(8 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...Is there any evidence to support the idea that Jesus and his followers survived during his public ministry principally, normally, or often by foraging? In my previous post I explained why it is plausible. But is there any reason to consider it probable?
(Sidenote: In my view, far too many scholars of New Testament and early Christianity in recent years have succumbed to the temptation of advancing claims/views that could be true, without worrying if there is evidence that shows they probalby are [or at least without citing and evidence]; and without considering counter-evidence. For readers, books that do that can certainly be more scintillating than an account — even at a popular level — recognizes the need to mount an argument rather than simply make an assertion. But in my view it’s bad history and not helpful)
Since our best sources of information about Jesus’ life of any real merit are the earliest Gospels, it is to these we turn. Here are three passages that seem to relate directly to my question, all from our earliest sources, Mark and Matthew. (We cannot assume the accounts are historical per se, of course; we have to examine criticall them to see if they contain elements of historical reality.)
- Eating Grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-27).
Mark chapters 2-3 present a series of conflicts between Jesus and other Jewish teachers/leaders, Pharisees and scribes. In each confrontation – over forgiveness, fasting, sabbath observance, and exorcism – his opponents accuse him of improper/illicit/blasphemous behavior and in each case he has a response that establishes his superiority. These two chapters on the whole are meant to show Jesus’s superiority to other understandings of Judaism in his day, as the Son of God who uniquely demonstrates his unique authority, divine power, and unrivaled understanding of both the Law and the will of God.
The episode about eating grain comes at the end of ch. 2. It is a brief story: Jesus and his disciples are walking through fields of grain on a Sabbath; the disciples are hungry and so pluck some of the grain to eat. The Pharisees observe them doing this and object to Jesus that they are violating the Sabbath. Jesus responds by pointing out that Scripture itself shows it is acceptable before God for those who are hungry to break the laws of Torah, since “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for Sabbath.”
And with that line he ends the controversy, with the implication is that he stymied his opponents with his withering one-liner.
There is a lot to say about, and I will be dealing with it at greater length in a future post. For now I make a simple point about it. This is a case either of either gleaning (if the grain had been left standing after harvest by the farmer of the plot) or foraging (if it was simply wild grain). The text treats the disciples’ activity as unexceptionable, except for the them doing it on the Sabbath. The broader assumption seems to be that this is just the sort of thing they would normally be doing on the other six days of the week. They scrounged for their food in rural areas whenever the need arose.
- Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14)
After nine chapters of recounting Jesus’ activities in Galilee, in chapter 10 Mark indicates that he and his disciples traveled down to Jerusalem (10:17, 32) and arrived in style into the holy city with the Triumphal Entry (11:1-11). They immediately check out the temple, and then go to spend the night in Bethany, a village a couple of miles outside of Jerusalem (11:11). (We aren’t told by Mark why they go there in particular or where they stay; but in a later episode he is in Bethany in the house of a leper named Simon; 14:3)
The next day they are walking from Bethany to Jerusalem, and Jesus is hungry. He sees a fig tree off in the distance and goes up to find fruit to eat, but is disappointed in his hopes. Mark indicates it was “not the season for figs” (11:13). Even so, Jesus is aggravated and curses the tree, “May no one eat from you , ever” (11:14).
The next day they pass that way again, and the disciples are amazed to see the tree has withered to its roots.
Again, there is plenty to say about the incident, but it matters for our immediate purposes because it shows that Jesus, either not having breakfast or still being hungry afterward, sees an opportunity for foraging and doesn’t hesitate to take advantage of it. Again, the passage gives no indication there was anything unusual about his foraging per se (though one may wonder why it would be the fig tree’s fault that it wasn’t harvest season yet! And why did Jesus expect to find fruit outside of season? The answer to that – as I’ll explain in a different post – shows what the event is really all about for Mark).
As with eating grain on Sabbath, Mark simply assumes that the apostolic band ate what they could when they found it.
- Do not worry about what you eat or drink (Matthew 6:25-34)
The Sermon on the Mount is by far the most famous collection of Jesus’s teachings, and almost certainly the best known sermon of all time. Its overarching theme is that people should live in ways God expects if they want to enter into the coming kingdom of God. The moral and religious teachings embedded in the sermon reveal God’s expectations of his people..
In one of the many striking passages, Jesus insists his followers not be concerned about acquiring earthly things, even what seems necessary just to survive, — food, drink, and clothing. God himself will provide all these things, so there is no need to worry about them. “Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all these other things will be provided for you” (6:33).
But how will they be provided? Jesus gives some intimations in his discussion of bodily nourishment: “Don’t worry about your life, what you eat or drink … Isn’t your life more than food? … Look at the birds of the sky: they do not sow or harvest or bring their crops into barns, but your heavenly father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they?” (6:25-17)
For many years reading the passage I always imagined Jesus was simply saying – don’t worry about it, God will provide in one way or another. That may be right, but how exactly does God provide food for the birds? Not through cultivation and cooking but simply from plants widely available in nature. That’s how God will also feed those he is more concerned about than birds.
There is a deeper logic to this view that Jesus appears to be assuming. God created this world originally as Paradise – that is, a Garden (of Eden). In the creation story (Genesis 2), God made plants to provide (rather glorious and extensive) food for the humans he created later. That’s how he expected them to survive. Take what has been given!
But humans botched it and were dismissed from the garden. According to Jesus (in the Sermon on Mount and throughout the Synoptics, God is about to restore what had been lost, bringing a new world for his faithful people, a good kingdom. It will be a paradise like Eden of old, with abundant food for everyone there for the picking.
Those who seek this kingdom now can start experiencing its glories now. God provides his people with all the abundance they need. It is all around them. He expects his people to sustain themselves from what he has already given them. They should simply go and get what they need, while waiting for the glorious day to come where all human needs will be me and peace and love reign supreme.
My thesis is that Jesus and his disciples survived principally by foraging, and urged others to follow their lead, in anticipation of the time when farming and the agrarian economy of their world would no longer be needed. They were certainly remembered that way and it makes a good deal of sense given everything else we know about their historical/geographical/cultural/economic situation, and their actual beliefs and message. Live the life of the kingdom now, trusting that God will provide your needs, in anticipation of his glorious world soon to come.
“My thesis is that Jesus and his disciples survived principally by foraging, and urged others to follow their lead”
Is it your thought that Jesus and his followers expected their families to forage in order to survive?
I haven’t thought through that part of it carefully, but it would make sense.
Bart,
I find your logic and evaluation of available sources very interesting. I agree with your intro “sidenote.” I do find your proposal very probable based upon your analysis of NT sources. I have heard that Luke’s knowledge of biblical geography has been questioned. Hence, using Mark & Matthew sources may be better. While the case for foraging is very probable, clearly the hospitality of local residents was also a source of support (e.g., example of Bethany cited, although as you note the breakfast may been lacking). Hence, while foraging may have been a major source of food, it is reasonable to assume hospitality (of food as well as lodging) and some financial donations may have been at least a part of the way the wandering group got food. Seasons of year (or years since time involved is debated) would impact the potential yield of foraging. Thus your “ thesis is that Jesus and his disciples survived principally by foraging” might hold if duration of public ministry was brief (less than a year) and if the wandering group returned to their homes (or stayed temporarily with some generous regional residents) during any times when foraging yield was least adequate.
Who was the “Rider of the clouds/the Cloud Rider?” Answer: Baal.
Oh my GAWD!
Nils Glenn says the cloud rider language > the Book of Daniel talks about the cloud rider Daniel 7 verse 13
with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man. [receives the kingdom that never ends.] > Jesus claims matthew 26 verse 64 quoting Daniel 7
Jesus’ Heavenly Father who died and got resurrected is Baal @
RIP YOUR CLOTHES LIKE CAIAPHAS!
Jesus says you will see the Son of Man, the cloud-rider.
Like Baal (taken over by Yahweh), I’m going to die and resurrect, THEN I’m even going to ride some clouds, in glory.
So Jesus claimed to be Baal, a god.
We can say Yahweh stole the identity of Baal. So Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, a god.
Nils Glenn (159,000 YouTube subscribers) may have just destroyed Bart’s claim that Jesus never claimed to be God.
Nils video with 505,000 views and 15,000 thumbs up:
https://youtu.be/1ckyx_1LDrg?si=HI8WQBwCPy6cMg3C
This foraging/scrounging lifestyle would have entailed quite a bit of hardship, and the funds of the followers who had some money would soon have run out, so the short ministry in the synoptics sound more plausible than the long ministry in John. Perhaps this contributed to the decision of Jesus to go to Jerusalem to confront the temple establishment and bring things to a head.
Unrelated (but hopefully quick) question: How did, or do, some Christians reconcile Jesus’s statement that “among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11) with Paul’s statement about Jesus being “born of a woman,” in which the latter seems unaware of the virgin birth tradition. While Paul antedates Matthew and may well have been unaware of that tradition, I’m curious how, if at all, this has been seen as an apparent contradiction or to what extent Christians, early or modern, reconcile these two passages. Thank you.
I suppose people say that Jesus was saying that until he appeared, John was the most important figure in history. (Didn’t Matthew himself know that Jesus realized he himself was more important than John??). But Paul wasn’t thinking about that. He was simply saying Jesus was a real human. Paul would certainly have thought Jesus was more important than John, but he didn’t know about what Matthew said, and if he did know what Matthew said, he would know that Matthew thought that Jesus’ birth was not a normal birth of someone born of a woman. Or something like that.
First timer here.
I was impressed with the documentary Christspiracy. It can be watched for free at christspiracy.com. This documentary is pretty convincing. I’m wondering what a scholar like you, Bart, would think of it. It argues that Jesus didn’t throw out the “thieves” but that the actual Hebrew word was mistranslated and that it really means he threw out the violent ones. And that the NT says he used a whip of sorts and that all the sacrificial animals were freed. It describes the temples in Jerusalem at that time as slaughterhouses. It mentions that James his brother was a lifelong vegan and so was John the Baptist and, once again, a mistranslation of sorts indicated that John ate locusts, but it was really carob beans or some other plant. I think I am biased because I’ve been a vegetarian for decades so I might be a sucker for a well-made documentary.
I haven’t watched it, but a number of these statements are flawed. If you’ll read the accounts you’ll see. (The Gospels weren’t written in Hebrew, btw). John was eating locusts; the idea he was a vegetarian can be found in the legendary Gospel ofthe Ebionites. We have no informatoin on the diet of James, but there’s no way he was a vegan for life.
I hate to shoot down part of your foraging idea, but raw cereals (including wheat) fresh off the field are not tolerated well by the human digestive system. Raw grains are often contaminated with bacteria from animal excrement. Raw grains have high levels of phytic acid that destroy the nutritional content when eaten. The phytic acid level is reduced when cereals are processed. I soak my oatmeal in water overnight. It’s highly unlikely anyone could have survived long by foraging raw wheat.
Are you saying that people do not forage raw grains? Or, instead, that it harms more than helps, possibly relieving some hunger but not providing good nutrition? We do know of famine-foods in antiquity, including animal fodder and non-nutrious roots, grasses, and wild plants. Possibly it depends how long one tries to sustain that diet, and how if at all it is supplemented with real (human) food?
On a practical note, I live next to Kansas wheat fields. I used to ride my bicycle through wild wheat fields near the Cherry Creek Dam in Denver, CO. I’ve tried foraging raw wheat many times. Those tiny little grains take a bit of work to gather enough to have even a handful. After that, if you do eat enough to satisfy your hunger (I haven’t done it!), you will experience severe bloating, gas, and gastrointestinal distress. Also, biting on or chewing the raw grain can break teeth. The wheat berries have to be milled, soaked in water, or sprouted to be eaten safely. The account come from someone (Mr. Q?) who had never done it or knew anyone who did. You don’t eat the heads of wheat, as is said in Luke 6:1 NASB 1973. My wife, who grew up in the Oklahoma Panhandle, confirmed that she often wondered why the Gospels said the disciples were eating raw wheat. BTW, I’m assuming στάχυς refers to wheat and barley, not corn (KJV).
Yup, I grew up in Kansas too and have long wondered it. Normally the word refers to wheat and barley, the major grains in the mediterranean diet (and the major source of calories for most of that part of the world). It can’t mean “corn” (I played with that idea once) because it was a New World crop, unknown in the Mediterranean at the time.