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.


.