Loading...This is second of three installments of the paper I read at the Life of Brian and the Historical Jesus conference. In this portion I deal with an issue that I have been spending a lot of time reading and thinking about over the years: the value of eyewitness testimony for establishing what really happened in the past.
The reflections here are inspired by the first episode of Brian’s adulthood in the film, where he is present, at a distance, at Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount, and the people around Brian cannot make out exactly what Jesus is saying since they are so far away from him. Rather than “Blessed are the Peacemakers,” Jesus is thought to have said “Blessed are the Cheesemakers”; and it was the Greek, not the meek, who will inherit the earth. And so it goes. It’s the sort of scene that is both funny and insightful — what *was* it like to hear a public speaker back in the days before there were microphones??? To deal with this question I again talk about how the film uses parody in order to make its points.
******************************
One of the most brilliant ways parody works in the Life of Brian is by highlighting the complete implausibility of the biblical narratives, or at least the implausibility of widespread and common understandings of the historicity of the events described in the biblical narratives. For some reason, avid Bible readers – at least in my part of the world, the American South – do not seem to ask commonsensical questions about whether a narrative in Scripture actually makes any sense if taken literally. The Life of Brian manages to ask these questions by parodying the literal sense.
This happens right off the bat in the opening scene, Brian’s infancy narrative. The cinematography and music, in case you have never noticed, is not simply a riff on the biblical epics of Hollywood in general; it is a hilarious and virtually plagiaristic replay of the infancy narrative of Ben Hur, and the arrival of the wisemen to worship the child Jesus.
Neither biblical account of Jesus’ infancy – the one in Matthew or the one in Luke — can be taken as a description of anything like historical reality. One of the many problems with Matthew, on which Brian’s infancy is based, involves that implausible star that allegedly leads the wise men to the baby Jesus. In order to illustrate the problem, I tell my students to go outside on a clear evening, look up in the sky, and figure out which star is standing over their own house. In Brian’s opening parodic scene, the point is made much more convincingly, as the three wise men start out in the wrong house to worship the wrong Capricorn with gold, frankincense, and a balm.
Nowhere are the logistics of the biblical narrative lampooned more famously than in arguably the best known line of the movie, Blessed are the Cheesemakers. I take this parody of the Sermon on the Mount to be making a not-so-serious but important point about the implausibility of eyewitnesses guaranteeing the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives.
For a very long time now we have heard a lot from scholars who have wanted to emphasize the existence of eyewitnesses and their value as guarantors of the surviving traditions about Jesus. This perspective is so wrong on so many levels that it is very hard to know even where to begin considering it.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
It would be interesting to document the number of times in the New Testament when a story is told that would HAVE to include a witness to the events, but the narrative itself includes no witnesses. Like the pronouncement Jesus is supposed to have made while nailed to the cross.
Right! And his prayer in Gethsemane. And his temptatoins in the wilderness. Right — it’d be nice to have a full list!
Matthew 10:36 talks about families turning against each other in order to follow Jesus. What does this mean and does it go back to the historical Jesus?
My view is that it does not go back to Jesus, but is a saying put on his lips by his later followers who were experiencing social disruption within families, as one family member would become a follower of Jesus and the others would strongly object, and there’d be a falling out; it’s related to the idea that hte Christians considered each *other* to be brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc. The saying then shows that Jesus knew this would happen and predicted it.
Regarding “Blessed are the cheesemakers”, Python may have based that joke on a mention in Josephus’s book 5 of the tyropoeon valley, “valley of the cheesemakers,” in central Jerusalem. https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/holy-land-studies/cheesemakers/
According to this site, “cheesemakers” may not be exactly what Josephus originally wrote.
For Many Will Come in My Name (come in your name OR come in your title?) Matthew 24: 5
What? Simon Magus only or those who came under the heading messiah?
BEFORE THE JEWISH CIVIL WAR AND REVOLT
The Egyptian Prophet
The Samaritan Restorer
DURING THE JEWISH CIVIL WAR AND REVOLT
Menachem
Simon bar Gioras
Third, one and more than one who deceived people by proclaiming God commanded them to go to the Temple to receive their reward of deliverance (where they were rewarded with death, misused in a ploy to stop desertions from revolution.)
1
Before the Jewish Civil War, The Egyptian Prophet and the Samaritan Restorer did not reference Jesus or the name of Jesus.
2
During the CIVIL WAR, Menachem and Simon bar Gioras did not reference Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s.
So, Mark writing closer to the Jewish Civil War and Revolt than to the late 20s/early 30s is likely going with the false messiahs coming in the TITLE Messiah, not in the name of Jesus (late 20s/early 30s).
Contemporary Relevance – you really think Mark is referring to Simon Magus and the readers of Mark, in reverse chronology, are jumping back over the other False Messiahs?
Bart, are we looking for Jesus’ name or Jesus’ title?
I think the issue is whether false messiah’s would arise, not people impersonating Jesus (if that’s what you’re asking)
Before it was easy to Google lyrics, I thought, gee our old LaSalle ran great was gee are o lasalla grate.
“But you are gonna know when the bull is on the phone.”
A prominent aspect of gospel accounts of Jesus is that he attracted crowds of people to hear him speak. Gospel writers had an obvious desire to exaggerate Jesus’s importance, but how much of this exaggeration can be ascribed to faulty memory?
There are anomalies with the supposition that Jesus was a simple peasant, unknown outside of Galilee.
Firstly, if he and a dozen unarmed disciples had entered Jerusalem where he declared that he would become king, he should have been considered insane. It is then strange that authorities arrested him and even got the Romans to crucify him when normal procedure would be assassination.
Secondly, who supported them? An individual can survive by begging but not a group of 13 men.
Also, was the Last Supper really eaten in a large house as depicted in the gospels?
The lack of independent evidence is actually unremarkable. Olympic athletes have temporary fame but are soon forgotten. Jewish records were lost with the destruction of Jerusalem and outsiders had little interest in events in Israel. Without Paul, Jesus would probably be unknown today.
Is it reasonable to suppose that Jesus was actually well-known and controversial in Israel during his last year?
Yes, if you accept the Gospel accounts as accurate then … they are accurate! And in that case he was well-known and controvesial. (I’m not sure where you’re getting the ideas about assasination or the impossibility of groups surviving by begging or the importance of Paul for, say the Gospels?)
I suggest that exaggeration rather than invention is responsible for much of the inaccuracies in Gospel accounts.
Assassination has always been the way that authoritarian regimes deal with rebellious nonentities. (Think Nazi Germany, Iran, North Korea, various Central American & African countries where people just disappear).
It is not impossible for a group of 13 men to survive by begging, just more probable that they received outside support. Is there evidence that Jesus and his disciples were starving?
The Gospels were written by Paul’s followers and reflect his thoughts. There are no direct records of what the disciples thought.
“Even events that we personally experience can be misremembered, either because we do not store them in memory accurately or are unable to retrieve them accurately.”
It is easy for each of us to verify this on a personal basis – just pick a book you have read or a movie you have seen a decade or two ago, and reread or review it, and see how closely it compares with your memories of it.
I would like to argue that it is illogical to assume that at least half of the apostles and others were not armed during their travels with Jesus. These were days with no organization to protect of travelers, who were often the targets of groups of thieves who would assault and club travelers who were judged to be vulnerable (e.g., the man who was assaulted and robbed on the road to Jericho, and then helped by the Good Samaritan). Jesus and those traveling with him (men and women) had to carry money to buy food, etc., so they would need to be armed. (We are told they had weapons on the night when a large group of ruffians — who we also undoubtedly armed — came to arrest Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane, acting under instructions from the Sanhedrin. It is also reasonable to believe that jesus and his associates slept under the stars quite often during their travels.) Leaders always have had a group of bodyguards, or they don’t live very long.
Bill Steigelmann