Has anyone askd how we know that Jesus was an “itinerant preacher”?
I have a very hard time understanding how this description of Jesus came to be so unquestioningly accepted.
After his baptism, he seems to have gone around preaching mainly in the settlements around the sea of Galilee, which is a very small area indeed; and one of the evangelists states that he came to live in Capernaum, which suggests he wasn’t homeless during this time.
This limited amount of travelling hardly warrants the description “itinerant preacher”; if a carpenter were to travel this same amount from his home in Capernaum to make money through taking on projects, nobody would say “He’s an itinerant carpenter” — as he would just be a man with a home who travelled for work.
To give another analogy: I can see that Professor Ehrman travels a lot to give lectures, yet I never hear him described as an “itinerant professor” on that account.
Beyond his local preaching, Jesus went to Jerusalem for the festivals that all religious Jews took seriously, and preached along the way. None of this amounts to a reason to think he was an “itinerant holy man”; Paul, on the other hand, seems to fit the “itinerant” description much better, as he was on his way to Spain after visiting Rome.
Itinerant doesn’t mean homeless. It means someone who travels around, and as you yourself say, Jesus traveled around. That said, the connotation of the word is a vagabond. When we read about Jesus in the Gospels he travels here and then he travels there and then he travels over to that place. He traveled a lot, regardless of where he called his home, permanent or not. Do you want to call him a ‘traveling preacher’ instead of an ‘itinerant preacher’? I think the latter is better because if he implored others to give up their worldly wealth he must have as well, therefore the ‘vagabond’ connotation of traveling –itinerant– seems apropos to me for a person with little money who travels around a lot. We know Jesus and the disciples had money because Judas was the one who kept it, but it couldn’t have been very much.
Omar6741 said
To give another analogy: I can see that Professor Ehrman travels a lot to give lectures, yet I never hear him described as an “itinerant professor” on that account.
Yes, Bart travels, but his professional association is with Chapel Hill. He, no doubt has an office there and teaches classes with regularity. Bart’s travels are secondary to his professional obligations. Jesus in contrast seems to have had no similar base and seems to have taken after his predecessor John The Baptist.
spiker said
Omar6741 said
To give another analogy: I can see that Professor Ehrman travels a lot to give lectures, yet I never hear him described as an “itinerant professor” on that account.
Yes, Bart travels, but his professional association is with Chapel Hill. He, no doubt has an office there and teaches classes with regularity. Bart’s travels are secondary to his professional obligations. Jesus in contrast seems to have had no similar base and seems to have taken after his predecessor John The Baptist.
So you don’t think Jesus lived in Capernaum?
Was Capernum his professional venue as opposed to say, Jerusalem. Would it matter, if I thought he lived in Jerusalem instead? The question I think is whether traveling around is an necessary part of his chosen profession. Travel was necessary for his Apocalyptic mission;
the very means by which he did his work.
Ehrman on the other hand, could stop traveling for the next five years and still continue to honor his professional obligations.
Greg made a great point that being itinerant is synonymous with being a vagabond.
spiker said
Was Capernum his professional venue as opposed to say, Jerusalem. Would it matter, if I thought he lived in Jerusalem instead? The question I think is whether traveling around is an necessary part of his chosen profession. Travel was necessary for his Apocalyptic mission;
the very means by which he did his work.Ehrman on the other hand, could stop traveling for the next five years and still continue to honor his professional obligations.
Greg made a great point that being itinerant is synonymous with being a vagabond.
I don’t think “itinerant” necessarily means anything as negative as “vagabond”; however, it does suggest a high level of self-sacrifice for the sake of one’s calling, since the natural tendency among settled peoples is to have a home to which one can return from time to time. The itinerant is someone who has freed themselves from this tendency and has given up attachment to the comforts of home and family, trusting in his God to look after him even though he is perpetually a stranger.
It is*this* image that I can’t clearly see in the Gospels, yet seems to be taken for granted; conservative scholars mean something religiously positive by calling him itinerant, and I don’t see anything special about his travelling activities in this regard.
Omar6741 said
I don’t think “itinerant” necessarily means anything as negative as “vagabond”; however, it does suggest a high level of self-sacrifice for the sake of one’s calling, since the natural tendency among settled peoples is to have a home to which one can return from time to time. The itinerant is someone who has freed themselves from this tendency and has given up attachment to the comforts of home and family, trusting in his God to look after him even though he is perpetually a stranger.It is*this* image that I can’t clearly see in the Gospels, yet seems to be taken for granted; conservative scholars mean something religiously positive by calling him itinerant, and I don’t see anything special about his travelling activities in this regard.
Remember, what we (in the 21st century) think of the term vagabond, has no baring on its accuracy in describing the first century activity. There’s good reason to think Jesus was an outlier. Consider, his connection with the itinerant John the Baptist; consider his apocalyptic sensibilities. Consider his rejection of his own family. Consider that he seems to have had benefactors (people financially supporting his ministry) Consider this is the same approach later adopted by the apostle Paul.(the whole beginning, end middle argument I think you give too much weight to conservative thinking about this. I doubt any of them would criticize anything he did. Certainly they don’t go around telling people to embrace that lifestyle
So lets leave that aside and look at how it’s defined. You describe it as “The itinerant is someone who has freed themselves from this tendency and has given up attachment to the comforts of home and family, trusting in his God to look after him…”
Indeed, isn’t this the very point of verses like Mat 6:25 -28
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[** you do not have permission to see this link **]?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)