Block 8 - Jesus' Resurrection

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.

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.

.

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.

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.

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.


.

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.

Block 6 - Resistance & the Domination System, Borg, Pages 225-260

In his Chapter 9, Borg goes into great detail to support a central thesis of his interpretation of the historical Jesus. This thesis is that much of what Jesus taught can only be properly understood in light of the prevailing domination system that the people of Palestine lived under during the time of Jesus. New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders does not accept this line of thought because, within the Roman Empire everyone lived under some sort of autocratic rule, and if it were not the Romans, there would be other rulers who would lord it over their subjects. To a degree I have to agree with Sanders, because Democracy as we know simply did not exist in the ancient world except for a few wonderful decades in Athens, Greece. But I have to disagree with Sanders in that from the time of the Maccabees (about 166 BCE), there was a distinct sub-culture within Palestinian Judaism that was willing to die for self-rule. Of course, in their minds the yearning was for a restoration of the Law of Moses as the law of the land (and the high priests still would have run the country). So then, the concept of self-rule still would have made no sense to them. They were people who were zealous for God's Law and willing to die to make it become a political reality. But the idea that the average person should have a say in the governance s/he lived under would never have occurred to anyone in Palestine in Jesus' time.

Borg makes a good point in his chapter 9 about the various ways that Jews in the time of Jesus responded to the Roman system of domination with various forms of resistance. But, I am not so sure that the teachings of Jesus can be interpreted as forms of resistance or advocating non-violent resistance. In my opinion, there are a number of times that Jesus intentionally avoids the political issue that is thrown at him and turns it into a spiritual question. For instance, in Luke 13:1-5, Jesus is specifically asked about an incident in which non-violent resistance was met with Roman violence, hoping that Jesus would condemn the Roman action. Which he refuses to do. Then Jesus also brings up an occasion in which 18 ordinary people died in the collapse of a tower in the wall of the old city (Jerusalem), but Jesus turns it around to say that not only were all the dead people guilty before God, also even his questioners needed to repent. Now to be fair, I must offer the observation that many historical critical scholars believed either the early Christians or Luke himself made this up (Luke 13:1-5) to push the theme of the need for repentance. But even in the passage about whether or not to pay taxes to Caesar, I believe Jesus is avoiding the main question, which is - will you condemn the Roman occupation? Which Jesus refuses to do. But he does not approve of it either. His questioners were attempting to trap him, but the mere fact that they had the Roman coinage in question in their possession demonstrates that they were sympathetic to Roman rule. My point is, Jesus refuses to take sides, either against the Romans or for accommodation with the Romans. Borg says that Jesus' answer is an implicit criticism of the Roman occupation, and he may well be correct in that regard. But Jesus does not clearly advocate anything that could be understood as resistance against the Roman rule in his statement about giving Caesar his own.

When Borg discusses Jesus' ride into Jerusalem on the Sunday of the last week of his earthly life, I think he pushes it a bit too far to say that this is an "anti-imperial entry" (page 232). Undoubtedly, if Jesus were received by all of Jerusalem in the manner proclaimed by his arrival, there would be serious political implications for the Roman rule. But to see Jesus' arrival as a direct challenge to Roman rule would be beyond Jesus' intentions. In a sense Jesus' entry and the passage from Zechariah that served as the inspiration for this act does imply (as Borg points out) that if Jesus were received in the manner proclaimed by his act, that all coercive rule by any human authority is rendered unacceptable (and unnecessary). I am also certain that Jesus never expected that his arrival would bring about the desired result. But (as Borg correctly points out) Jesus most certainly intended his entry to be a prophetic sign to the people of Jerusalem that God has come to rule his people. (Note: when Jesus entered the city from the east, he would have entered by the gate that opens directly into the outer courtyard of the temple. So, the ride would have terminated in the temple precincts, and the religious connotations would have been inescapable to anyone paying close attention).

Likewise with Jesus' action commonly referred to as the "cleansing of the temple." Jesus most certainly intended this as a prophetic sign, a condemnation of business as usual in the temple. Jesus obviously condemned the commercialization of the sacrificial operation, and the fact that for so many people what was originally intended (in the Law of Moses) as the means by which people get right with God, had become for many simply a job and for the leaders a means to get rich at the expense of the people who come to the temple to offer sacrifices. And considering how many thousands of lambs would be killed on the following Friday, this was a big money making week at the temple (since the animal would almost always be purchased on the temple property so that the lamb was certified already as approved for sacrifice) . To a casual observer Jesus' actions may have appeared to be no more than a trouble maker disrupting the temple business. But to the astute observer, his protest against the commercialization of temple worship might have hit a note that resonated with people.

But I hesitate to agree with Borg that people would have resented the temple leaders because the temple system was "the center of an oppressive system that did not practice justice" (page 235). It seems just as likely that the popular resentment was due to the disproportionate wealth held by the high priestly families, in the same way there is resentment toward Wall Street bankers who make multi-million dollar salaries for little work when many people are just scraping by.

In the section on Jesus as Prophet, Borg focuses on Jesus' condemnation of Jerusalem. But to give the cause of Jesus' statements against the city as arising from an indictment of the domination system misses Jesus' point in my opinion. I think that rather than being overly concerned about peace and justice, Jesus is distraught at Jerusalem's history of rejecting God's messengers and for refusing to heed calls to return to God. So I think Borg is greatly overstating his case when he says that Jesus calls the temple a den of robbers because Jerusalem "had become the center of an oppressive domination system" (page 243 bottom). I suspect Jesus' critique was generated more by observing people not treating the temple as a holy place and knowing most people had no desire to receive the words of the prophets (Jesus and John included) as the Word of the Lord.

Borg's section on Nonviolent Resistance (pages 247-251) I found to be far-fetched. Walter Wink's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is quite ingenious, but not at all convincing. The reason is, that Jesus' statements on non-retaliation most certainly do fit within the larger framework of Jesus' teaching on "love your enemies." But to say that in acting out the "love your enemies" command by turning the other cheek and going the extra mile a person is engaging in non-violent resistance makes no sense. The very idea that loving one's enemies implies the expectation of nonviolent resistance at the same time (as Borg says on page 250 middle) makes no sense. In my mind, if you truly love someone, why would you underhandedly attempt to subvert their efforts? Resistance of any kind (in my mind) is motivated by dislike for someone not love. So, Wink's idea that doing something nice for someone can be a form of resistance against their role as a representative of an oppressive system seems nonsensical to me. And Borg's idea that when Jesus uttered these statements about being helpful to people who are oppressive he was promoting nonviolent resistance is not at all convincing. And the idea that Jesus was motivated by a desire to promote nonviolent resistance against Roman rule seems very unlikely. If Jesus was truly focused on resisting Roman rule, it would seem probable that he would have said so directly, some where, at some time, but I find it no where. And even if Wink is right that Jesus uttered the 5 statements listed at the top of page 248 as a means to promote nonviolent resistance, I am sure most Jewish people would have completely misunderstood Jesus, as apparently Wink believes every Christian interpreter has before Wink. So either Wink has uncovered a long lost subtlety in Jesus' teaching or else Wink is wrong. I suspect Wink is wrong.

On Borg and The Kingdom of God and Eschatology (pages 251-260), I suspect you have read enough on this topic by now that you can figure most of it out for yourself. Borg sets up the eschatology scenario to his benefit when he juxtaposes the imminent eschatology sayings of Jesus with the kingdom-is-present sayings. It has to be one or the other implies Borg. You can't have both, says Borg (in which I believe Borg sets up a false dichotomy). Of course Borg makes it easier for himself when he states that Jesus never uttered an "end is near" statement. Saying that the early church created the imminent eschatology theme so prominent in the New Testament makes it easy for Borg (and Crossan and others) to create a Jesus they can believe in. It makes more sense to me to attempt to devise an understanding of Jesus' views on eschatology that takes into account both the "end is near" statements and the "kingdom is present" statements. However, just like Ehrman discounts the importance of the "kingdom is present" statements, so Borg jettisons the "end is near" statements.

When Borg speaks of Participatory Eschatology (pages 259), he constructs a nice neat package that is not only palatable to modern people who are not expecting the end of the world any time soon, but he also creates a view of eschatology that works for modern Americans who want to be involved in God's work. But this seems to me to fall short of what we actually find in the Gospels. To "proclaim the kingdom" and "follow Jesus" do not necessarily mean people are bringing in the kingdom or even participating in it. To me it seems such actions that Jesus places upon his disciples are more oriented toward helping people prepare for the arrival of the kingdom. It seems to me, contrary to what Borg says, that in most passages that speak of the kingdom it is about what God is doing without human assistance. Just because Jesus might have been participating in the arrival of the kingdom by many of his actions, I doubt the Gospel writers expected the disciples to continue the same program. Contrary to what Borg believes, most early Christians believed Jesus was more than just a human, and that there was something special and unrepeatable in his earthly existence. Another sign that Borg's interpretation of Jesus' eschatology is on shaky ground is when Borg has to have recourse to the Gospel of Thomas to support his focus on the "kingdom is present" (page 256 middle-bottom). He is grasping at straws to float a brick. Very few scholars I know of would take Thomas over the Synoptic Gospels as the basis for reconstructing Jesus' views on the kingdom of God.

Block 6 - Jesus, Teacher of Wisdom, Borg, Pages 191-223

In his Chapter 8, Borg places Jesus within the Jewish wisdom tradition as a way of explaining the proper setting for understanding the teachings of Jesus. New Testament scholarship has always used some version of Jesus as a teacher of wisdom to explain the significance of a good number of Jesus' teachings. Much of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 has often been interpreted as Jesus providing new wisdom teachings. But more recently some scholars have used wisdom as a means to explain the totality of what Jesus was teachings (and Borg and Crossan are the best examples of this). To understand the implications of this designation we must first realize that in the Old Testament the prophetic writings and the wisdom writings constitute two very different ways of understanding Israel's relationship with God.

The wisdom writings are represented by the following Old Testament books: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Job (and in the Jewish apocrypha there are the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach (also referred to us Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira). The prophetic writings are represented by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 shorter prophetic writings, including Daniel, Hosea, Amos, etc. The basic line of thought in the book of Proverbs is: Live well and you will prosper. This assumes a stable society and a direct line of cause and effect between one's actions and the outcome. Job and Ecclesiastes question some of the basic assumptions in the way of thinking found in Proverbs, but they are still operating very much within that particular way of thinking. The prophetic literature presupposes a dynamic relationship between God and the people of Israel. The prophets question social inequalities. The prophets verbally attack the mindset that allows for worshiping the God of Israel and worshiping pagan idols at the same time. The jealousy of the God of Israel comes to fore in the writings of the prophets and the prospect of punishment for disobeying the law given to Moses is the drastic punishment of the loss of land and even life.

The prophets continually call the people to repentance with the offer of forgiveness being held out to them, but the people stubbornly refuse to return to God. This is a much different way of looking at the religious world compared to what we find in the Wisdom tradition, which assumes that people will have enough common sense to know to obey God's laws. Wisdom teaching tends to be "common sense" ideas offered within a particular world view in which they make sense. The Hebrew prophetic teachings are continually calling the Israelites back to a way of life and worship they have carelessly abandoned.

The point of all this Old Testament information is to demonstrate that Borg clearly intends to place Jesus within the perspective of the Wisdom tradition, and NOT in the prophetic tradition. However, as we have seen, both Ehrman (and many other scholars) views Jesus primarily as a prophet, not a teacher of wisdom. I personally disagree with the focus on Jesus as a wisdom teacher, though many modern critical New Testament scholars are in favor of it. I prefer the emphasis on Jesus as a prophet of the Kingdom. With this in mind, I offer a bit of a critique of Borg's chapter 8.

In the "Dead though Alive" section, I find it strange that he would have recourse to the Gospel of John, since most modern historical critical scholars find little or no historical value in John's Gospel, Borg included. And since this is the Gospel that uses the dead-versus-alive imagery the most, perhaps Borg's emphasis on it does not fit well with his methodology and he is forcing the issue, that is, making the concept a larger part of Jesus' teaching than the evidence warrants according to his methodology.

Secondly, the sections on "Exile" and "Bondage" (pages 200-204) explore concepts that do not strike me as important for understanding Jesus' message. Borg is representative of a move by many New Testament scholars toward the use of sociological categories to explain Jesus and the Jesus movement. However, I am of the (older) opinion that it is purely religious considerations that motivate Jesus. There might be sociological dimensions to Jesus' message, but I seriously doubt he was motivated by purely social concerns, or concerns arising out of the social problems of Palestinian Judaism of his time.

Borg is on much more solid ground in his discussion of the conventions of family relationships and "Wealth" (pages 205-211). These are topics for which there are numerous passages that Jesus certainly spoke that give us a fairly clear picture of Jesus' views on these topics. One of the reasons why the family oriented sayings have such a prominent place in the synoptic gospels (in my opinion) is because they were important to the early Christians because for many (I am sure) their Christian friends became their substitute family. What I mean by this is that for many people in both Jewish and pagan society, adopting the Christian faith probably meant disinheritance from their family and disowning by their family. A good example of this is found in the parable of the Prodigal Son who travels and immerses himself in a pagan society (they have pigs so they cannot be Jewish) and when he returns the father refers to the son as having been dead, which is how Jewish people would think of family members who left the faith to go live like pagans. Becoming a Christian often meant severing one's family ties. Therefore the Christian community would have played the role of a substitute family. And thus we find the reason for the enduring value for the early Christians of Jesus' sayings that advocated a distancing from one's biological family.

With regard to Wealth and possessions Jesus clearly takes a position of this subject that does not fit well with modern western materialism. In fact Jesus' message is very anti-materialism. What Borg has to say on the topic in the last paragraph on page 211 (I think) is an excellent summary of what Jesus taught on this topic.

Borg on "Honor" (page 212) makes an important point. Honor and shame were significant factors in Middle Eastern society (and this is still very true today in the Middle East). One would avoid at all costs doing anything that might being dishonor or shame to one's family. While Jesus rarely addresses this issue directly (Borg give the few places in the Gospels where Jesus directs his comments against this way of thinking), much of what Jesus says clearly implies that he has no concern whatsoever for protecting the honor of his family's or his village. In other words, Jesus does not expect his followers to be at all concerned about protecting their honor, but rather (to the contrary), to give it no thought. The expectation is that the emphasis of concern would be on the needs of others, not family honor.

Borg's section on "Purity" (pages 213-217) is really good and the information is well worth knowing. Now some scholars see the purity debates in the Gospels as reflecting the debates the early Christians had with the Pharisees over what a Jew could or could not do (many early Christians thought of themselves as Jews who believed the Messiah had arrived). But the topic comes up so often in the Gospels, it seems it would have to have originated with Jesus. As Borg says, the key for Jesus is the distinction between outside and inside. The rules of the Pharisees (oral law) focused on one's actions, how a person behaves in certain situations, how a person treats the outside of his body. Jesus was much more interested in the motivation behind a person's behavior than the behavior alone. Jesus' emphasis on motivation behind the action is referred to as what is in a person's heart, that is, the interior life of the individual. In the process Jesus does make statements that demonstrate he has little regard for the rules of ritual purity regarding food and "unclean" people. But Jesus (and all early Christians) continue to accept as valid the rules in the Law of Moses on moral purity. The basic moral teachings of early Christianity (as found in the New Testament) are adapted from Jewish moral codes with some adjustments based on the change in emphasis in Jesus' discussions of moral issues.

Under the heading of the "Narrow Way" Borg mentions repentance. New Testament scholars have historically seen this call to repentance as a central feature of Jesus' teaching. However, highly regarded New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders (interestingly enough) questions this whole emphasis on repentance in New Testament scholarship and suggests that repentance was such an important part of early Christian preaching that it is retrojected back onto Jesus by the gospel writers, and by the author of Luke/Acts in particular. He makes an interesting case for his position, pointing out that most of the references to repentance in the New Testament come from the hand of one writer - Luke. Repentance becomes a significant aspect of the message of early Christianity. But the concept rarely occurs in the any Gospel other than Luke. Which makes Sanders think it may not have been part of Jesus' own teaching and preaching. I am not sure if I am convinced by it, but it is an argument worth considering.

Block 5: Jesus: End Times Prophet, Ehrman, Pages 125-181

In looking at the possibilities for making sense of Jesus' expectation of the coming of the Kingdom of God, here are all the ones I can think of (that fit within the mind-set of historical critical biblical scholarship). The possible spatial options are: the kingdom exists either in heaven, or on earth or both. The temporal options are: the kingdom exists in the future, or in the present, or both. The spiritualized interpretation holds that the kingdom of God is purely an interior phenomenon within the heart and mind of the believer (see Luke 17:21). The concept of the kingdom of God usually is meant in the sense of the rule of reign of God, since a purely spatial representation of the kingdom of God (such as a theocracy like modern day Iran or ancient Israel under King David) is not a possible option for what Jesus means by kingdom. Some modern day Christian apocalypticists will mention Jesus' coming 1,000 year reign in Jerusalem as referred to in Revelation 20:4. But I do not believe this picture of the kingdom does justice to Jesus' teachings.

With regard to the possibilities for explaining the form and time of the kingdom (as mentioned above as spatial-temporal options), most 20th century New Testament scholars who consider themselves Christians have opted for "both" in each instance, the kingdom being both present in Jesus ministry, but still to come in its fullness in the future, and existing both in heaven now completely,and on earth partially in the ministry of Jesus, but eventually to come in its fullness in the near or distant future (see Matthew 6:10).

This consensus was very much in vogue during my school years thanks to the influential writings of Norman Perrin (the same guy who came up with the list of the Criteria of Authenticity). Following a similar path as Perrin's in methodology, but coming to a different conclusion, Borg breaks up this consensus with his view that Jesus did Not at all expect a future kingdom. Jesus believed the kingdom was present in his ministry and would continue to be present through the work of his disciples as they practiced "radical egalitarianism." Borg seems to have been one of the earliest American scholars to push this view and get a hearing among his fellow academics. I suspect that his idea caught on quickly because Borg was a high profile presence in the Jesus Seminar at this time (1987) and that many of his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar were influenced by their affiliation with Borg. Also the other scholar that propelled this interpretation of Jesus and the kingdom to wider acceptance among American New Testament scholars is Crossan with the publication of his very large and influential book on Jesus in early 1992.

Bart Ehrman goes in a very different direction, resurrecting Albert Schweitzer's interpretation of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. For Ehrman, Jesus expected the kingdom to come to earth very soon with an apocalyptic cataclysm during his own lifetime. A similar but different interpretation is offered by E.P. Sanders in his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, in which he believes that Jesus expected the kingdom to come soon with a great flourish that would bring about the transformation of the present world order" (Sanders, page 176). But this does not include the expected destruction of the present world, but making everything right and in harmony with the ways of God.

In reading the statements that Jesus make about his expectation of the kingdom of God, it seems obvious that this kingdom (reign or rule of God) of which Jesus speaks will not look like the reign of Caesar or Herod. God certainly would not choose such a person to act as his governor of His kingdom. But exactly what it will look like (in Jesus' envisioning of this final event) is a big question mark for many scholars. It is clear that most early Christians expected that Jesus would return to exercise direct divine rule over all the earth (such as Paul in his letters). But many modern scholars doubt that Jesus expected that he would be the one to exercise this rule. If Jesus did not hold this expectation about his role in the kingdom, what did he expect this kingdom to look like?

In the scholarly consensus of the 20th century that I mentioned earlier, God's kingdom as present in Jesus' ministry would certainly be seen as a non-coercive, even hidden rule, that is unobservable to ordinary human sight, but rather working in a hidden way in the same was as leaven/yeast works or a mustard seed grows. But in the future, when the kingdom comes in its fullness, there would be the expectation that divine rule would be directly exercised over all the earth. There will be some kind of judgment in the future and those who reject Jesus will be excluded from the kingdom (see Matthew 7:21 & 10:33).

The "Lord's Prayer" (Matthew 6:9-13) gives the expectation the when this kingdom arrives on earth it will reflect the rule of God in heaven. I believe we can assume that Jesus believed this much for sure. If so, then also we can deduce that everything that is currently wrong in the world, whether in terms of interpersonal relations, the physical environment or our human physical bodies will be transformed so that they reflect God's ideal. But Jesus leaves unexplained the details concerning exactly how this will happen.

We of a western democratic mindset might like to think that in this kingdom Jesus is envisioning a society in which all people of all races, times and places are completely equal, but it is hard to find any Bible verses to support such a view. Usually what Jesus is saying is that many of the people who will be present in the kingdom would be unexpected. For instance, there will be the outcasts of society such as those who have physical defects (the crippled, lame and blind, see Luke 14:21) and those who are outcasts due to their occupations, like tax collectors and prostitutes (Matthew 21:31). And along this line of thinking, we must also consider the references in various sayings and parables about a great reversal taking place when the kingdom comes, where the first will be last and the last first (Matthew 20:16) and the humble are exalted and the exalted ones are humbled (Luke 14:11). This reversal certainly indicates some kind of divine judgment is expected.

Jesus also seems to indicate some kind of hierarchy will exist in his kingdom come on earth. For instance, Jesus speaks of the disciples "judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:29) or that those who have left their homers and families will receive back a hundredfold in the time to come (Matthew 19:29). Thus, even though we might like to envision Jesus as the pure egalitarian, there is the element of judgment for those who have received preferential treatment during their earthly life, especially those who ignored or rejected the poor and outcasts of society (the best example of this is the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31).

I have avoided mentioning until now an important dimension of Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God, the apocalyptic expectation, because I wanted to save it for last and so include Ehrman. As you are well aware by now, for Ehrman, the apocalyptic dimension to Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God is the central feature of this teaching and (for Ehrman) the key to understanding the message and ministry of Jesus. This dimension of Jesus' teaching is no where more obvious than in the apocalyptic expectation of Mark chapter 13, which many scholars like to refer to as Mark's "little apocalypse." A scholar like Borg would say that Jesus never spoke such words, but that early Christians, influenced by apocalyptic Judaism, introduced such ideas into the Jesus tradition after Jesus' resurrection. In Mark 13 we find a definite expectation of cosmic events of earth shaking implications (literally), on a near but undefined future date.

Ehrman goes to great lengths to show that using the standard criteria of authenticity, especially multiple attestation (which Ehrman calls "independent attestation"), there is no doubt that Jesus uttered some kingdom sayings that must be interpreted as apocalyptic predictions (see Ehrman, pages 129-130). Ehrman takes on two figures from the Jesus seminar who have a different view (pages 132-134). The first alternative is the interpretation of the source "Q" which is interpreted as not containing any apocalyptic sayings in its oldest version. John Kloppenborg is the Q scholar Ehrman refers to, but we can also include Borg and Crossan within this viewpoint that the earliest version of Q was without apocalyptic sayings (earliest and oldest also means closest to Jesus). Ehrman also takes aim at Crossan's ingenious but far-fetched theory that there are other documents that contain material within them that are more reliable on Jesus' own views on eschatology than the Synoptic gospels. The best rebuttal to Crossan's thesis is that these other early Christian documents (often referred to as gospels) represent the continuation of the process of "de-apocalypticizing" Jesus' message as explained by Ehrman on page 131. Here Ehrman follows the lead of Rudolf Bultmann and interprets the gospel of John as offering the benefits of the kingdom in the present believer's experience (via the power of the Holy Spirit), and then Ehrman explains the eschatological stance of the gospel of Thomas as following in this trend of de-apocalypticizing the message of Jesus.

Ehrman is certain that Jesus expected a great cataclysmic cosmic event worthy of the title, "the end of the world," whereas Sanders would only say that Jesus expected the "transformation of the present world order" (Sanders page 183). Ehrman also sees Jesus' apocalyptic expectation as the key to understanding and interpreting the message and ministry of Jesus. Therefore, for Ehrman, Jesus' message emphasizes judgment of the present world order that will be conducted by a divine emissary Jesus calls "the Son of Man" (see Ehrman pages 144-148). Aside: it is clear that the gospel writers believed this Son of Man to be Jesus, but many modern scholars are not convinced that Jesus viewed himself in this light, but rather saw himself as a prophet announcing the coming of the Son of Man (an idea taken from Daniel 7:13).

Having established the central importance of the coming judgment, Ehrman proceeds to discuss the implications of this judgment. First and foremost, the theme of reversal characterizes the coming judgment (see Ehrman pages 148-154). Of course, the teachings on the coming reversals have direct implications for human behavior in the meantime until the big event, in order to avoid landing on the bad side of the judgment. Therefore, Jesus teaches that his disciples should look to the future, not the present for their rewards in life; they should serve others; they should become like children; they should recognize and accept God's offer of salvation for repentant sinners, and the humble and the humiliated will be recompensed for their suffering (pages 148-153). Finally there is the expectation that some serious destruction will also take place (see Ehrman page 154).

In chapter ten (pages 163-181), Ehrman addresses various other groupings of Jesus' sayings and interprets them in light of the apocalyptic expectation. My opinion is that many of these sayings addressed in this chapter do not require any kind of apocalyptic expectation to make sense out of them. Ehrman's approach is that, since he has now proven (to his satisfaction) that an apocalyptic expectation is the central feature of Jesus' message, therefore it is necessary to interpret everything else Jesus says in light of that context of apocalyptic expectation. Ehrman breezily makes a case that there is a connection between Jesus' sayings on divorce, forgiveness, judging others, loving enemies and care for the oppressed and the coming kingdom of God. In my opinion there is certainly nothing necessarily apocalyptic about such sayings. Also worth noting in this chapter is where Ehrman debates with those who would water down the apocalyptic dimension of Jesus' sayings (page 177) and note also his attack on Crossan's
anti-apocalyptic interpretation of the parable of the Mustard Seed (pages 179-180).

Block 4 - The Miracles of Jesus

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).

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?