Loading...It is time for my weekly Readers’ Mailbag. I will be dealing with two questions this time. If you have questions, about anything at all related to the historical Jesus, the New Testament, the history of early Christianity, or anything else that I may have a remote chance of knowing something about, please ask! You can either respond with a comment/question to this post, or send me an email, or comment on any other post!
QUESTION: An off-topic request: what are the five most puzzling questions about the historical Jesus you would love to see resolved in your lifetime?
RESPONSE: Ah, this is a tough one. It is made particularly difficult by two competing phenomena. The first is that most scholars of the historical Jesus are pretty convinced that their views about what he said and did are on the money. So in that sense, what is there that can be answered that hasn’t been? The other is the unpleasant reality that in fact we know very few things for certain about Jesus – or about most any other figure from the distant past. So in that other sense, what is there that we don’t want to know about?
Like most Jesus scholars, I feel confident in my basic reconstruction of the historical Jesus. As I have been indicating in my previous posts, I am pretty sure he was an apocalyptic prophet and that we can say some things with confidence about what he said and did (e.g., that he was baptized by John; that he had lower class followers; that he was an itinerant preacher; that he went to Jerusalem the last week of his life to celebrate Passover, and there was arrested, tried, and crucified for calling himself the king of the Jews.) But there are scores, millions, most things about his life that we simply don’t know, in many instances because we can’t know them. There simply isn’t any evidence. I could list thousands of things I’d like to know. Here, in direct response to the question, are five. (Please note: to make sense of these reflections you have to recall that critical scholars do not think you can answer questions such as this simply by quoting a verse or two in the Gospels; it is widely recognized that the Gospels are filled with non-historical information. My reflections are predicated on the fact that we have to argue for historical facts based on a critical examination of our surviving sources.)
- What was Jesus doing before being baptized? I assume …THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! You and the rest of the inhabited world will be glad you did!!
Can you tell me the name of the article Joel Marcus wrote that you mention? His commentary on Mark for the Anchor Bible series is by far my favorite of any commentary on any NT work (among the ones I own at any rate!). His bio on the back of that book doesn’t say he was at Duke so I wasn’t aware that there are now 3 scholars down the road from me whose work I enjoy tremendously (Mark Goodacre being the other).
Not sure! Can’t remember. I’ll try to find out!
I found his CV on the web so I think I figured out which one it was.
Well, there’s one part where Jesus is said to write in some fashion: John 8:6-11. Of course, we neither know what he wrote (could have been his name, the alphabet, random characters, a memorized quote, numerical tallies, or even a picture) nor do we know what language he read in, though the only real choices are Aramaic and Hebrew, nor do we have any idea if the event even happened. I’m about to read Hezser’s The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, which seems like it would help answer that, since it tackles the question of Jesus being referred to as a Rabbi head on. From what I can tell from my brief glance, the term was EXTREMELY loosely applied before the fall of the Temple, and the idea of a Rabbi being in a formal apprenticeship with reading and writing involved is something that developed after 300CE.
Yes, that passage was not originally in the NT
Hah! Nice. I have several of your books, did I totally miss this in one of them? If so, which one?
My opinions on the five questions (for what they are worth, which isn’t much).
1)What you said, but I think he was probably very interested in religion from an early age.
2)He’s familiar enough with scripture for me to think he was literate. Some people learn to read without ever learning how to write. Quite a few, in fact, and there would have been more back in that time. Maybe part of what he was doing before his baptism was acquiring a knowledge of scripture–he seems to have had a particular interest in the Book of Jonah. But of course he could have heard someone reading holy texts out loud. There would have been an oral tradition in Judaism. He just seems like a reader to me. But, for whatever reason, not a writer. Actually, did any of the Jewish prophets write anything down? Our records of them all seem to have been written by others.
3)
Hit the wrong key, continuing–
3)He must have had some kind of following besides just 12 guys, because otherwise why would they have bothered to crucify him? He had to have drawn enough attention to himself somehow to make him a problem for the Jewish and Roman authorities.
4)I think he did faith healings. Some of them might have been very impressive, and the stories kept getting bigger. We have people like this today, and there would have been more back then. Somebody with a great deal of charisma and moral power could have actually done a great deal of good for people afflicted by various physical and mental disorders.
5)I personally like the notion of his being eaten by dogs. I’m a major dog lover, and I just find that charming (okay, I’m weird), plus it ties in nicely with the story about the Woman of Canaan, and the later Muslim story about him seeing the dead dog and praising the whiteness of its teeth. It makes sense, and I don’t find it at all disrespectful. Why is being eaten by fellow vertebrates above the ground any worse than being consumed by micro-organisms in a tomb?
Aha! This partially answers one of my recent puzzlements. The Gospels are usually thought to have been written after the death of Paul or surely Paul would have mentioned them. One, however, could argue the reverse, namely that the Gospels were probably written before Paul’s letters or the Gospels would surely have mentioned Paul, at least his conversion. Now, here is a possible answer: Paul’s letters were just not as widely important during the first century as they are today and may have had a very limited distribution during the first century much as any personal correspondence to a small group might have had limited distribution during the first century. Hence, the Gospel authors may not have been aware of Paul’s letters or even of Paul for that matter. Thus, Paul writing letters would be sort of like my emailing my neighbors on Facebook some vacation photos: not of much widespread interest. So, in essence, Paul did not know that he was writing scripture since there was not yet any New Testament being formed and, as a result, his letters were not widely distributed and certainly were not seen, during the first century, as being the inerrant Word of God. Thought provoking. I wonder if first century Christians viewed Paul’s letters as being helpful suggestions or as being the inspired Word of God?
I think they came to think of the letters as inspired only later, probalby in the second century.
With regard to the first question, about the life of Jesus before growing up, it is apparent that Jesus was a very religious man, or otherwise he would never have had the impact on others he in fact did (that his movement was subject to persecution at all means it had some significant impact). And it is apparent that his brother, James was not known as “the Just” because of any sinful lifestyle of drinking and partying. If two brothers from the same family can acquire such a reputation in an already religious society, then presumably their upbringing was *extremely* religious; it would make sense that their household followed very strict rules in religious matters.
Is that a good argument? Any more detailed answer would require more sources, obviously.
Well, it’s certainly possible for two very religious people to come out of a non-religious family. Happens a lot.
True; still, people tend to be heavily influenced by their upbringing, more often than not.
Let me see if I can restate my argument to make it stronger. Jesus and his brother James the Just were not just very religious people; they were at the very high end of religious excellence, that high end we call “saintliness”. Now, that two *saintly* people came from the same family is best explained by their coming from a very religious family
(though the opposite remains possible).
I don’t think we know much about James and his life before becoming the leader of the church in Jerusalem.
Re the ability of Jesus to write: John 8: 6 and 8 make references to Jesus writing on the ground.
In that era of low literacy, more people could read than could write.
Are these verses viewed as a later addition to the Fourth Gospel and disregarded in evaluating whether or not Jesus was literate?
Yes, they were a later addition to John.
Thank you for responding to my question!
I’ve recently read your Introduction to the N.T. I especially liked your comments on the gospel of “John”, that more than one author was involved. I was surprised that you believed the stories about Polycarp and Ignatius were true. It seems that the Romans wouldn’t have paraded him around the empire before killing him. The point in the one is to OBEY the leaders of the church. Perhaps you might discuss this some time.
Dr. Ehrman, I find it most curious that you don’t already know the answers to these five rather elementa questions…as I have read “The Purpose Driven Life,” allow me to illuminate.
1. Creating the cosmos, demonstrating God’s patience and carving caricatures local Roman magistrates out of recently-smitten olive wood.
2. Jesus had a PhD. in everything. He made it all, for goodness sake. The water into wine was the only tough one. It took him four Gospels to get it right. In the first three Gospels, his Cab/Merlot blend was a bit fruity.
3. Enormous, colossal…John the Baptist and Rack, Shack and Benny were only the opening act.
4. “IN THE NAME OF JEEEEEZUSSSS” yes. As for Oral Roberts, a healing hack…he couldn’t even predict his own demise with any acuity.
5. He let Thomas play “Operation” with his resurrection body. ‘Nuff said.
Ha!!
Very interesting! I would suggest some questions that did not show up in your top five, but seem related to your question #1: How long was Jesus a follower of John the Baptist before setting out on his own? And why did Jesus start his own ministry? — simply because John the Baptist died or because of a parting based on philosophical differences? Was the split amicable? Did Jesus take other followers of John the Baptist with him or did he find followers independently? I would guess that all these are also things we can never know, but seem quite fascinating to think about.
Bart,
I had wondered for many years how the resurrection narrative came to be; your explanation in HJBG resonated with me. So I was surprised to see that that was not one of your top five questions: was it in fact visions that led to the narrative, or was it later authors who developed the story?
Are you that confident in the visions explanation, or would that be number six on your list? 🙂
Best,
Matt
Yeah, I feel pretty confident about that one. Plus, I was giving a list of things related to the historical Jesus — that is, to the things that happened to Jesus between the time he was born and the time he died.
Was he really known to be an exorcist and healer? In the Gospels the main activities he engages in are healing the sick and casting out demons. I don’t believe he really could touch a blind man and make him see, or really cast a superhuman demon out of a body – any more than I believe that Oral Roberts could. But did this reputation of Jesus start already during his lifetime? Or was it invented by later story tellers?
Every synoptic reports many or several exorcisms and healings by Jesus. Other scholars contend that Jesus drew crowds in large part on the strength of his reputation for miracles involving his mastery of evil demons. In a credulous pre-scientific age few doubted demons or the like existed, the issue was whether Jesus cast out demons by demons.
How much doubt should attach to Jesus being a healer and exorcism? Is the historicity of these reports at least more likely than not?
I’ll be dealing with this in my new book, due out in March, where I do question if Jesus was known this way in his lifetime.
About the content of the proceedings at the trial or trials of Jesus: isn’t its or their historicity to be doubted because no follower of Jesus would have dared be present, even assuming an audience was permitted?
And can we be sure there was a trial at all, rather than a peremptory administrative proceeding where possibly the prisoner was not even granted a hearing?
I guess our best evidence is what we, or scholars, know of proceedings before crucifixion in the provinces generally??
No, I’m not sure htere was any kind of official trial.
Have you much to quarrel about In Sanders’ list of what we know and don’t know about Jesus’ life?
Sorry to have overresponded to a fascinating column.
No, I pretty much agree with his list. Except the exorcisms and healings.
Dr. Ehrman, what is the connection between the parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke and the raising of Lazarus in John?
It is often thought that the parable was retold so much that it changed drastically into the narrative.
I mean, of course, the Gospels other than Luke since the author of Luke wrote Acts and, hence, obviously knows about Paul.
I appreciate your comment that we know so very few facts about Jesus. This seems to me to be an important point when responding to Christian apologists. I have watched several debates on the historicity of the resurrection between apologists (William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, etc.) versus critical scholars or skeptics (you, Richard Carrier, John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, etc.). In these debates, critical scholars normally discuss some possible, but unprovable, theory such as the hallucination theory.
My backseat-driving critique is that whoever opposes an apologist in a debate would be better off emphasizing that we don’t know and will never know exactly what happened the Sunday following Jesus’ crucifixion. We will never know exactly happened immediately after the death of Apollonius of Tyana either.
Very interesting, as always! I’m guessing many of us did what I did – before reading your (excellent) answer to the first question, thought of things *we’d* like to learn more about.
My idea: it would be wonderful if hitherto unknown, detailed records kept by the Sanhedrin were to come to light. Not only might they tell us all the details of his trial (*when* it took place, how if at all he tried to defend himself, whether the whole Sanhedrin was really there – presumably late at night); their records might even mention followups, such as when his followers started claiming he’d risen from the dead, and what if any basis they had for it (what *had* been done with his body?).
Equally desirable, but even less likely to exist somewhere: an official record of his trial before Pilate. Also, some kind of *proof* of whether he’d ever been married, or was thought within his lifetime to have been born of a virgin.
And here’s a question I have. Is there *any* evidence, one way or the other, as to whether Constantine really believed in Christianity, or merely saw it as a tool he could use? I find it hard to imagine a Roman Emperor genuinely accepting it as “truth.” And if he saw the “ONE God, with ONE Son” notion as an aid in unifying the Empire, it might have been worth demoting himself from “divine” status.
There’s no evidence except for what hte sources report and what appears to be the case based on other surviving evidence. It is debated, but I agree with those scholars that constantine was certainly a committed CVhristian after 312 CE.
I’m wondering if you could comment on the state of our manuscripts written by one of the most famous and influential philosophers: Plato. What kind of a time gap from original to the first complete manuscript(s) of say The Allegory of The Cave? And any indications of changes made by scribes? Or can you recommend anything readable by and of interest to the general public that is analogous to Misquoting Jesus, but talking about textual criticism as it relates to the works of Plato?
Oh, and also anything about how we can distinguish Plato’s words and ideas from those of Socrates, since we only know about Socrates’ words from works written by Plato.
Yes, that is very difficult indeed. As I understand it, most experts think that when we read the words of Socrates, we are really reading the words of Plato
I’m afraid I don’t know.
Bart: I have a question about point 3 above. In particular, the historicity of “The Twelve.”
You count this as one of the things we know. But given the clear parallel with the Twelve Tribes of Israel, I can’t get out of my head the idea that this is too coincidental to be historical. It strikes me as something that later writers would want to fabricate in order to beef up their claims about Jesus. I’m sure Jesus had a core group of followers, but I have doubts that there were exactly twelve.
Am I too skeptical? Do you take the number twelve to be exact–or do you allow wiggle room historically? If it is exact, do you then suppose that Jesus intentionally established an inner circle of precisely twelve people to make his point?
Thanks!
I don’t think it’s at all coincidental. That’s precisely why Jesus chose twelve instead of nine or fourteen. But it is widely attested that there were 12 of them, even if the sources can’t agree on who they were exactly.
Bart, it is possible that Luke doesn’t accept Paul’s theology of the atoning death of Jesus even though he knew Paul’s letters and Paul is his hero. The crucial question for Luke in Acts is if Mosaic law is binding on Gentiles, and on this he sides completely with Paul. In this respect Paul is his hero in Acts. As for the theology of Jesus’ death, Luke may have had a different point of view. It is not unusual to side with a person on the key issue and disagree on other issues.
Yes, it’s certainly *possible*.
Bart, there seems to be a stark difference between Satan (the devil) of the Hebrew Tanakh and Satan (the devil) of the Greek New Testament.
Can you comment (or contrast) on this please?
I would say there is no devil in the TNK, only in the NT. Satan in Job, e.g., is one of the divine council consulted by YHWH. It is only with the advent of apocalyptic thought that a personal enemy of God, the devil, appears.
As I thought. Just looking for confirmation, there.
By the way,regarding upcoming speaking engagements, 3 days in Coral Gables, but only 1 in Vero? Will you be speaking all three days South Florida, on a topic that has yet to be determined? Any ideas on the topic of either session? I’m closer to Vero but would forfeit 1 for 3.
Thanks
I think I’m only giving one talk in each place; I probably just entered it into my calendar incorrectly.
That makes it easier. Thanks.
I don’t want to bug ya’, but, is there any way to clean up the audio on this, or is there another video/audio?
False Memories of the Messiah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j1j0bjbG9M
Hi Bart,
I have a short set of questions that might be good for a future mailbag. These are surely easy for people in the field; what are the most decisive arguments for thinking that the Hebrew/Aramaic name of Jesus was Yeshu’a? Is there any chance it could have been something else, like the Quranic and Arabic ‘Isa (‘ain-seen-aleph)? How would ‘Isa be most likely transliterated into Greek, where the language lacks the throaty letter ‘ain?
Thanks,
I’m afraid I won’t be able to answer that on the Mailbag, since I don’t know Arabic. But since Jesus’ native language was Aramaic, it seems most likely that Yeshua was the way the name was known. (But I’m not sure it matters much!)
What was Jesus doing before he was baptized?
Is it possible that he spent his teenage years in a religious community like the Essenes, learning scriptures by heart and gaining some elementary literacy? He seems to have rejected family ties and his parables have no relevance to carpentry, whereas these matters ought to be more prominent if he had remained at home.
It’s *possible* of course, but there’s no evidence for it. If he was oriented toward the Essenes at one point, he changed pretty drastically!
I’ve been wondering about the carpentry business myself lately. Why are there so many agricultural images but no artisanal images? (Maybe the beam in your own eye metaphor?)
Lets put the question the other way around.
Is there any evidence that Jesus remained at home until he was baptized?
The most probable explanation for his subsequent actions is that he had lived in a community allied to John the Baptist.
My sense is that anyone who says that Jesus did what 99% of everyone in his world did doesn’t bear the burden of proof, but anyone who thinks that he did what only 1% of people in his world did would have to give some evidence of it.
Some evidence which should be considered:
1. Jesus rejected family ties
Mark 3:32 A crowd was sitting around and word was brought to him that his mother and brothers were outside asking for him. He replied “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? and looking round at those around him he said “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, sister, mother”
Matthew 10:35 “I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in -law, and a man will find enemies under his own roof”
This is not the attitude expected of someone who has lived at home all their life.
2. People in Nazareth were reportedly amazed at the extent of his religious knowledge
Mark 6:2 ..he went to his home town accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue and the large congregation who heard him were amazed at what he said..
Matthew 13:53 …Jesus came to his home town where he taught the people in their synagogue. In amazement they asked ‘Where does he get this wisdom from and these miraculous powers?’
These comments suggest that Jesus had been away for years, not just for weeks or months.
3. There is no data on the proportion of people involved in religious communities in Roman times, but for example, it is estimated that between 2% and 5% of children in Pakistan currently attend madrassas where memorizing the Koran is the only activity. Also, dissolution of monasteries in England is estimated to have involved about 2% of the total adult male population. Applying that proportion to Jesus and his four brothers gives a 10% probability that one of them would join a religious community.
Whether Jesus actually said the words attributed to him is another matter but overall, the hypothesis that Jesus spent his teenage years in a religious community provides a more reasonable explanation for the evidence than the hypothesis that he remained at home and then suddenly underwent an amazing transformation.
Dear Bart, apologies in advance for the length. I did my PhD and published my first book on Dom Crossan’s early work on the parables of the historical Jesus (“Post-metaphysics and the Paradoxical Teachings of Jesus”). Now, my central argument here is something that I suspect you would find cringe-worthy – my contention is that we can indeed reconstruct the “original voice-print” of the historical Jesus as he lived and breathed. Of course, this is a very bold claim but I’m posting this here because you of all people are the most likely to critically deconstruct my illusions of radical novelty… So here’s the briefest possible summary of my reconstruction of the original (earliest) oral teachings (the parables) of Jesus from the synoptic gospels. I would love to hear your thoughts and feedback here – and especially what you consider to be the primary critical and scholarly objection to this claim…
So what would the parables of Jesus look like if we extracted from them all subsequent moral and theological embellishment over the past two millennia, and unleash the disruptive event that the parables of Jesus contain in their first, disturbing, immediacy? Here’s a brief summary:
Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37: the agents of neighborly love, i.e. the devout Pharisee & Levite, are exposed as morally and religiously bankrupt; the morally and religiously bankrupt, i.e. the half-caste Samaritan, is an agent of neighbor love.
Prodigal Son Luke 15:11-32: the younger wayward son, who is lost in rebellious exile from home, is saved with the father’s homecoming feast, the older dutiful son, who is saved in righteous obedience to his father’s home, is lost in rebellious exile from the homecoming feast.
Vineyard Workers Matthew 20:1-16: the privileged status of those who started work at day break is the source of their envy and their sense of injustice; the envy and injustice of those who started work just before sundown, is the occasion for their privileged status, (when both groups receive equal pay from the vineyard owner).
Pharisee and Tax Collector Luke 18:10-14: the self-righteous Pharisee, who is saved in as a Temple insider – is lost, just as the sinful Tax Collector, who is lost as a Temple outsider – is saved.
Two Sons Matthew 21:28-32: the acceptance of the first son is a refusal to work in the field, and the refusal of the second son is an acceptance to go work in the field.
Friend at Midnight Luke 11:5-8: the refusal of a friend becomes the acceptance of stranger, while the persistence of a stranger is the faithfulness of a friend.
Shrewd Manager Luke 16:1-8: a shrewd business manager is condemned his employer as a fraud, as this fraud is praised by his employer as a shrewd business manager.
Unjust Judge Luke 18: 2-8: the refusal to back down of a fearless judge is a merciful delivery of justice, just as the merciful pleas of the widow for justice are a fearless refusal to back down.
Unforgiving Slave (Matthew 18:23-35): an occasion for judgment is act of forgiveness, an occasion for forgiveness is an act of judgment.
Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21, Gospel of Thomas 63): the wisdom of working to secure ones future is foolish hoarding, the foolishness of an unsettled and uncertain future, is wisdom and security.
Final Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46): those who know God’s name are damned in never serving the poor, while those who serve the poor are saved even though they never knew God by name.
Great Banquet (Luke 14: 16-24, Matthew 22:2-14, Gospel Thomas 64): the ones who to get in are the ones who are expected to be left out; while the ones who are left out are the ones who are expected to get in.
Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31): the rich man who is glorified in this life is destitute and without hope in the afterlife, just as Lazarus who is destitute and without hope in this life is glorified in the afterlife.
Wedding Feast (Matthew 22: 1-14): the outsiders are in, just as the insiders are out.
Treasure in the Field (Matthew 13:44) finding is losing and losing is finding.
Pear of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46): looking through many is finding one, selling many is buying one.
Father’s Good Gifts (Matt 7:9-11, Luke 11:11-13): the suggestion of false gifts is an affirmation of good gifts, while the affirmation of good gifts is the suggestion false gifts (compared to the good gifts of the Father)
Talents (Matthew 25:14-30): the risk of losing what has been given is to save one’s life, to save what has been given is to risk of losing one’s life.
Slave at Duty (Luke 17:7-10): an occasion for grace is a demand for good works, while the occasion of good works is a confession of grace.
Faithful and Wise Slave (Matthew 24:45-51, Luke 12:42-46): to be a slave in the master’s absence is to possess all the riches in his presence, while to possess of all the master’s riches in his absence, is to be a slave in his presence.
Waiting Slaves (Mark 13:34-37, Luke 12:35-38): a promise is a threat as a threat is a promise.
Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-12, Matthew 21:33-46, Luke 20:9-19, Thomas 65-66): a time for fruitfulness is an occasion of violence, while an occasion for violence is really the time for fruitfulness.
Sower (Mark 4:3-8, Matthew 13: 3-8, Luke 8:5-8, Gospel of Thomas 9): just as abundant sowing leads to wide spread scarcity, the scarcity of a few seeds in good soil leads to wide spread abundance.
Weeds and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30): a cause for division is a time for union, and what is a cause for union is a time for division.
Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9): what is expected to be fruitful is judged to be barren, and a judgment of barren-ness is an opportunity for fruitfulness.
Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29): manual labour is natural growth and natural growth is the manual labour.
Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10): the one that is lost is more valuable than the many that are saved.
Children Playing (Matt 11:16-19, Luke 7:31-35): the funeral song is too sad for those that want to play the wedding dance, and the wedding song is too happy for those that want to sing the funeral dirge.
Summary and Conclusion: Since this paradoxical “voice-print” informs the narrative structure of 31 of the 34 parables of Jesus handed down to us in the synoptic gospels, it therefore constitutes the original structure of Jesus’ authentic teachings on the kingdom of God.
The radical paradoxes at the heart of Jesus’ parables on the kingdom of God embody and express a deeper internal discord than the teachings of any other religious founder or tradition (Thomas Altizer). Simply put, the kingdom of God is a world with a void of meaning at its core, where “he who finds the meaning loses it, and he who loses the meaning finds it…”(Dom Crossan) In other words, these radial paradoxes can never be properly resolved, their spectral undecidability is something we have to learn to live as they continually decentre us and put us into question, while exposing us to the disruptive novelty of the event that is harbored in Jesus’ call for the coming of God’s kingdom. (Jack Caputo)
By inviting their hearer’s to relinquish their quest for either a secure, stable meaning or some hoped for final reconciliation, the paradoxical poetics of Jesus thereby enact a rupture that opens up a gap in our meaning-making systems, while provoking us with the haunting specter of “doubt against all security” (Crossan). That is, the parables shatter the basic co-ordinates of our dominant cultural narratives or world-space – but not simply as a transitional moment or phase leading us to a new or higher dawn. Instead, we are exposed to a fundamental antagonism at the heart of things, an irresolvable tension without any proper resolution, which is itself a direct expression of the very meaning of the Kingdom. (Peter Rollins) This means that we are called to embrace life in a world without stable, secure grounds or ultimate guarantees, in a permanent eschatological challenge that never settles into a stable or settled structure. By consistently deploying such radical paradoxes to de-typify the self-evident façade of the commonly accepted world, the parables of Jesus therefore remind us that sometimes we have to violate out cherished traditions in order to save them, just as those who want to preserve their tired and worn out traditions usually end up destroying them…
Thanks in advance, Cam
I’m sorry to say that your post is too long for me to reply to in detail. But I *am* a bit surprised that you think I would object to the idea that we can know the sorts of things Jesus taught. Almost all of my work on the historical Jesus argues that we *can*. Maybe you haven’t read my books on Jesus!!
It’s true Bart, apart from watching a dozen or so hours of your talks and debates online, I’ve only read a few selections from your book on Jesus the apocalyptic prophet. So yes I haven’t jumped into your work too deeply just yet, as methodologically we have some very different background assumptions… Yes you have recognized the authenticity of Jesus’ apocalyptic reversals in a future kingdom and his affection for the absolute outsiders – first will be last, and the last first, etc. But I’m saying that these disruptive paradoxes constitute original narrative structure of Jesus’ parabolic system as a whole, whereas you see paradox as a “ortho-paradox” – a later theological obfuscation of the Church father’s. But if paradox is the signature voice-print of the historical Jesus then your recent argument about “ortho-paradox” seems to collapse…
No, I don’t think the question of where paradoxes entered into the tradition affects the question of how they functioned in the proto-orthodox tradition. There they function very differently from the way they function in the teachings of Jesus, however you construe them there.
Yes Bart, that’s a fair call – do the paradoxes of the historical have a different structure and function to the later “ortho-paradoxes” of the Church? Well… not completely, and here’s why. The key feature of the definitive statement of orthodox Christology is the meticulous and painstaking way in which the Chalcedon creed (451 AD) maintains both the distinction between the two natures (human and the divine) and the inseparable union of these two natures in one person of Jesus Christ. No argument is given, and there is no attempt to resolve this contradiction, but just a direct witness to the centrality of paradox when it comes to who this itinerant Nazarene really is. In other words, just like the parables of the historical Jesus, Church dogma on the person of Christ holds the paradoxical tension between opposites (in this case the fully human, fully divine Jesus) in irreconcilable tension, without privileging either side of this constitutive paradox, i.e. the humanity and the divinity of Jesus are distinct, simultaneous and antagonistic (without resolution). It leaves the paradox as stark as possible. As a result, it can be said that the basic function of paradox in BOTH the parables of Jesus and Chalcedon Christology is the same – they both refuse to disambiguate (or collapse) the tension between binary oppositions into standard dualistic battle lines, whether that’s between the human and the divine in the Chalcedon confession, or between saved/lost, inside/outside, friend/stranger, etc. in the parables…
In other words – and this is a conclusion that I myself find particularly distasteful as well – the earliest memory of the historical Jesus and his teachings on the kingdom of God were faithfully carried forward (at least in part) in the Christological dogma of the institutional Church…. Now when it comes to the Trinity and other paradoxes, I’m not so sure, the Greek metaphysical inheritance seems to obscure anything of genuine historical value here, as far as I can tell… But as much as I don’t want to admit it, Church dogma on the person of Christ and the paradoxical parables of historical Jesus do share some uncanny resemblance.
Do you think that the Gospel of Mark has an anti-Jamesian message? Mark is the only gospel where Jesus rejects his family and also stresses that no one who knew Jesus during his lifetime actually understood who he really was. I’ve understood this to be a very important point that Mark wants to stress, that no one from the Jerusalem movement knew what they were talking about. How could they? Look, Jesus had forsaken them and his disciples never understood him. Therefore, it is Paul’s understanding of Jesus that is correct and not James. It seems like Mark was writing propaganda to discount the “judaizer” from Jerusalem that we find mentioned in Paul’s letters and even in the writings of the Apostolic fathers much later.
Is this understanding of Mark something that has ever been discussed within the scholarly community? If not I figure I have it totally wrong.
yes, this has been a theory for interpreting Mark. It is no longer held widely, but it has been put forth..
You said: “I don’t believe he really could … really cast a superhuman demon out of a body….”
A theory I recently read was that Romans ‘learned the code of how to write scripture’ and then wrote the gospels (gospel = good news “of military victories”) to veil Roman military victories. An example used was casting out all the demons who then went into swine and the swine drowned themselves. The theorist said that at that time at that place there was a Roman battle – the Romans hunted down the Messianic Jews, slayed them and threw them into the water. Another example was ‘fisher of men’ – a victorious Roman battle and the Romans fished the dead Jews out of the water. The same theorist attributes the writing of the gospels to be under the influence of Titus (Flavius).
Romans were very cunning in toppling cultures and societies, such as the Celts (the barbarians to the north). By extension, because Romans were Romans, they would have done it to the Jews and Christians – figure out the psyche and substitute propaganda for the real thing – putting Titus’s face on Jesus maybe (after all, Constantin put his face on Apollo; my goodness, the megalomaniacism!)?
He also proposed that the gospels are pro-Roman – e.g., taxes collected by the Jewish temples became taxes collected by Rome (render unto Caesar); no mention in the gospels of the crucifixion (makes Rome look bad), etc.
Do you think this theorist presents plausible theories (that hold water) and do you think Titus substituted Jesus with an action figure that better suited his needs, thereby giving us the propagandist Christianity that we’ve taken part in for the past 1800 +or- years?
Yes, that theory is usually seen as implausible, since the Romans showed absolutely NO interest in Christianity in the first Christian century.