More of Bart Ehrman's, How Jesus Became God. So far:
Introduction
1. Divine Humans in Ancient Greece and Rome
2. Divine Humans in Ancient Judaism
3. Did Jesus Think He Was God?
4. The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know
Chapter 5 is "The Resurrection - What We Can Know."
In the previous chapter, Ehrman's argument was basically that we can't know what happen to the body of Jesus but it wasn't buried to be sure. I'm being a little sarcastic here. I think that Craig Evans can make just as good a historical case, I suspect better, that Jesus was buried.
1. Let me shift the emphasis of chapter 5 a little. Here's the bottom line: "Some of the disciples wholeheartedly believed that they had seen Jesus after he had died" (202). This claim in this chapter will naturally lead to the next: "belief in the resurrection changed everything Christologically" (204).
How about this quote from Dale Allison, with which Ehrman agrees? "Nothing would prohibit a conscientious historian from... adopting a phenomenological approach to the data [that is, going with how things appear without concluding in relation to what was behind what appears]... Would it be an historical sin to content oneself with observing that the disciples' experiences... were genuine experiences that they at least took to originate outside their subjectivity?" (189).
Did you get that? Ehrman believes that several disciples, he thinks at least four, were completely convinced that they had seen Jesus alive after he had died!
2. Funny how you can actually turn his Debbie Downer tone into some pretty encouraging stuff. He even has me considering believing that the Virgin Mary has appeared to people. He tells of an incident in Venezuela where, on March 25, 1984, a series of people saw Mary hovering over a waterfall, including doctors, psychologists, engineers, and lawyers picnicking there (198). In another instance, Muslims saw and photographed Mary in an Egyptian suburb.
Let me repeat what I have said before. I see in page after page of this book the inadequacy of fundamentalism and its tendency to deconstruct in the hands of a good thinker. Why does he push the Virgin Mary appearances? In part because he knows that the fundamentalist crowd are anti-Catholic. I use the same tactic with King James only types, pointing out that the man most responsible for the wording of the Greek text behind the KJV was a Roman Catholic who argued against Luther and that the original King James had the Apocrypha.
He also plays on the "evidence that demands a verdict" apologetic zeal of so many fundamentalists. Listen to him here: "When I say that conservative evangelical Christians and fundamentalists are children of the Enlightenment, I mean that more than almost anyone else, thinkers among these groups are committed to 'objective truth'--which was precisely the commitment that led to the demise of Christianity in the modern world in the first place, especially in Europe" (172).
I don't know if he would still have faith if he had grown up Methodist, but it sure looks to me like his life trajectory away from faith was in part a result of the fact that he started out with such an evidentiarily unsustainable version of Christianity in the first place.
3. So what can a more faith-oriented (rather than proof-oriented) form of Christianity do with this chapter? For one, we can side with Allison over Ehrman on what the disciples' reaction to seeing Jesus would have been. Allison believes that, after seeing Jesus, the disciples would have then tried to find Jesus' body to verify that, in fact, he truly was alive again.
Ehrman disagrees (185). He thinks that, because of their apocalyptic worldview, the disciples would have automatically assumed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead and that, in fact, his resurrection indicated the beginning of the resurrection of all the dead.
Frankly, I find this sentiment both a little too simplistic and I'm not sure but that it doesn't contradict other things Ehrman says in the chapter. He even footnotes the fact that Jewish belief on the afterlife was a little more varied than this. He seems to be treating Jesus' apocalypticism as involving something like what you would get from a worldview class.
I presented a paper once to the Historical Jesus section of SBL on Jesus and resurrection and, to be frank, I didn't find that the subject seems to have played much of a role in his earthly teaching. In my opinion (and that of John Collins), resurrection was also not a major category for the Essenes at the Dead Sea. I think Ehrman is a little too confident in what the disciples would have automatically assumed after they saw Jesus alive again.
What is worse, he seems to argue in another thread of this chapter that the resurrection traditions of Jesus started out with him more spirit-bodied and progressed toward him being more physical-physical, with flesh and bones. But which is it? Did they automatically assume a body when they saw him or did they see spirit and the tradition develop toward flesh and bones? There seems to be somewhat of a tension in these two parts of his argument to me.
4. I was also annoyed with his repeated mention of Jesus having to "prove" that he was resurrected to various people in the resurrection stories. For example, the "many proofs" of Acts 1:3 are not for the disciples. They are for Luke's audience. On the basis of this statement, Ehrman acts like Jesus had to prove he was alive to the disciples (191), but the reason Luke speaks of proofs is because he wants Theophilus to be convinced. Luke isn't saying that Jesus needed to convince the disciples. Ehrman annoyingly says stuff like this several times.
5. There are things in this chapter, again, that may be distressing to a fundamentalist. Ehrman is right, IMO, that there is a consistent tradition of some of the disciples doubting. Yet Paul says Jesus appeared to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:5). At least Ehrman acknowledges that "Paul actually knew Peter" (192), which implies to me that Paul can't be teaching something completely different from what Peter was saying happened to Jesus.
But Christian faith does not rise or fall on every detail being historical, IMO. Even Ehrman believes that several of Jesus' followers were fully convinced they had seen an (at least spiritually) embodied Jesus after his death. And, contrary to Ehrman, there are solid reasons to believe that Jesus' body was missing from the place it was known to have been laid.
This is enough to make orthodox faith reasonable, even if Ehrman can point to discrepancies in the stories here and there.
Showing posts with label Dale Allison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dale Allison. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thursday Last Supper
It is of course incorrect to say Thursday Last Supper. The supper happened after dark and thus was at the beginning of Friday. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke this is the Passover meal (e.g., Mark 14:16). Similar to when Jesus sent for a donkey, Jesus either foresees that a man with a jar will appear and lead some of his disciples to a master with an upper room, or Jesus has prearranged it. They go and prepare the Passover meal, which would involve killing a lamb and preparing it.
John seems to picture a slightly different scenario. In John, the morning Jesus is crucified seems to be the morning before Passover (e.g., John 18:28; 19:14, 31). If we take these comments in John straightforwardly, then, Jesus would be crucified at about the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed for dinner that night, and Jesus' last supper would not be a Passover meal but a meal the day before Passover.
Thursday seems to be the day when Judas arranges to betray Jesus. We've seen plays and heard speculation that Jesus might have made such arrangements with Judas, to try to trigger God's hand. But none of the gospels remember the story this way, and Allison has convinced me that, even from a secular historical perspective, such collective memories should generally be trusted. Every tradition before us remembers it as a betrayal.
Was Judas himself trying to force God's hand? Was Judas upset because Jesus corrected him, if it was he who objected to the woman with perfume? Had Judas come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the messiah and he was turning him in? This is the stuff of novels. It's just hard to know given the evidence we have.
I am more convinced than ever that, even from an objective historical approach, Jesus knows he is about to die. For example, Allison points out the collective memory of all our materials that Jesus faced his death as an act of will, of obedience. He knows Judas has betrayed him. He knows he is going into the city to die.
The memory of Jesus' words at that last meal, even in Paul who knows Peter and has direct access to the earliest memories (1 Cor. 11), already understands Jesus' death as a sacrifice. The Synoptics do not remember Jesus speaking much about himself in this way--Jesus as a means of salvation does not seem to have been a major theme of his ministry. But they do remember a trace--Mark 10:45. Jesus is dying for Israel's redemption. The intrinsic comparison of Jesus to a Passover lamb seems there from the very beginning.
The earliest memory in Paul also remembers "new covenant" imagery from that final meal. Such language was around among the Essenes and the Dead Sea community. So again, even from an objective historical perspective, I find it very plausible that Jesus spoke in such terms. John especially remembers Jesus talking about the coming of the Spirit at this last supper. This fits in the same milieu and would naturally explain the prominence of Spirit-imagery in the thinking of the earliest Christians.
They are already in the city when they eat their meal. They go to Gethsemane to pray. Where is Judas? Jesus knows. He knows what is coming. He doesn't run. He wrestles, but he stays put.
John seems to picture a slightly different scenario. In John, the morning Jesus is crucified seems to be the morning before Passover (e.g., John 18:28; 19:14, 31). If we take these comments in John straightforwardly, then, Jesus would be crucified at about the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed for dinner that night, and Jesus' last supper would not be a Passover meal but a meal the day before Passover.
Thursday seems to be the day when Judas arranges to betray Jesus. We've seen plays and heard speculation that Jesus might have made such arrangements with Judas, to try to trigger God's hand. But none of the gospels remember the story this way, and Allison has convinced me that, even from a secular historical perspective, such collective memories should generally be trusted. Every tradition before us remembers it as a betrayal.
Was Judas himself trying to force God's hand? Was Judas upset because Jesus corrected him, if it was he who objected to the woman with perfume? Had Judas come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the messiah and he was turning him in? This is the stuff of novels. It's just hard to know given the evidence we have.
I am more convinced than ever that, even from an objective historical approach, Jesus knows he is about to die. For example, Allison points out the collective memory of all our materials that Jesus faced his death as an act of will, of obedience. He knows Judas has betrayed him. He knows he is going into the city to die.
The memory of Jesus' words at that last meal, even in Paul who knows Peter and has direct access to the earliest memories (1 Cor. 11), already understands Jesus' death as a sacrifice. The Synoptics do not remember Jesus speaking much about himself in this way--Jesus as a means of salvation does not seem to have been a major theme of his ministry. But they do remember a trace--Mark 10:45. Jesus is dying for Israel's redemption. The intrinsic comparison of Jesus to a Passover lamb seems there from the very beginning.
The earliest memory in Paul also remembers "new covenant" imagery from that final meal. Such language was around among the Essenes and the Dead Sea community. So again, even from an objective historical perspective, I find it very plausible that Jesus spoke in such terms. John especially remembers Jesus talking about the coming of the Spirit at this last supper. This fits in the same milieu and would naturally explain the prominence of Spirit-imagery in the thinking of the earliest Christians.
They are already in the city when they eat their meal. They go to Gethsemane to pray. Where is Judas? Jesus knows. He knows what is coming. He doesn't run. He wrestles, but he stays put.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Allison: Death and Memory (S)
I've been moving at a snail's pace through chapter 5 on the Passion of Jesus in his book, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. I might actually finish the chapter by Good Friday ;-)
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
4. pp. 399-403
5. pp. 403-5
6. pp. 406-21
Today, pp. 421-27
______
The first couple pages mainly finish up Allison's thought on Paul's testimony to the historical Jesus. I think he captures a bit of the truth when he says that "most of what he [Paul] believed about Jesus cannot be evidenced in a small collection of occasional, ad hoc correspondence" (421). He ends with three further comments:
1. That the apostle spent time in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion and had access to information about Jesus' final days there.
2. Some scholars have argued for a pre-Markan passion already in the 30s and 40s. Here for the first time, Allison hints that such a narrative could have been oral. Thank you, finally.
3. Paul says nothing that contradicts Mark's account.
Death and Memory
In this section, Allison returns to and extends some of the key ideas of his first chapter. For example, "memories and imaginations, shortly after death, often converge upon a life's end, upon 'the events leading up to the loss'" (423). Allison plausibly says that "doubtless some of the traditions behind the passion narratives had their genesis very early on, which surely ups the odds of their containing some true-to-life memory" (424).
Some of the details that Allison considers very likely historical, simply because they do not seem like things someone would invent, include the conscription of Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross, the place called Golgotha, the presence of female followers at the cross, and burial by Joseph of Arimathea. Things that might be considered embarrassing have somewhat of a claim too, although Allison feels them less powerful and argument: Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial, Jesus' wavering in Gethsemane, and Jesus' cry from the cross.
Six more pages in the chapter!
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
4. pp. 399-403
5. pp. 403-5
6. pp. 406-21
Today, pp. 421-27
______
The first couple pages mainly finish up Allison's thought on Paul's testimony to the historical Jesus. I think he captures a bit of the truth when he says that "most of what he [Paul] believed about Jesus cannot be evidenced in a small collection of occasional, ad hoc correspondence" (421). He ends with three further comments:
1. That the apostle spent time in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion and had access to information about Jesus' final days there.
2. Some scholars have argued for a pre-Markan passion already in the 30s and 40s. Here for the first time, Allison hints that such a narrative could have been oral. Thank you, finally.
3. Paul says nothing that contradicts Mark's account.
Death and Memory
In this section, Allison returns to and extends some of the key ideas of his first chapter. For example, "memories and imaginations, shortly after death, often converge upon a life's end, upon 'the events leading up to the loss'" (423). Allison plausibly says that "doubtless some of the traditions behind the passion narratives had their genesis very early on, which surely ups the odds of their containing some true-to-life memory" (424).
Some of the details that Allison considers very likely historical, simply because they do not seem like things someone would invent, include the conscription of Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross, the place called Golgotha, the presence of female followers at the cross, and burial by Joseph of Arimathea. Things that might be considered embarrassing have somewhat of a claim too, although Allison feels them less powerful and argument: Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial, Jesus' wavering in Gethsemane, and Jesus' cry from the cross.
Six more pages in the chapter!
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Allison: more argument that Paul knew a pre-passion narrative
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
4. pp. 399-403
5. pp. 403-5
Today, 406-21.
________
I am less than impressed with Allison's attempt in this section to make a cumulative argument that Paul knew a pre-passion narrative, based on tiny little verbal parallels. As I said in the previous post, (if I remember what I said ;-), I have no problem with the idea that Paul knew the general contours of the passion story. Indeed, I think it very likely that he knew oral traditions about Jesus' final days. I'm just not sure we have enough evidence to argue objectively that he knew a specific narrative like Mark's passion, especially a written one.
Here are Allison's little parallelobits:
1. Paul had a definite impression of Jesus' character as he faced death.
Check, no problems here (cf. Phil. 2).
2. Paul associates Psalm 69 with Jesus' character (Rom. 15:3; 11:9-10). The gospels associate Psalm 69 with Jesus' passion.
It is quite possible that the earliest Christians quickly came to associate Psalm 69 with Christ's death and that Paul inherited some of this association. It does not prove a pre-passion narrative.
3. Romans 15:3, as the gospels do extensively in their passion narratives, have Jesus quoting Scripture in the first person, a phenomenon Hays has explored most famously. Maybe Paul learned this from a passion narrative.
I consider Allison's conclusion beyond question that "from a very early time, Christians identified Jesus as the speaker of several psalms of suffering" (411). Indeed, I find it quite plausible that Jesus himself did so, and that Jesus himself is the origin of the practice. This does not prove, however, that Paul knew this hermeneutic because he had read a pre-passion narrative.
4. Paul twice uses a very rare verb systauroo ("to crucify together"). Does he get it from a pre-passion narrative mentioning two criminals he was crucified together with.
Whaaaatt? I like Allison, but this one just jumps the shark. This is something you write down on a napkin while down to your final coffee in a restaurant late at night with friends... and you probably throw the napkin away in the morning.
5. Paul mentions the Passover in 1 Cor. 5:7... could he be reading a pre-passion narrative?
Are you serious?
6. Colossians 2:13-14 uses the image of nailing to a cross... could he be...
Come on.
7. Paul uses paradidomi ("hand over") on five occasions... could he be...
All these are easily explained as oral traditions about Jesus' death. They in no way demonstrate that Paul knew a pre-passion narrative in an expanded form like Mark's passion. And although I don't find him entirely clear, Allison gives off the vibe of talking about a written pre-passion narrative, which would be even harder to prove.
8. "thorn in the flesh"... Paul thinking of Gethsemane?
This is possible, but as even he says, the parallels asking of God to let something involving a thorn pass "hardly establish beyond reasonable doubt" (416). Insufficient evidence.
The last few pages of this section try to add more evidence, but are less and less helpful.
a. Allison argues that the Gethsemane story was widely circulated.
I don't have a problem with the possibility that Paul knew Jesus had wrestled in the Garden. I'm just not sure he gives any substantial evidence of that knowledge in his writings.
b. Paul uses abba; Mark's passion uses abba.
Weak, weak, weak.
c. Colossians 4:2 says "continue in prayer, watching," which is reminiscent of the Garden.
Insufficient evidence.
d. Romans 15:2-3 could evoke images of the Garden.
Could. Might not. Again, no problem with the possibility that Paul knew of Jesus' struggle before the cross in some general way.
e. Paul carries around Jesus' sufferings
f. the verb to torment.
Just weak all around.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Allison: Pre-Passion Narrative 5
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
4. pp 399-403
Today, pp. 403-5.
_________
Now Allison returns to Mark and John. He considers John to be independent tradition from Mark and so finds correlations between the two particularly significant. I don't know his back argument here. The more I read the more I sense that there is an intuitive element to his thinking, which pulls a little against the more scientific image.
I am much the same. My own sense of things--it not being my area--is that I find it hard to believe that the author of John did not know the Gospel of Mark, yet I consider John to incorporate many oral traditions that do not go through Mark directly.
I find Allison's chart on p.404 very persuasive. On the points he has extracted from Paul we find agreement in Mark and John (Jesus speaking in advance of his death, being handed over, Judeans involved, Romans triggering a crucifixion, etc.). Allison now asks the historical question. Which came first? Are the gospels based on Paul or are they both drawing on a pre-Markan passion narrative?
Allison goes for pre-Markan passion narrative. What is unclear to me is whether Allison is thinking of an oral or written source here. I completely agree that at least some often recounted oral version of Jesus' passion existed. How could it not have. I await being convinced if he means there was a written version of the passion prior to Mark. I'm very open. I just haven't seen the argument to convince me.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Allison: Judeans Involved 4
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
Today I finish the section in which Allison conjectures what we would infer about Jesus' death if all we had were Paul's writings, pp. 399-403.
_________
5. In a couple pages, Allison considers what 1 Thess. 2:14-16 might mean when it speaks of the "Jews" killing Jesus. Allison I think rightly argues that this is a little hyperbolic. If Jewish magistrates handed Jesus over to Roman authorities, that would satisfy Paul's comment.
6. Would "Judeans" be a better translation than "Jews" here in 1 Thess. 2? Again, I am very sympathetic to Allison's "yes" answer.
7.1 Cor. 11:23 speaks of Jesus being "handed over" or "arrested" late at night.
8. Passages like Gal. 1:4; 2:20; and Phil. 2:8 seem to imply that Jesus did not resist his arrest.
9. A very significant observation is that 1 Cor. 11:23-25 indicates that Jesus foresaw his coming death.
10. Finally in this section, statements such as we find in 1 Cor. 15:4 and Rom. 6:4 indicate that Jesus was buried. Occasionally, someone like Crossan will suggest that Jesus' body might have been left in a dump as food for scavengers. Nope, doesn't seem likely given Paul's sense of things.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Allison: By Roman Hands 3
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
Today, pp. 395-99
________
Two more points today in Allison's experiment--what could we infer about Jesus' death if all we had were Paul's writings.
3. We would infer that Jesus died at the hands of the Romans.
Allison points out that the Romans were pretty much the only ones that put people to death by crucifixion, indeed the only ones who put people to death in general. Allison also spends a good deal of time arguing that 1 Cor. 2:6-8 refers to human rulers of this age, which would primarily be the Romans.
4. Jesus was likely put to death as an insurrectionist, although not because he had actively led an insurrection.
I find Allison's argument here a bit less solid, but of course I'm convinced anyway. The references to Jesus as the Christ in itself points to an understanding of him as a king. Yet Paul speaks of him in terms of peace, as one who "became obedient to death."
Like I said, I agree that the historical evidence points toward Jesus' dying as a messianic "insurrectionist," without him ever leading an insurrection. But I'm not sure if Paul's writings alone could establish this point from a historical perspective.
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
Today, pp. 395-99
________
Two more points today in Allison's experiment--what could we infer about Jesus' death if all we had were Paul's writings.
3. We would infer that Jesus died at the hands of the Romans.
Allison points out that the Romans were pretty much the only ones that put people to death by crucifixion, indeed the only ones who put people to death in general. Allison also spends a good deal of time arguing that 1 Cor. 2:6-8 refers to human rulers of this age, which would primarily be the Romans.
4. Jesus was likely put to death as an insurrectionist, although not because he had actively led an insurrection.
I find Allison's argument here a bit less solid, but of course I'm convinced anyway. The references to Jesus as the Christ in itself points to an understanding of him as a king. Yet Paul speaks of him in terms of peace, as one who "became obedient to death."
Like I said, I agree that the historical evidence points toward Jesus' dying as a messianic "insurrectionist," without him ever leading an insurrection. But I'm not sure if Paul's writings alone could establish this point from a historical perspective.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Allison: Jesus' Death via Paul 2
Previously: pp. 387-92
Now: pp. 392-95
_______
Now Allison begins to do an experiment. If all we had were Paul's writings, what would we suppose about Jesus' death. To many this will seem needlessly pedantic, but this is the work of an objective historian. No serious historian of any stripe questions that Paul wrote the bulk of the letters with his name on them. I myself further consider it historical incompetence (of any stripe, atheist or otherwise) to think that Paul's witness to this period is irrelevant to the historical particulars of Jesus and earliest Christianity.
So if we must prove everything, why not start with Paul.
These four pages whip off 2 of Allison's points via this "experiment."
1. Jesus was crucified. Paul mentions the cross and crucifixion many times.
2. Jesus' crucifixion involved nailing him (ropes could be used instead). We find references to blood, the marks (e.g., Gal. 6:17), etc. We find an interesting aside interspersed in this discussion. Roman Catholics have sometimes had a tendency to over-read Paul's mention of bearing the marks of Christ, as if he had stigmata like St. Francis. But Protestants have sometimes under-read Galatians 6:17, as if Paul couldn't possibly compare his scars with Jesus'.
This is what I like about scholars like Allison, Dunn, etc. Disagree with them we may, but they are really interested in the most likely conclusion, whatever it may be. They cut through so many games of so much scholarship aimed at reinforcing traditions denominational, liberal, and evangelical alike. It's just straight historical method, wherever they think it leads. It's a breath of fresh air to me.
Now: pp. 392-95
_______
Now Allison begins to do an experiment. If all we had were Paul's writings, what would we suppose about Jesus' death. To many this will seem needlessly pedantic, but this is the work of an objective historian. No serious historian of any stripe questions that Paul wrote the bulk of the letters with his name on them. I myself further consider it historical incompetence (of any stripe, atheist or otherwise) to think that Paul's witness to this period is irrelevant to the historical particulars of Jesus and earliest Christianity.
So if we must prove everything, why not start with Paul.
These four pages whip off 2 of Allison's points via this "experiment."
1. Jesus was crucified. Paul mentions the cross and crucifixion many times.
2. Jesus' crucifixion involved nailing him (ropes could be used instead). We find references to blood, the marks (e.g., Gal. 6:17), etc. We find an interesting aside interspersed in this discussion. Roman Catholics have sometimes had a tendency to over-read Paul's mention of bearing the marks of Christ, as if he had stigmata like St. Francis. But Protestants have sometimes under-read Galatians 6:17, as if Paul couldn't possibly compare his scars with Jesus'.
This is what I like about scholars like Allison, Dunn, etc. Disagree with them we may, but they are really interested in the most likely conclusion, whatever it may be. They cut through so many games of so much scholarship aimed at reinforcing traditions denominational, liberal, and evangelical alike. It's just straight historical method, wherever they think it leads. It's a breath of fresh air to me.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Allison: Passion of Jesus 1
pp. 387-92
I start off my Lenten reading with chapter 5 of Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus, whose title is "Death and Memory." He sets up the chapter by acknowledging the issue that John Dominic Crossan decides in the negative. Crossan famously concludes that the biblical passion of Mark is "prophecy historicized" rather than "history remembered."
This question is old and the question is this. Did the earliest Christians make up the passion story out of prophetic proof texts? A large number of elements in the passion story correspond to phrases in the Old Testament. And just so we don't let ourselves off the hook too quickly, most of these are not predictions. In other words, we can't just make this an issue of whether one believes in prophecy or not. David flees to the Mount of Olives after learning he has been betrayed (2 Sam. 15). It is not a prophecy, but it is similar enough to what happens to Jesus for someone like Crossan to suggest that the whole Mt. of Olives part of the passion is made up to look like what happened to David.
Allison, whom I esteem as a straight shooter (which can make us uncomfortable, but we at least know he tries to follow the evidence wherever he thinks it leads), concludes with Mark Goodacre that Crossan's picture is too "either/or." Goodacre suggests instead that the passion is "history scripturalized," or as Allison puts it, "To biblicize is not necessarily to invent" (389).
Allison spends the next couple pages giving examples of Crossan's unjustified pessimism about Jesus' details.
I start off my Lenten reading with chapter 5 of Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus, whose title is "Death and Memory." He sets up the chapter by acknowledging the issue that John Dominic Crossan decides in the negative. Crossan famously concludes that the biblical passion of Mark is "prophecy historicized" rather than "history remembered."
This question is old and the question is this. Did the earliest Christians make up the passion story out of prophetic proof texts? A large number of elements in the passion story correspond to phrases in the Old Testament. And just so we don't let ourselves off the hook too quickly, most of these are not predictions. In other words, we can't just make this an issue of whether one believes in prophecy or not. David flees to the Mount of Olives after learning he has been betrayed (2 Sam. 15). It is not a prophecy, but it is similar enough to what happens to Jesus for someone like Crossan to suggest that the whole Mt. of Olives part of the passion is made up to look like what happened to David.
Allison, whom I esteem as a straight shooter (which can make us uncomfortable, but we at least know he tries to follow the evidence wherever he thinks it leads), concludes with Mark Goodacre that Crossan's picture is too "either/or." Goodacre suggests instead that the passion is "history scripturalized," or as Allison puts it, "To biblicize is not necessarily to invent" (389).
Allison spends the next couple pages giving examples of Crossan's unjustified pessimism about Jesus' details.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Constructing Jesus 2 (S)
The first post in this review:
Chapter 1: Memories of Jesus
Chapter 2, "The Eschatology of Jesus" is about 190 pages. At my pace, it will take me over a month to get through it.. And I have some other things I need to fit in. So here are the next thirty pages or so, pp.31-59.
The basic point of these pages, as of the chapter as a whole, is that "Jesus held what we may call... an 'apocalyptic eschatology'" (32). By this he means a cluster of themes from post-exilic Jewish literature relating to coming crisis between good and evil in which things on the earth will get very bad but God will come at set everything right. Allison does not believe that such expectation was usually if ever about the distant future but was by assumption a near expectation. "The rule in the ancient sources is this: if it is coming, it must be close" (45).
Pages 33-43 are what seems to be a typical sort of list for Allison. He catalogs point after point of apocalyptic expectation in the gospels. Allison's point is very commonsensical and persuasive. It doesn't matter whether any one of these events or sayings was historical for the general impression to be true. "[M]ore material pertains to eschatology than to exorcism" (43). I perceive a global pattern and it is apocalyptic" (44). "[O]ur choice is not between an apocalyptic Jesus; it is between an apocalyptic Jesus and no Jesus at all... The pertinent material is sufficiently abundant that removing it all should leave one thoroughly skeptical about the mnemonic competence of the tradition" (46-47).
He then begins a list of nine supportive considerations, two of which were part of my reading this week.
1. Jesus' location between John the Baptist and the early church.
This is again such a no brainer it amazes me that anyone seriously questions it. You find it in Sanders, Wright, earlier in Meyer. If John the Baptist preached the imminent coming of God's kingdom and if the early church did, then Jesus must have.
2. "God raised him from the dead."
Again, Allison makes imminent sense. Paul knew Peter and James. They all claimed to believe Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. Therefore, "that settles the issue" (55). He of course is not saying that all the initial followers of Jesus believed this. He is only saying that these individuals must have.
Further, if they had not believed in resurrection prior to the Jesus event, they would not have interpreted it in this way. "[T]he disciples looked for the resurrection of the dead before Good Friday; otherwise they would have interpreted their experiences in some other way" (59).
Chapter 1: Memories of Jesus
Chapter 2, "The Eschatology of Jesus" is about 190 pages. At my pace, it will take me over a month to get through it.. And I have some other things I need to fit in. So here are the next thirty pages or so, pp.31-59.
The basic point of these pages, as of the chapter as a whole, is that "Jesus held what we may call... an 'apocalyptic eschatology'" (32). By this he means a cluster of themes from post-exilic Jewish literature relating to coming crisis between good and evil in which things on the earth will get very bad but God will come at set everything right. Allison does not believe that such expectation was usually if ever about the distant future but was by assumption a near expectation. "The rule in the ancient sources is this: if it is coming, it must be close" (45).
Pages 33-43 are what seems to be a typical sort of list for Allison. He catalogs point after point of apocalyptic expectation in the gospels. Allison's point is very commonsensical and persuasive. It doesn't matter whether any one of these events or sayings was historical for the general impression to be true. "[M]ore material pertains to eschatology than to exorcism" (43). I perceive a global pattern and it is apocalyptic" (44). "[O]ur choice is not between an apocalyptic Jesus; it is between an apocalyptic Jesus and no Jesus at all... The pertinent material is sufficiently abundant that removing it all should leave one thoroughly skeptical about the mnemonic competence of the tradition" (46-47).
He then begins a list of nine supportive considerations, two of which were part of my reading this week.
1. Jesus' location between John the Baptist and the early church.
This is again such a no brainer it amazes me that anyone seriously questions it. You find it in Sanders, Wright, earlier in Meyer. If John the Baptist preached the imminent coming of God's kingdom and if the early church did, then Jesus must have.
2. "God raised him from the dead."
Again, Allison makes imminent sense. Paul knew Peter and James. They all claimed to believe Jesus had risen bodily from the dead. Therefore, "that settles the issue" (55). He of course is not saying that all the initial followers of Jesus believed this. He is only saying that these individuals must have.
Further, if they had not believed in resurrection prior to the Jesus event, they would not have interpreted it in this way. "[T]he disciples looked for the resurrection of the dead before Good Friday; otherwise they would have interpreted their experiences in some other way" (59).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
