Because I get frustrated by threads veering – I am starting this in a new one
in parallel thread we have
Stephen said
Crosson occasionally has interesting things to say but I think his non-apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus is all wrong and . ..
I have heard that before, but I believe one’s arguments should stand on their own so I am now reading his The Historical Jesus, the life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
FWIW I just present a quote from the book pg 230 my bolding
Brought together, those three insightful studies, by Koestler on I Corinthians 1-4, Davies on the Gospel of Thomas, and Kloppenborg on the Sayings Gospel Q (that is, in my view, from three documents of the fifties CE.) indicate that the sapiential and apocalyptic understandings of Jesus were both well developed and simultaneously present at an extremely early stage. Those twin interpretations, in other words, seem equiprimordial visions of Jesus.
. . .
A point is that neither the apocalypticism that Paul proposes nor that the apocalypticism that the Gospel of Thomas opposes knows anything about Jesus as the Son of Man, the avenging judge of Daniel 7:13. But on the other hand the apocalypticism added in the second stratum the Sayings Gospel Q emphatically sees jesus as the coming Son of Man . . .
I don’t know if later in the book I will see Crossan clearly rejecting the apocalyptic view as historical. but from what I have read so far it doesn’t seem to be so . . .
Crossan doesn’t deny that an early apocalyptic reading of Jesus existed and found its way into many early sources. But, by claiming that Q was compiled in strands, the first non-apocalyptic strand of which was supposedly from the 50’s, as well as that documents like the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel and the Sayings Gospel of Thomas were also possibly from the 50’s and 60’s, Crossan tries to make the case that the non-apocalyptic readings of Jesus pre-dated the apocalyptic ones, and so are more historically reliable. There are a lot of things I find valuable and learn from Crossan’s study, but this part of the case seems like a real stretch.
anvikshiki said
Crossan doesn’t deny that an early apocalyptic reading of Jesus existed and found its way into many early sources. But, by claiming that Q was compiled in strands, the first non-apocalyptic strand of which was supposedly from the 50’s, as well as that documents like the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel and the Sayings Gospel of Thomas were also possibly from the 50’s and 60’s, Crossan tries to make the case that the non-apocalyptic readings of Jesus pre-dated the apocalyptic ones, and so are more historically reliable. There are a lot of things I find valuable and learn from Crossan’s study, but this part of the case seems like a real stretch.
Agreed. To find Jesus the “wisdom sage” Crossan has to develop highly speculative and therefore problematic lines of textual transmission. As usual the simplest explanation is the best one as unpalatable as it may be to accept.
But wouldn’t the simplest explanation for all the texts saying that Jesus expected to be killed be that Jesus really did expect to be killed?
No, the simplest explanation is that the writers of the gospels are saying that Jesus expected to be killed. And that means Mark (since both Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark) whose entire point is to modify the traditional interpretation of the triumphalist Messiah to the Suffering Messiah based on what in fact did happen to Jesus. He was crucified but he was still really the Messiah. And out of this supreme episode of cognitive dissonance the Christian religion was born.
That isn’t an explanation. That’s a fact. That you still have to explain. The gospel writers differ in a lot of ways (John clearly didn’t believe the Kingdom was going to be on earth, only two of them believe in the virgin birth), so why do they all agree on this?
We agree, I think, with Bart’s assertion that the story of the Resurrection stemmed from visions multiple followers of Jesus had after he was crucified. But why did they have those visions? Why didn’t other messianic pretenders who died (such as John the Baptist) inspire similar visions? They just spontaneously decided he hadn’t died? Or did things he said to them prepare their unconscious minds to reach this conclusion?
I don’t believe Jesus had precognition. But I know for a fact he witnessed from a distance the execution of his former master, John the Baptist, which would have been a traumatic event for him. If God would allow such a man as John to die in such a way–what might his own fate be?
I think the simplest explanation is that Jesus’ mission took on a fatalist air after John’s death. His apocalyptic thought took on a different character, and he began to believe that he had to die for the Kingdom to come. What exactly he believed would happen afterwards is open to interpretation, but I think he did in fact tell the disciples he was going to die, and they responded with disbelief and even anger.
That is a simple explanation. It may be wrong, but it works. I don’t think yours does, because otherwise, we have no basis for explaining why the disciples reacted the way they did to what normally should have been the end of the story. They were horrified–but they had been given the psychological grounding to accept it, and to interpret it not as defeat but victory.
To decide whether Jesus was apocalyptic prophet/teacher/messiah opposed to sapiential, we best start by agreeing on terms
what does that mean ?
Dr Ehrman describes his understanding apocalyptic theology (world-view) here
** you do not have permission to see this link **
focus on 4 themes:
Dualism, Pessimism, Vindication, and Immanence
I pretty much agree that Jesus held and even preached on those concepts, so for the time being i agree to the thesis that Jesus was an apocalypticist, but I think someone could (and Jesus probably did) preach on those 4 aspects without holding or preaching about supernatural phenomena
I don’t think that Crossan’s identification/classification of apocalyptic vs sapiential is identical to Ehrman’s, so that is what I am tryin to figure out . . twice at least I read that that Crossan’s book , . . . Mediterranean Peasant . . , identifies the apocalyptic with a what he says is a ‘transcendent’ revelation by God of this or that.
In a separate thread there is a discussion that appears to boil down to the question (or at least boils down to a question that interests me) whether Jesus used the term ‘Son of Man’ in an apocalyptic fashion or non-apocalyptic fashion (or not at all).
————
After investigating the phrase SON OF MAN on Jesus lips,
Crossan next investigates the phrase KINGDOM OF GOD , also as used by Jesus, and tries to determine whether Jesus used KoG apocalyptically or not.
———
Jesus’ idea of the Apocalypse was pretty unique, so it’s probably a bad idea to lump him in with all the others.
1)The end of the world you know is coming soon, and many of you will live to see this happen. (That’s pretty standard.)
2)There will be a new world, better than the old, where people will be happy and live well, and all evil will cease. (Ditto.)
3)Those who are not fit for this new world will meet a terrible fate. (No divergence there.)
Here’s where it gets weird–
4) Selection will be based in entirely on how you treat others. If you are of my faith, you may not be judged fit. If you are of faiths I don’t approve of, or no faith at all, you may still enter the Kingdom. If you never hear my words, or know that I exist, you may still be chosen. If you hear my words, acclaim me as a great teacher, wish to become my follower, you may still not have the eternal life I promise, because you failed to live as if this Kingdom was already here, were still too caught up in the old way of living; in possessions, in satisfying your desires.
5)(And this is not what Bart believes, but he’s not in the majority on this point and is basically inferring something that isn’t in any text we have) I will not be in the Kingdom with you. My fate lies elsewhere. I only want you all, men and women alike, to have life, and have it more abundantly. And to love each other as I have loved you.
This is what I see there, and this is why he’s the only Apocalyptic preacher I can stomach. He was wrong about the future, of course. But he was right about the things that mattered.
godspell said
Jesus’ idea of the Apocalypse was pretty unique, so it’s pro
godspell
I don’t know how you say that, to whom (which apoclypticist) are you comparing Jesus’ ideas ?
to return to the topic of the thread – Crossan believes that Jesus view were different than John the B’s
specifically that Jesus rejected John’s Apocalyptic ideas (see Q Lk 7:28, Mt 11:11
“the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John” )
is that what you mean by uniqueness of jesus’ ideas ?
Jesus said in that same passage that no one born of woman (that would include Jesus) was greater than John. So I’m not sure that’s an attack on John’s ideas. Honestly, I don’t know what he means. That’s another shared problem with apoclypticsts. Crossan’s view is defensible, and I agree Jesus and John had differences (which is why Jesus wasn’t John’s follower anymore), but I don’t see any emnity or deep rivalry there. I see mutual respect, combined with some measure of mutual incomprehension. They are not seeing the precise same vision.
We know next to nothing about John’s ideas. I definitely think Jesus’ ideas were very different from what we have in the OT. Modern apoclypticists are very very different (I don’t remember Jesus holing up in a compound with guns and abused children, though in Roman days that would obviously have ended much more quickly and there would have been no media backlash).
Doesn’t it make sense that Jesus’ ideas lasted because they were different? And because they attracted a more gifted and determined group of followers, who then adapted them in ways that led to an enduring legacy?
John’s ideas have lasted too, of course–through Jesus. It’s just hard to know which of Jesus’ ideas as John’s.
tompicard wrote
Crossan believes that Jesus view were different than John the B’sspecifically that Jesus rejected John’s Apocalyptic ideas (see Q Lk 7:28, Mt 11:11
“the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John” )
Well he would have to wouldn’t he since John is portrayed as an apocalypticist in all our sources. And of course Paul is clearly an apocalypticist. This is one of the problem areas in Crossan’s view. John was and Paul was but the guy who was influenced by the first and influenced the second was not. Everything we know about John from the New Testament was filtered through a Christian sensibility. John was defined as a forerunner of Jesus. Yet if Jesus was not an apocalypticist why no attempt to back off John’s views? For this and other reasons Crossan’s views are not taken very seriously outside the Jesus Seminar (which itself was not taken very seriously in the scholarly community).
Seems to me Bart takes him seriously as a scholar (I believe it was from him I first heard Crossan’s remark that Jesus wasn’t taken up into heaven he was eaten by dogs). Scholarship is not just about what you think about this or that. Bart would have more regard for some crusty old Jesuit who knows the material than he’d ever have for anyone on this forum. Scholars are a club, and we don’t have the credentials.
You don’t get much notice as a scholar (certainly not outside scholarly circles) if your views are all in the majority. Some of Bart’s views are very much in the minority among scholars. And some of those will remain so, while some majority opinions will become minority opinions. Because that’s how it works.
I don’t agree with Crossan on this, and you make an important point, but not an insuperable one–Jesus would certainly have differed from John in crucial areas, or else why would he have formed his own ministry? And Paul never met Jesus once. Probably most of what Paul says has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus believed. He’s using Jesus as a springboard for his own ideas, as Plato did with Socrates, only at least Plato knew Socrates (notice how Carrier never says Plato and Xenophon made Socrates up? Doesn’t he sound made up? And nutty as hell.)
Again, I don’t know Crossan’s arguments, and nobody here has mentioned any of them thus far. I can’t be reading nothing but scholarly papers the night and day. Reading some early Raymond Chandler now. Do I have to explain who that is? Don’t go looking for him at the Jesus Seminar. 😉
Doesn’t Crossan’s major story about how Jesus differed from John go something like the following? For Crossan, Jesus was originally a disciple of John and was baptised by him, and so originally believed in John’s apocalyptic message. But then, when John was executed and God did not intervene, Jesus concluded that the “Kingdom of God” would have to be a community of people who cared for one another and shared their wealth, so that the authorities of Judea and Rome could not simply end a movement by executing its leading spokesperson. So, Jesus formed such a community, and eventually took his message to Jerusalem for the Passover. Jesus then staged some anti-authoritarian demonstrations (the triumphal entry, the overturning of the money-changers tables, the arguments with the chief priests), knowing full well that doing so would be dangerous and provocative. The authorities then did regard Jesus as a political subversive and executed him. But, by then, people throughout Galilee and maybe some in Judea had already been converted and erected small branches of the “Kingdom,” and Jesus, even though he has met the same end as John, succeeded where John failed.
I think Ehrman (and others) find this account implausible for a number of reasons. It was, to begin with, not a crime for people in the Roman Empire to form religious communities and share their wealth, and so, while Romans were hegemons, they would not have considered a Crossan-style Jesus community as subversive. It was also not blasphemous, as far as the Jewish authorities were concerned, for someone to proclaim themselves a “messiah” or “son of God;” and they would not have denounced communities of Jews who banded together over any particular way of following the Torah, because there were doctrinal disputes about Torah interpretation and practice on the Sanhedrin itself. Ehrman also finds the gospel narratives about the “triumphal entry” historically implausible on their face, since, especially given they were supposedly conducted during Passover, they would have gotten Jesus seized and executed on the spot. So, for Ehrman, both the particular character of Jesus’ alternative social kingdom, as opposed to John’s apocalyptic one, and the details of Crossan’s narrative, are not historically plausible. For Ehrman, John and Jesus were apocalpticists of basically the same ilk, and both were executed because they announced to all the immanent end of the present world order and the overthrow all present earthly powers, which straightforwardly was taken as subversive. And Paul, after converting to Christianity, was in turn an apocalypticist, but instead of expecting the coming “son of man” as Jesus did, he expected Jesus’ immanent second coming.
It was really Schweitzer who thought that the historical Jesus planned his own execution before he came to Jerusalem, after he had sent the disciples out on a mission to convert people and the disciples returned before the Kingdom came, as Jesus expected it to in Matthew 10-11. In Schweitzer’s estimation, John, though he may not have put any stock in Jesus’ mission at the start, once he was imprisoned, sent Jesus a question through messengers, asking Jesus if he was Elijah, who would herald the coming of the messiah, and Jesus responded by having the messengers say that John was Elijah and thus the forerunner of Jesus.
Schweitzer’s explanation works better than Crossan’s. Erhman may be right that Jesus didn’t think he was the Son of Man, but there are serious problems with that interpretation, going by the texts we have. It’s not an accepted consensus viewpoint either. (He who lives by consensus dies by consensus.)
Ehrman overlooks that because he, like all the others, is trying to come up with a working scenario of how it happened. Probably nobody has come up with a complete scenario that the great majority of scholars agree with–there’s always a nail that sticks out somewhere. There’s always a critical objection that can be made. Always.
For the record, I wish Crossan’s story were true, and I think parts of it are. Jesus did want to found a community of people who cared for each other–a faithful flock and him the shepherd. (Shepherds don’t rule a flock–they watch over it. Often from a hilltop.)
I think what Crossan misses is that Jesus, like John, believed God could and would transform the world when the time was right, so it didn’t matter if they killed the messenger or not. In fact, killing the messenger might be an essential part of the plan (Schweitzer’s idea), but it had to be the right person at the time time in the right place for the right reasons. (John basically got whacked over getting involved in Herod’s domestic squabbles.)
So it wasn’t that Jesus was greater (he who exalts himself shall be humbled), but that God had picked him for the big finale, and John was the opening act to set it up. John was as good as anyone could be, but he wasn’t part of the Kingdom–the community Jesus had founded, which to Jesus mattered more than any single member of it.
The problem with that is that there are multiple statements attributed to Jesus where he does seem to be glorifying himself. But none where he says “I’m going to be king.” I think that would be in there if he’d said it. He didn’t. He didn’t think he’d be around at all. Nothing hard to believe about that. People die for ideals all the damn time. What’s weird about Jesus is that he hoped he’d be the only one who had to be killed. Not 100% sure he believed that, though. He had doubts. I have no doubt at all about that.
anvikshiki all these attempts to imagine what everybody back then was thinking and what their motivations were just wind up being anachronistic projections of modern thoughts and concerns. We have no access to such things. And any interpretation of Jesus that rests on such assumptions is dead on arrival. Crossan’s Jesus, the “wisdom sage”, is a perfect example. There are many blank spaces on our maps and we have to come to terms with that. Not fill them up with our fantasies.
Get the log out of your own eye, Stephen. 😀
Seriously, how much real history have you read? Speculating about motivations is a huge part of the discipline. Everybody does it. Maybe little technical papers don’t all the time, because they’re about the small stuff, the fine details. But any serious biography does it. Alexander, Cleopatra, Socrates–we have nothing written by any of them (could Socrates even read?), and we speculate to beat the band. Serious scholars speculate just as much as anyone. Just with more context than the average schmo on the internet. And that includes you.
Stephen,
Yes, I think that is largely correct. That’s why, when it comes to the historical Jesus, I generally take the bare skeleton of the story of Jesus short ministry and execution by the Romans as what we can consider plausible. I generally find the apocalyptic representation of Jesus’ teachings to be more plausible than other reconstructions, but I’m not sure they can be treated with the same level of certainty as the skeletal account. I think that because it’s really hard to know which of Jesus’ teachings, in the 40-60 years between his death and the canonical gospels, are genuine transmissions or editings. Some reconstructions may be better than others, more probable than others, but even the most probable reconstructions are far from certain. As an Indian scholar once said to me about fifteen years ago regarding the reconstruction of early Indian history on the basis of existing textual evidence: “it’s like trying to do astronomy by shining a pen light into outer space.”
All that said, I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with the attempts of different cultures and ages to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus, or any other great historical teacher, into an image that is relevant to their concerns, needs and interests. If that kind of hermeneutic process didn’t happen, no traditions would survive long, or become so important to people of different cultures and ages. Creating frameworks of meaning for our lives is at the very core of what it means to be human. Jesus of Nazareth must, at the very least, have been an extraordinarily compelling personality, as he had such an obviously incredible effect on the people who created a movement, even in the wake of his own execution, in his name.
Stephen
. . . these attempts to imagine what everybody back then was thinking and what their motivations were just wind up being anachronistic projections of modern thoughts and concerns. We have no access to such things.
hey I agree with you
but for what its worth, that is not what I have read Crossan doing yet , in the book mentioned above
He looks as how the phrases “son of man” and “kingdom of god” were used by contemporaries of Jesus (were they used apocalyptically or not) then reviews witnesses/texts in which Jesus uses these phrases to come to his conclusions, I have not read that theory outlined by ** you do not have permission to see this link ** in the book, if it is coming I expect it will be evidence based.
On the other hand regarding
. . . Crossan’s Jesus, the “wisdom sage”, is a perfect example. . .
isn’t it just possible that Ehrman’s Jesus the “apocalyptic prophet” could just as easily be in error as Crossan’s?, as he projects that Jesus believed a universal cosmic being was soon to appear judging resuscitated zombies some who would be annihilated and some that would live immortally over a world where earthquakes and floods are no more . .
[such things] we have no access to . .. And any interpretation of Jesus that rests on such assumptions is dead on arrival. There are many blank spaces on our maps and we have to come to terms with that. Not fill[de] up with our fantasies.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)