Robert – your generosity of spirit, time and reflections is truly remarkable. At this point in the conversation, please allow me to digest this and come back to you with some follow-on thoughts and questions. But, wow, you crushed it. Thank you for this.

Awesome.  Thank you for bringing to bear your expansive command of the material – it’s a massive boon, both here and elsewhere on the blog.  

I’m going to come at the first part, and have to leave the Pitre/Wright/et al interpretations for another go-round. 

Robert said

I’m not at all sympathetic with the view that Jesus intended his death as salvific in any soteriological, later Christian sense, but I don’t think it would be terribly difficult for him to foresee it, if the broad strokes of Mark’s story is to be trusted. Since I do not think we can presume upon John’s complete independence of the synoptics, much of the EP Sanders, John Meier, Bart Ehrman, et al school of reconstruction of the final deeds and events of Jesus life are less certain in my mind. Frankly, we do not know to what extent Mark (or his precursors) are responsible for interpreting and portraying Jesus’ life as a Jeremiah-like prophet in fatal opposition to the temple and it’s authorities or whether Jesus himself understood himself this way. I’m not radically skeptical of this portrayal, but there is plenty of room for the actual events to have been somewhat otherwise. I tend to like the portrait, but methodologically, it is much more fruitful to focus on the documents we have in their own historical context to the extent we can do this. I’m rather old-school with respect to the modern Leben-Jesu Forschung. I like it, more as a hobby than as history, and I very much agree with the focus on a Jewish, apocalyptic Jesus, but there is so much potential and variable depth that is opaque to us.

First, I think we’re in agreement across the board here.  Second, there’s a lot you brought in here that enriches the conversation (e.g., I too have trouble taking as granted the John as fully independent argument – though I’m still working through the Moody Smith book Bart rec’d me).  Third, my verb selection of ‘foresee’ was a poor word choice. I would agree Jesus could probably easily foresee it as a distinct possibility.  

What I meant to express is:  I have trouble thinking Jesus predicted his death (as a correct prediction of future happens) or that he intended it (whether in the later Christian soteriological sense or otherwise).  I think the data are best and most simply explained by viewing him as someone doing what he thought was right before God, costs be damned (and probably as someone who thought that the future Kingdom meant if he were to die, it wasn’t the end).  

That last paragraph is where I cannot yet tell if we depart or not.  Please let me know your thoughts.  It potentially comes into play below, in the section where my words about the “end of the road sequences” were unclear.  

Robert said

This is more of a difficulty if we focus most on the Roman, political aspects of Jesus’ ultimate conflict with Pontius Pilate. It is less of a problem to the extent that the Judean temple authorities, the first-line of the Roman sunedrion bureaucracy in Jerusaem, may have opposed Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of God. This is one of the advantages of the Jeremiah-like portrait of Jesus. The danger of this approach, of course, is it all too easily lends itself to Christian anti-semitism.

Completely agree with the relative ranking of the difficulty (harder if Roman-only, easier with inclusion of temple squad).  I don’t want to unintentionally drive us down a tangent on the arrest narratives, so will stop here on this point.  I’d love to pick it up later with you under separate cover, if you’d be game – it’s a fascinating topic.

My intent of touching on the arrest narratives was to set up the next point, but unfortunately I see I didn’t stick the landing very well.  Sorry, I’ll try to say it better.

Robert said

Hngerhman said

The end of the road sequences in the gospels speak to the retrospective of the early followers and how the LS fits in, but there seem such issues with the end of road sequences to me that I am having trouble using them as the probative lens through which we refract the white light of the LS jumble into its constituent wavelengths/fractionations. 

I’m not sure I grasp what you’re saying here. I could guess, and I might even guess correctly, but …

Yeah, I can see why now.  That word salad makes more sense if you’re inside my head…  What I mean is, you made a really intriguing move in your earlier post, where you said:

”If something like the ‘words of institution’ can be situated in Jesus’ last supper with his disciples, perhaps the missing element is that Jesus’ prophetic gesture, dramatically illustrating his coming death, was intended to be provocative, was meant to shock his disciples, perhaps also himself, to illustrate the horror of what was about to unfold, and even in the face of this shocking prophetic gesture, it seems his disciples were not able to accept it, and did not really have a clue as their own inability to stand with him when the time came. Prophetic gestures can sometimes be designed for their shock value, for example, in the story of Hosea’s marriage of a prostitute and the symbolic names given to their children.” – Robert

This take on the matter would tie the sequences from the rebuke at Caesarea Phillipi through the crucifixion together with an elegant explanatory power sufficient to capture the reason for staking the tradition in a taboo – using shock to prime their minds for a greater coming shock.  But I cannot get myself there yet.  I’m having trouble seeing that: (a) Jesus sufficiently predicted his coming death; (b) thus, the coming shock was anticipated; and (c) therefore, the shocking taboo was intended to set up the horror of the end for his disciples.  Without believing that Jesus predicted his impending painful death sufficiently to be able to pre-position a taboo-shock for his disciples, I have trouble getting this explanation of prophetic taboo symbolism off the ground.  

It’s really elegant and quite seductive, so candidly I want to get there…

Robert said

I think various different kinds of Jews, Gallileans, and Judeans interpreted Jesus’ provocative teachings in wildly different ways, while he was still alive and after his death. Some interpreted his Shammai-like severity as very strict legalism on occasion but others clearly saw him as glutton and drunkard in his Hillel-like openness to all who came to him. Like the rabbinic tradition that came after him, I suspect Jesus was able to apply the law judiciously, charitably, and humanely and sometimes compromise on minor issues in favor of more important aspects of justice or ‘redemption’ of those with a good heart. Matthew takes the gospel of Mark and tries to make it fit into his community, which presumably contained some more strict Jews, and it appears he ultimately tried to move them toward embracing the mission to the gentiles. Frankly, we do not know how successful he was in holding together some of the disparate elements of his community, but I think that was his intent, at least in part.

This is not only very well put, but also more expansive on the point than I could have reasonably hoped for with my simplistic question about jots and tiddles.  Thank you.

Robert said

As you’ve probably already realized, we agree pretty much on your interpretation of Numbers 1 through 4. 

Yep – I think we track very closely across the chain of transmission of the tradition.  

The only place I’m not sure about (per above) is Jesus’s prediction abilities, and that really just goes more to the possible range of available answers to Number 1 (can it include Jesus saying it for taboo-shock purposes).  I’m looking forward to knowing what you think here.

Robert said

I think Paul saw it as a very real and divinely powerful symbolic participation with the spiritual body of Jesus, not just in it’s resurrected reality, but also in the communal body of Christ in the local communities. It is both a backward looking memorial as well as a forward-looking eschatological proclamation anticipating the parousia. I don’t think there’s any hint at all of cannibalism or vampires. Similar to baptism, he would not have tried to literally drown the new converts in their participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. 

Totally agree, Paul doesn’t intend cannibalism or vampires – I think my language wasn’t clear.  I do not intend to ask did Paul think he was passing along a tradition of literally eating people.  I mean to parse it differently:  does the language of Paul (in Greek, which I cannot read) allow for him to be saying something like “eat this bread, and while you do remember Jesus’s broken body” (and the parallel for the drinking of wine).  Or, do Paul’s words (in Greek) instead limit us to “this bread is [symbolically] Jesus’s body, eat it and remember that!” – which is what the English of the translations would suggest.

I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation.  Thank you.  Depending on the next go-round, I intend soon to move off the taboo aspect, and resume the conversation around your excellent thoughts regarding the timeline and provenance of the tradition.

Robert said

The Greek here is as simple as the English. The interpretation of the author’s most likely intended meaning depends completely on the context and our knowledge or presuppositions about the author and his audience. We do not see any indication that Paul thought these words were problematic from a taboo point of view, any more taboo than a crucified messiah, perhaps because he was writing to a mostly gentile audience. Maybe he would have dealt with this issue if he were discussing this with Cephas or other fellow Jews, perhaps some among John’s audience. But there are also indications that a Greek-speaking, gentile audience might also strongly object to cannibalistic symbolism (cf Pitre, p 427 n 38).

But don’t just focus on the past broken and bloodied body of Jesus crucified. Paul also puts the eucharistic meal in a hopeful eschatological context focusing on ultimate reunion with the resurrected Christ: “… 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”  

Thanks for the insights on how the Greek reads, despite the reading itself being unhelpful to that particular avenue of potentially resolving the taboo issue.

Entirely agreed that Paul’s view of the symbolism is one that points to hope in the coming Kingdom (not just symbolic faux gore).  Unfortunately it’s still a hope firmly rooted in taboo.

Robert said

I don’t think we have to attribute that degree of chronological or judicial process detail to Jesus. Whatever level of stress that might have driven Jesus (or his disciples) to express his fate in extreme terms, it need not be accompanied by chronological detail. I think it’s also possible that Jesus could have learned of a conspiracy against him by completely normal means. Someone saw Judas going to the temple authorities; maybe he himself spoke to others of his reservations and his desire for clarification from authorities. I don’t think we can know any of this.  

Fair enough – one doesn’t have to know the precise unfolding of future events to give dramatic voice to dread, a dread sufficient to say something about a broken body and spilt blood.  However, to get from a expressing dread to the words Paul uses needs something more than “I am worried that I’m about to get violently snuffed out” – either Jesus saying something truly symbolic about the food and wine, or retrojection/conflation by the disciples (or Paul, but I think we agree he is unlikely to have tampered much for the reasons already given), or both.  This might be our last meal, so let’s remember it, and if it is, don’t forget me or the message – entirely plausible.  The new covenant will be sealed by my blood – I think we are in agreement that’s too far.