Well, you finally scored a point, courtesy of my typing too fast. And you know perfectly well how that can happen on a forum, but I understand you’re still working on your own humor. Keep working. 🙂
And who the hell said you shouldn’t be proud of studying theology? It’s still not history. I understand it can involve history, but it’s a separate discipline. I didn’t study with world class theologians. I studied with world class historians. And that doesnt make me qualified either.
I’m going to assume you will never admit your large role in this debacle, or admit that I’ve made a single valid point, or that I might actually have things to teach you, so I’m going to leave the thread, not read your presumably huffy response, and get on with it.
This has been an enormous waste of time. I hope we can at least agree on that.
appreciate this full post [but I am cutting the part I dont want to address at this time, and bold other parts I think important, or at least more interesting]
anvikshiki said
. . . . Jesus realized, 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 .
Bart Ehrman writes in describing Pessimism, one of the four primary/defining themes characteristic of apoclypticism,
Jewish apocalypticists maintained that those who sided with God were going to suffer in this age, and there was nothing they could do to stop it.
I do not think that this accurately describes Jesus ministry.
the other three themes mentioned by Ehrman being Dualism, Vindication, and Imminence
But does Crossan deny that Jesus ministry contains these other three elements/themes ?
I don’t think so,
I did not read Crossan denying Jesus taught
a) there exists a division between powers of good and and powers of evil [Dualism], or
b) that the poor would be satisfied [Vindication], or
c) that there were struggles ahead of the soon unfolding Kingdom of God [Imminence]
So what is the dividing line between a sapiential worldview and an apocalyptic one ?
it is that the elect can do nothing to usher in the Kingdom according apocalyptic prophet.
But to the sapiential/wisdom teacher, God’s Kingdom comes with human cooperation.
If that is accurate dividing line then Crossan’s case is more convicting than Ehrman’s
what you think is the dividing line between a sapiential teacher/prophet and an apocalyptic/prophet ?
In general, Jewish apocalypticism and this literary genre arose out of the prophetic genre, with the added aspects of cosmological and spiritual dualism and imminent eschatology.
I dont think that exactly answers the question
Maybe you are implying that in your opinion (and I am asking your opinion) the question raises a false dichotomy .
But Bart is pretty adamant that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and Crossan somewhat implies Jesus was not
Crossan, as far as I understand him, does not deny Jesus ascribed to a view of cosmological/spiritual dualism, nor does he reject that Jesus viewed imminent unfolding of God’s Kingdom.
tompicard you realize the bookshelves groan with the weight of tomes devoted to just these questions.
Simply then a quick point.
Isaiah thinks that if the people repent then Yahweh will bless the nation and it will prosper. The apocalypticists think it’s too late for that. God is coming soon to establish his kingdom on earth. Repent or be destroyed. I think one main difference is what their concept of salvation means.
Thanks both for your replies
I will try to be more specific
is there any specific characteristic teaching that defines the apocalyptic prophet that is absent in the non-apocalyptic sapient teacher?
Stephen mentions Isaiah who exhorts his listener to repent and receive God’s blessing, but didn’t explicitly mention that Isaiah also proposed destruction, if the nation (actually the whole WORLD) fails to heed his message, please see chapter 24. this chapter is at least as scary as anything Jesus is recorded as preaching.
But I dont know what Stephen means by different views of salvation of apocalypticist vs non-apocalypticist
Robert, Which thesis presented by Crossan do you contend is anachronistic. ?
I personally think that is an unfair criticism especially because 50% of the book The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant Crossan reviews in excruciatingly painful details as many philosophies and worldviews prevalent in the surrounding 200 years of prophets, magicians, zealots, messiahs, slaves, patrons, bandits, etc, etc, etc , but maybe you have something else in mind
I don’t have the materials in front of me, but I’ll try to briefly state the essential difference between Ehrman’s “apocalyptic” Jesus and Crossan’s “sapiential” Jesus.
For Ehrman, it is certainly true that people have to do things to prepare for the coming Kingdom, according to both John’s and Jesus’ teaching. For John, they have to repent and be baptised. For Jesus, they have to follow Torah as well as follow the directives of the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 25, because the reversal of the world order in the coming Kingdom, which will vindicate the weak and humble and condemn the powerful and self-righteous, will require those who want to be permitted into the Kingdom to behave in these ways. However, whether people followed all these directives or not, for Ehrman’s Jesus, the son of man would be arriving very soon, would overthrow earthly powers, deliver judgment after a general resurrection, and inaugurate God’s rule on earth.
Crossan seems to agree entirely that John the Baptist was a fully apocalyptic prophet. But, after John’s execution, Crossan hypothesises that Jesus changed his mind, and no longer believed in an immanent arrival of the Kingdom of God to be shepherded in by any son of man figure. Instead, he believes Jesus directed people to transform their own lives from ones of greed and cooperation with empire to ones lived in sharing and mutually supporting communities. It was these communities themselves that would effectively become “the kingdom of God” on earth. For Crossan, Jesus is a sapiential rather than an apocalyptic teacher in the sense that Jesus expects no immanent intervention of God and his angels that will overturn earthly powers, but instead teaches people how to live in the world as God has always wished, in devotion to community, justice and worship.
So, as I understand it, there is some overlap between Ehrman’s and Crossan’s conceptions of the historical Jesus insofar as Jesus teaches people how they should live. But there is an essential difference between them. Ehrman’s “apocalyptic” Jesus believes and teaches that God’s kingdom, within his own lifetime, will be established on earth, replacing all earthly powers. Crossan’s “sapiential” Jesus does not believe this direct overturning of earthly powers by God will happen immanently. Instead, Crossan’s Jesus believes that a practicing community, which lives according to Jesus’ teachings and values, regardless of whether earthly political powers are overturned or not, is itself effectively “the kingdom of God” on earth.
Apologies. When I say “briefly,” I never seem to mean it. 🙁
Stephen said
Crossan wants a Jesus he can relate to not one who frustrates comprehension. This impulse I think is behind all non-apocalyptic interpretations of Jesus.
Yes. I think there is a lot of truth to the idea that Schweitzer diagnosed Crossan’s approach, and the approach of many others, in 1906. I agree entirely with Schweitzer’s insistence that, when looking for “the historical” Jesus, we need to look for a thoroughly first-century Jewish figure and not a 20th or 21st century person.
But, as we all know, there was quite a variety of first-century Jews, and right now it seems to me quite difficult to reconstruct exactly what sort of first-century Jew Jesus was based on the sayings material we have. It’s all so temporally removed from him, so filtered through multiple interested parties and thus so diverse that even those who want to reconstruct a thoroughly first-century personage of Jesus are doing a lot of plain old-fashioned guessing. It’s not totally unprincipled guessing, of course–there are standards and criteria. But it is guessing nonetheless.
It is both curious and amazing that Robert and Stephen are so adept in recognizing the psychological state of others and what Crossan and my motivations are for the holding of our anachronistic opinions ( that is supposed to be the sarcastic emoji in case you didn’t realize)
Stephen said
Crossan wants a Jesus he can relate to not one who frustrates . . .. . This impulse . . is behind all non-apocalyptic . . .
Robert said
. . I consider Crossan anachronistic is the same area in which I consider your [tompicard] interpretation of Jesus as anachronistic. It tries to create a . . ... . .
Similarly, you [tompicard] would like to interpret 4Q521 as purely symbolic language, . ..
especially given Stephen’ point of view
Stephen said
. . . all these attempts to imagine what everybody back then was thinking and what their motivations were just wind up being . . . We have no access to such things.
claiming you cant understand what Jesus was thinking but maybe you think it’s appropriate to elucidate my and Crossan’s motivations (but obviously you are also doing that when you decide Jesus was apocalyptic rather than sapient)
anyway, Robert, in a while I may respond to the substantial points in your reply – literal vs symbolic understand of prophetic and apocalyptic writings and dualism – which opinions of yours I do appreciate
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)