this passage, and that is that Paul's use of the title Son of God in connection with Jesus should be seen as part of the apocalyptic understanding of the identity of the Messiah and his relationship with God. So Fredriksen is claiming that the title Son of God in relationship to Jesus must be seen as part of the apocalyptic expectations of the early Christians (see page 126).
Also directly connected with the apocalyptic dimension of earliest Christianity (in Fredriksen's interpretation) is the fact that Jesus' first appearance had not been "messianic" in the sense of a savior figure coming with glorious and overwhelming divine power. But in his second coming Jesus Christ would be with the great and awesome power and authority that the royal Messiah is expected to possess (see page 135).
An interesting detour that Fredriksen takes in her discussion apocalyptic traits of early Christianity is the factor of religious "conversion" in the ancient world. In the Old Testament prophets we find the expectation that in the end-times the nations (Gentiles, pagans, use whichever word you prefer) would abandon their pagan Gods and worship the God of Israel (see page 133). Fredriksen sees this viewpoint as the apocalyptic lens through which to view Paul's insistence that converts to Christianity worship only the Jewish God. It is not just a matter of exclusive monotheism, but it is also required because they were living in the end-times, when these prophecies would be fulfilled.
The conversion of a pagan to the religion of Jesus that Paul preached would require a complete conversion (abandoning one's native gods) and worshiping only the Jewish God (and Jesus). Paul demands that this be understood as the only acceptable worship for Christians. But such converts would be worshiping the Jewish God, but without the protection afforded to the Jewish people, since they were begrudgingly tolerated because they were belonged to an ancient religion. This opened the Christians to all manner of harassment (and even persecution) for abandoning the gods that protected their city and failing to honor the gods of their homeland. But Christianity would not tolerate the interested pagans who participated in Judaism when they still honored their pagan gods. I had always thought that Christianity offered these pagans a way of benefiting from all of God's promises given to the Jewish people without the hassle of circumcision or keeping the kosher and purity rules. I had not considered before the severity of the penalties that the conversion to Christianity might bring upon such pagan converts because they in effect had renounced their native gods (pages 130-133).
When Fredriksen shifts her attention to the title of "Christ" in the Gospels (pages 137-154), she does so because every thing she looks at in Paul's letters presumes everyone would accept and understand that Jesus is the Christ, and that since Paul sees no need to even explain the title of Christ in connection with Jesus, that perhaps the connection goes back to Jesus' earthly lifetime. So Fredriksen is looking for solid evidence in the Gospels that would connect the title of Messiah/Christ with Jesus in his earthly lifetime. Of course this means ruling out any statements that were put into Jesus' mouth after the fact.
In this section most of the discussion is about what Fredriksen perceives as embellishments that the Gospel writers make on the story of Jesus. In particular she spends several pages discussion how the theological motivations of Matthew and Luke directed their presentation of Jesus as the assuredly Davidic Messiah from his birth and that this was evident to those around Jesus (pages 144-148). What is all comes down to for Fredriksen is the crucifixion of Jesus and the apparent consensus of all sources that Jesus was executed for either claiming to be a king or that his followers openly gave him such a title. Otherwise, Fredriksen does not see how this discussion in all the Gospels about Jesus and his kingship would be there unless it is well embedded in the earliest tradition about what happened at Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, it is the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus that convince Fredriksen that the connection between Jesus and title of Messiah/Christ arises out of the connection between Jesus' condemnation to death and attaching the claim of "King of the Jews" on Jesus.
Fredriksen does not give much historical credence to much of what the Gospels say about Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, but she does make a good argument from a historical critical perspective for placing the origin of that title of Messiah/Christ for Jesus back in the earthly lifetime of Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)