Says the guy who claims Jesus couldn’t believe in divinization because he was a near-contemporary of Hillel and Shamai. 🙄
Glad you’ve decided to embrace your inner dick. Though I guess you did that when you asked tompicard if he’d ever read the gospels. Maybe that was more like your inner troll. I’m going to walk my dog now. 😉
In his latest book about J the B, Joel Marcus makes the claim that John was a former Essene. Alas, it is the weakest part of an otherwise fine book. There is no real evidence for this. Presumably all apocalyptic groups in First Century Palestine had at least some things in common and the temptation to play “connect the dots” in this field where there is a limited reservoir of primary source material is apparently overwhelming.
Prof Ehrman’s logic on the ‘Son of Man’ sayings is hard to dispute. What is more likely, that Jesus thought the Son Of Man was a separate divine figure and the later writers of the gospels came to believe that he was the Son of man, or that Jesus thought he was the Son of man and the gospel writers came to believe he wasn’t? The flow of the tradition to privilege Jesus’ position clearly favors the former.
godspell I appreciate your hypothesis that Jesus imagined he could become the apocalyptic son of man judge in the future
but I reject that his he held a belief that death/sacrifice would be a factor in achieving that transition, for the following reasons
1. I believe that even the apocalyptic ‘son of man’ usage has always been a understood to be completely human alive being (neither an angel nor resurrected human)
And more importantly
2) I dont believe in, nor do I think Jesus believed, in an ‘atonement’ theology (regardless of what Paul or other gospel writers may have believed). your theory seems merely a variation of that standard a christian theory, i.e Jesus death brings us salvation .
As none of this seems to have anything to do with Crossan’s view of historical Jesus, I won’t respond more about it, thou if you create a different thread I reserve my right to do so there
1) I’m not sure this is true, but again, we can’t assume Jesus hadn’t changed whatever ideas he got from earlier traditions We should probably lean towards assuming he did change them. He doesn’t invent so much as he adapts found material into what he needs for what he perceives to be his mission.
2) I didn’t use the word atonement, and I don’t think that’s how Jesus meant it. It’s a nigh-universal concept in all religions that to get something of value you have to give something of value up. It’s not atonement, but sacrifice. And obviously that was a very important idea in Judaism.
It’s not unusual for a thread on one subject to turn into something else, but FYI, I did create a Son of Man thread, and you responded to it. Must have been a very memorable discussion, eh? 😉
So, now that I have identified some parts of Crossan’s hypotheses about the historical Jesus that don’t seem plausible to me, I will write a few words about a part of his hypothesis that does intrigue me. It is, however, a hypothesis that I have done much less–more accurate no–extra reading about. From what I gather on other threads of this forum, the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus has been widely investigated and hypothesised about in other scholarship. Given my regular heavy teaching duties during semesters on other topics, it is very unlikely I will get to any other literature on this subject soon either. But Crossan’s construal of it is, I find, quite interesting.
Crossan’s basic hypothesis of the relationship between John and Jesus, as I understand it, goes briefly like this. Jesus was baptised by John and, during the period of John’s public career, for all we know, Jesus was a believer both in John and in his message of an immanent apocalypse. But John was apprehended and executed by Antipas. Not only did God do nothing to prevent or avenge John’s death, but because John’s movement was centered on him as the soul baptiser, John’s execution signaled the end of his movement. In the wake of John’s execution, Jesus began his own movement, and that movement represented a departure from John in two respects. First, Jesus instructed his disciples to do the same things he himself was doing–preach to people, heal the sick, stay in the homes of the people who welcomed them and create interdependent communities of faith. This crucial departure ensured that the Jesus movement would not be centered on Jesus, and would survive him in the event that Jesus met the same fate as John. Second, Jesus decision to create this cooperative movement in the first place was based on his own fundamental change of mind about the character of God, which departed from John and led Jesus to hence forth speak of John respectfully but disagreeingly. Since God did not prevent or avenge John’s death, Jesus realised, according to Crossan, that God was not an apocalpytic avenger who was about to inaugurate the immanent overturning of all earthly powers. Instead, God would change the world in cooperation with a community that would resist imperial and commercial domination of the weak by the strong, as well as collaboration with that domination. This change of view led Jesus to inaugurate that cooperative community, and that cooperative community was really what Jesus had in mind when speaking about the “kingdom of God.” Jesus’ idea eventually worked, because, while he did in fact ultimately meet the same fate as John, the “kingdom movement” survived and expanded.
Now, I am not by any means on board with all of this. Much of it seems a kind of historically speculative reconstruction that serves Crossan’s views about what the Christian church should be now and about the personage he sees as the “sapiential” historical Jesus rather than the “apocalyptic” historical Jesus. Nonetheless, given how John is dealt with in the canonical Gospels, and given that the movement Jesus created did seem to be distinct from John’s movement in conspicuous ways–its roaming mission, its involvement of disciples who supposedly were given the same powers as Jesus–these distinctions do seem quite important in the long run and quite worth further understanding. Unfortunately, I don’t have time in the immediate future to educate myself too well about other scholarly views of these distinctions and what they tell us historically. But it seems a much more fruitful dimension of Crossan’s scholarship than his rather confusing treatment of Jesus’ sayings that are supposed to fulfil that same vision.
It seems pretty clear from context that Jesus began his own ministry well before John’s death, while remaining convinced that his teacher was part of God’s plan, but not the promised messiah.
I think their primary difference was over how to preach the coming of the kingdom. John did what we’d now call revival meetings, centered around baptism, usually out in isolated areas near the Jordan, where people had to come to him to be blessed and to hear his preaching.
Jesus was more peripatetic, went where the people were, and was less focused on baptism with water (in spite of the profound way that form of baptism affected him). It seems also that he was more eclectic and open-minded in terms of who he chose to associate with, but it’s hard to be sure about that, given that we mainly know John through the gospels. John’s ministry was better-suited to a Jewish audience, which is why he remained a more influential figure among Jews, well after both men were dead. But it was never going to catch on with pagans, and was bound to fade in importance as those who remembered John’s preaching died off. He doesn’t seem to have attracted followers with a great gift for evangelization, not to mention writing. One might intuit that Jesus leaving John implies that John couldn’t easily tolerate potential rivals, whereas Jesus encouraged his disciples and even people not connected with his ministry to perform miracles and other acts of faith. “Anyone who is not against us is for us.” John probably wouldn’t have said that.
It’s hard to dispute the notion that Jesus was profoundly impacted by his former master’s death (who wouldn’t be?), but I don’t agree with Crossan’s interpretation.
Somewhere in whatever fair and far Valhalla in which scholars spend eternity, Albert Schweitzer is chuckling. Crossan is making the classic mistake of creating a Jesus in his own image and imagining that Jesus actually existed.
Robert I will definitely read Maurice Casey. I deliberately seek out contrary opinions.
One thing I find especially fascinating about the Son of Man concept is how rapidly it disappeared from the traditions.
It’s problematic for the reason that the Son of Man didn’t come, and it’s confusing to new converts–is Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, or the Son of Man? There was no consensus then as to what it meant, anymore than there is now.
However, the term has lived on, and basically all Christians (and many if most non-Christians who have any interest at all) know it to this day. And if Jesus hadn’t used the term, probably nobody but OT scholars would remember it now.
If Crossan could project himself into the material, don’t be so sure Jesus couldn’t have done so as well.
Robert said
godspell said
Certainty isn’t possible here, but we should at least agree that the Son of Man idea was very important to Jesus, or else it wouldn’t be emphasized so heavily in the gospels. And Jesus might have identified so deeply with the Son of Man that he began to blur the lines between that entity and himself. And this is why people who knew him blurred those lines as well, to the point where they no longer existed.
Stephen said
Prof Ehrman’s logic on the ‘Son of Man’ sayings is hard to dispute. What is more likely, that Jesus thought the Son Of Man was a separate divine figure and the later writers of the gospels came to believe that he was the Son of man, or that Jesus thought he was the Son of man and the gospel writers came to believe he wasn’t? The flow of the tradition to privilege Jesus’ position clearly favors the former.
Which is why both of you should follow anvikshiki’s fine example and read Maurice Casey’s book, which challenges the whole ‘Son of Man concept’. While I too find Ehman’s view compelling, it is always good to be aware of the history of, and the scholarly arguments against, the preconceptions upon which other scholarly theories are sometimes based.
Well, I always take your recommendations seriously, Robert. Let me just Google–hmm!
Casey’s work argued strongly for ** you do not have permission to see this link **
You just can’t help shooting yourself in the foot, can you? It’s endearing. 😀
Casey’s work sounds interesting, and certainly relevant to two discussions we’ve had here, but I read about a lot of things other than early Christianity, and we can have a discussion without having read all the same books. You never read Aus on Aramaic sources when I brought him up. Maybe now you will, since Bart had lunch with him at Marburg, in relation to a conference where only top tier scholars were invited?
Again, stop pretending to expertise you don’t have, and we’ll be fine. Just present an intelligible POV of your own. Scholars saying this or that doesn’t prove anything. You don’t read them to learn what to think, but how.
But it is nice that you’ve provided me with yet another good scholar who thinks there were Aramaic sources for Mark’s gospel.
Sorry I missed that before, but you do tend to drone on. You really need to work on your writing style.
There is no problem citing scholars, and I do it too. But you overdo it a bit. Which is your prerogative, certainly. But it comes across as you claiming authority via proxy. Doesn’t work like that.
You don’t see it as taking a shot when you name drop, and I don’t see it as anything but mild snark when I say “But this scholar agrees with me about Aramaic sources for Mark!”
I am not out to reshape the study of early Christianity. I am out to figure out what I myself think happened. Is there a problem with that?
Robert, I have thought about it. I am here because I have learned from real scholars. You have not taught me anything I didn’t learn from three years studying Modern European History at CUNY Grad. Can you see the humor in an autodidact like you presuming to lecture others about academic standards? Nothing against autodidacts, but just get a grip. You. Are. Not. Qualified.
We don’t have to talk, but if we do, it’s on an equal footing. Or trust me. There will be snark.
🙂
Theology isn’t history.
Different subject, different standards.
And you know that. Don’t you?
Here we discuss history, and didn’t Bart just do a post about how mad theology scholars are at him lately?
Maybe this is why we’re not connecting–our emphases are too different because our training was so different.
But we’re both amateurs, so what the hell are we fighting over? Not tenure, that’s for damn sure. 😀
(editing) Oh damn–I’ve finally got my doctorate, courtesy of the forum.
See, being a ‘Doctorate Member’ is just about how many times you post.
And without you, I might have taken months longer to get there.
I thank you, Dr. Stephen.
😉
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)