Robert said
But that’s really my point. If there is to be any discipline at all in the practice of history, we have to deal with the texts we have, understand them as well as we can in their own historical contexts, before we leap-frog into the mind of Jesus and psychologize based on our own subjective imagination. When one works with these texts, is it really so obvious that Jesus loved the story of Jonah because Jesus also felt unequal to the task he believed had been set for him?Aside from dealing with various reconstructions of the Q-text in its pre-Matthean and pre-Lukan context, and their own redactional tendencies, let’s just take a look at the text of Jonah. Where would Jesus, the Q-author had gotten the idea that Jonah might have felt he was unequal to the task God had given him? If anything, Jonah feared that he would accomplish his task all too well in bringing the Ninevites (and God) to repentance:
“O LORD! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing. And now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”
The book of Jonah is a masterful work of irony and humor. Were it not for its serious theme, I would be tempted to identify its genre as something like a Saturday morning cartoon.
The character from the book of Jonah that is the focus of the Q-text is not Jonah, but rather the Ninevites who understand better how to judge according to God’s merciful ways:
“… All shall turn from their evil ways and from the violence that is in their hands. Who knows? God may relent and change his mind; he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish.”
Robert, the irony comes across very well in translation. It’s not all that hard to pick up on. 🙂
Like “Oh, Jesus must have loved Jonah because it’s so funny”?
As a kid, going to mass at our local parish, St. Benedicts, I used to stop by the magazine rack outside the chapel (not exactly an architectural marvel–it was originally supposed to be the gymnasium for the school attached to the parish).
There were always a lot of Archway books there, and I don’t know if you ever encountered them. Well-illustrated children’s books depicting various stories from the bible. Well obviously, there was one for Jonah. Funny as hell. He really comes across as a buffoon, though well-meaning in his way. The illustrator was having so much fun with the imagery of the story, like when God gives Jonah a shrub to shelter him from the sun, then takes it away–just to show him he’s not in control of anything. It isn’t about him. Interestingly, there’s a somewhat similar story about Jesus and an olive tree. Here’s a thought–maybe Jesus was just humorously cursing the tree, remembering Jonah’s shrub.
Jonah has appealed to many across the centuries–you remember our Pelagius discussion. Augustine seems to have felt that animals (lacking souls) were not important, and God didn’t care what happened to them. But Pelagius, citing Jonah, responded that God cared not only for the people but the animals in Ninevah, and would not destroy the city for their sake as well.
What does it tell you that Jesus loved this story? Just that he thought it was amusing? What else might you learn about him?
The best texts of all are people (the only source of all written texts), and a historian who can’t read those texts is essentially useless. I understand the complexities of reading texts that are a composite of the gospel author’s ideas, previous stories told by others, and at the back of it all, Jesus himself–who was also interpreting still earlier stories. Which were themselves in many cases influenced by other stories, and so on. It’s a maze, and nobody ever finds his/her way out entirely. But don’t we learn things along the way? About ourselves? We do if we understand we’re not all that important, and that it isn’t about us. God can send a worm any time He wants. 😉
Robert, I know perfectly well what it was. It’s the same damn thing over and over, which is why we can never have a decent conversation for very long. And it’s why I won’t renew my membership here–not just you, but all the other wannabes here, who can’t let their guards down and just talk. It’s not like anything we type here impacts anything at all. It’s supposed to be about learning–but you just want to teach. Which is why you never learn.
Not responding again. Not going to read your response. Not much longer. Hell, who knows–I might expire before my membership does. 😉
The Book of Jonah is sophisticated literature. So sophisticated that I can’t help but wonder if the historical Jesus would have even had knowledge of it. How much of Jewish literary tradition would an illiterate day laborer have had access to? Would it have been much more than having the books of Moses and the prophets read to him occasionally? Isn’t it more likely that these literary references to the OT were provided by the literate composers of the gospel traditions?
These are not rhetorical questions. How much do we really know of what religious education a person like Jesus would have received growing up in a hamlet like Nazareth?
This is a really funny question for you to ask, Stephen. Did you stay where you were born and raised? Did you end up only knowing what your parents and neighbors taught you? Seems like you branched out a fair bit. Well, maybe he did too. He certainly did not stay in Nazareth.
Most of Jesus’ life we have no records about (legends is another matter). I don’t believe he got out of Palestine much, if at all. But Palestine had plenty of centers of learning, Jewish and otherwise. Jesus served some kind of apprenticeship with John the Baptist, who had a presumed connection with the very learned Qumran community. And they certainly knew Jonah.
I don’t think we should assume he was some great rabbinic scholar. He almost certainly was not. But he does seem to have been able to give actual scholars conniption fits, turn their arguments against them, and cite scripture to back up his ideas. Self-servingly, but that’s true of just about everyone who cites scripture, including the devil–and who wrote that famous line about the devil? A man who most scholars believe had a very basic primary education–and for that reason, many have tried to prove he didn’t write any of those plays. And they’ve all failed. Because the simple truth is, genius can crop up just about anywhere, from any background whatsoever, and will seek the knowledge it needs to express itself. The most educated person is the room may not always be the smartest.
And speaking as an educated man, I know the truth whereof I speak. 😉
Also, I’m baffled a bit by the notion that Jonah would be hard for an ordinary person to understand and appreciate. Yes, there are depths to it that many people miss, but it’s a thrilling adventure story, involving a sea voyage, a giant sea creature, an unlikely escape, a recalcitrant prophet, and the threatened destruction of an entire city. It’s one of the most accessible stories in the OT, and is there anyone in the civilized world who hasn’t heard of it? “Jonah” has been a byword for bad luck going back for centuries, if not millennia.
Most really good stories work on different levels. This is certainly true of Jewish teaching stories.
I just talked about a book I read as a child, that used pictures and very simple language to tell the story of Jonah–and I understood what it meant. I tried to find it just now–and turns out there are scores of similar books–I wonder if any story in the bible has been turned into a children’s book so often. Maybe you saw a few yourself, Stephen?
So frankly, the odds that Jesus wouldn’t know the story in some form are zero.
This is a really funny question for you to ask, Stephen.
Why? Asking where Jesus got his religious training seems perfectly natural since we have no idea about it.
Did you stay where you were born and raised? Did you end up only knowing what your parents and neighbors taught you? Seems like you branched out a fair bit. Well, maybe he did too. He certainly did not stay in Nazareth.
There’s little analogy between being born in the twentieth century (even in a rural Georgia cotton mill village) and first century Galilee.
Jesus served some kind of apprenticeship with John the Baptist, who had a presumed connection with the very learned Qumran community.
We don’t know exactly what the relationship was between John and Jesus. And we have do direct evidence of a relationship between John and Qumran.
But he does seem to have been able to give actual scholars conniption fits, turn their arguments against them, and cite scripture to back up his ideas.
Well sure in the stories invented by his literate followers Jesus always gets the upper hand. But of course many scholars think those controversies between Jesus and the scribes are more reflective of the days in which the gospels were written than in Jesus’ own day.
And speaking as an educated man, I know the truth whereof I speak.
Yes but the uneducated man is also convinced of the truth whereof he speaks as well. (My point is not that you aren’t educated but that education isn’t enough.)
Why? Asking where Jesus got his religious training seems perfectly natural since we have no idea about it.
You were more or less assuming he had none, since you think he was an illiterate day laborer right up until he started his ministry. Nobody knows this for a fact, and it’s actually not that likely to be true. I don’t think he had a formal education, but autodidacts are a thing, in all times, all cultures.
There’s little analogy between being born in the twentieth century (even in a rural Georgia cotton mill village) and first century Galilee.
Yeah, nobody ever cracks jokes about people from rural Georgia cotton mill villages. No analogy there at all. 😐
We don’t know exactly what the relationship was between John and Jesus. And we have do direct evidence of a relationship between John and Qumran.
It’s still debated, the evidence is pretty sparse, but I believe he had that connection. And both Bart and Joel Marcus believe Jesus was John’s disciple. The ones who don’t mainly just don’t want to believe Jesus was anyone’s disciple, because he was God and all that. Strange bedfellows don’t half say it.
Well sure in the stories invented by his literate followers Jesus always gets the upper hand. But of course many scholars think those controversies between Jesus and the scribes are more reflective of the days in which the gospels were written than in Jesus’ own day.
Oh, now you care what scholars think? (When they tell you what you want to hear.)
I doubt very much all those stories are invented. Jesus clearly did get into arguments with the Jewish leadership, and if he hadn’t given a good account of himself, hard to see how he’d have any following at all. I agree that if he lost an argument now and then, we wouldn’t get that story in the gospels, but the establishment clearly saw him as a threat, precisely because he was able to hold his own and then some, with people who had much more education but far less ability.
As Joel Marcus says, he may well have been like Malcolm X–a high school dropout who got most of his education in prison. And routinely made highly educated people (black and white) look stupid in verbal confrontations. Education doesn’t always give rise to strong rhetorical skills. Again, people with exceptional talent find way to develop that talent, regardless of background. And those without it–well…….
Yes but the uneducated man is also convinced of the truth whereof he speaks as well. (My point is not that you aren’t educated but that education isn’t enough.)
And I already made that point. As you do all the time here–albeit unintentionally.
As I’ve mentioned too often already, I went on from college to three years of graduate school, studying Modern European History with professional scholars. I got mainly A’s, then burned out, partly because of my lack of facility with other languages, which is an essential qualification in that field.
What’s your educational background? Seems a fair question to ask, since you have no problem saying basically all historians in this field are wrong to think there’s a single story in the gospels based on fact (except maybe that he was crucified). If you’d had any formal study in this field, I think you’d have mentioned it. You’re a bit of an autodidact yourself, no?
Maybe just a little less gifted than that illiterate day laborer you have never stopped feeling intimidated by. 😉
You were more or less assuming he had none, since you think he was an illiterate day laborer right up until he started his ministry. Nobody knows this for a fact, and it’s actually not that likely to be true. I don’t think he had a formal education, but autodidacts are a thing, in all times, all cultures.
You’re assuming you know what I’m thinking. I’m assuming nothing. We really have very little idea how religious education would have taken place in Jesus’ situation. The reason to suppose that he was a day laborer up until he began his ministry is that if he had not been he and his family would have probably starved to death. Nobody had money in the bank. There would have been little leisure time to think deep thoughts. Was there a Rabbi or scholar around? Was his father particularly pious? Perhaps Jesus learned everything from his father. The truth, is WE DON”T KNOW.
It’s still debated, the evidence is pretty sparse, but I believe he had that connection. And both Bart and Joel Marcus believe Jesus was John’s disciple.
In other words, WE DON’T KNOW. Why do you have such a hard time with that? We can spin a lot of scenarios, some more plausible than others, but the truth is, WDK.
Oh, now you care what scholars think?
When have I ever said I didn’t care what scholars think?
What’s your educational background? Seems a fair question to ask, since you have no problem saying basically all historians in this field are wrong to think there’s a single story in the gospels based on fact (except maybe that he was crucified). If you’d had any formal study in this field, I think you’d have mentioned it.
I note for the record you just went out of your way to point out that education doesn’t matter and then you immediately want to know mine. Would me telling you my education background really make any difference? Would it lessen the prejudice and open contempt you’ve shown me since I self-identified as an atheist? I doubt it. And I’m not being coy. I simply have nothing to prove to you. When you regale us with your own educational background what response do you hope to invoke in us?
Stephen, when you refer to Jesus as an illiterate day laborer (which I agree he probably was at some point in his life, but not necessarily his entire life up to the point where we have information about him), I assume that’s what you mean. When you say “We don’t know what education he might have had” does that mean you accept it’s possible he did have a fair bit of education in some form? That a person born into a background where education was hard to come by might still, by dint of personal effort, become educated to some extent, however unconventional the path might be? And when you start talking about ‘voids’ inside people that motivate their opinions (but not your own) that seems like a pretty big assumption right there.
You keep saying “We don’t know” then you express yourself in such a away as to indicate you think you do know. Please be consistent.
I said you disregard scholarship because you say you believe the gospels contain basically no useful information about Jesus–that we only have a highly fictionalized account from later literate people who became his followers after he died–that his contribution to the story we have is essentially nonexistent. I have never encountered a serious scholar in this field who believes this. Carrier does, but your willingness to believe Jesus did exist would suggest you are not a follower of his. However, what is the basis for rejecting Carrier, if you also reject almost everything serious scholars say? Why not do the Full Monty? Why should we believe an entirely fictional account of a real person, written within the lifetimes of people who knew him, is possible? If it’s all fictional, then obviously Jesus is a fictional character. If this isn’t what you believe, I don’t know why you said what you did. I leave that question to you, since I am incapable of answering it.
As to your educational background, if you don’t want to talk about it, that is of course your prerogative. I have no doubt you are educated, and I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t mention any relevant studies you’d undertaken in this context, if you’d made any. I only mentioned my very sketchy credentials to show that I do have some relevant experience in processing and evaluating historical data–and that I know critical thinking is required to gain at least some perspective on what parts of that record we should credit, and which we should regard more skeptically.
I think you agree with that general statement. I am skeptical whether you have the necessary critical thinking skills to follow through. I see no evidence of this in your posts.
I am skeptical whether you have the necessary critical thinking skills to follow through. I see no evidence of this in your posts.
You know, godspell, up until you included that last statement I was prepared to respond to your questions. But you simply can’t post without an insult. Look, if I don’t have the “necessary critical thinking skills” why should you take my response seriously? If you insult me and then expect a civil response then why should I take you seriously?
Go away. Get help.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)