Jesus came preaching the "Kingdom," which in my view was an alternative universe with God on the throne instead of Ceasar Augustus. In other words, what would reality be like if God was the true ruler instead of man?

This peasant Jesus was obviously orally brilliant, for he used the language of paradox and parable to pull the dominant paradigm out from under his listeners. Between the lines of the church's redactions of a bitter and badgering Savior is a Jesus who was compassionate and loving enough to leave behind a tradition placed there by his followers that "this is how God would be talking and acting if he came down to earth."

By this I do not mean that he glowed in the dark or was magically resuscitated after dying on a cross. I mean that in a time of first-century cultural dislocation and religious "messiah fervor" and the heavy mallet of Pax Romana, Jesus provided a steadfast alternative to the status quo for many Jews.

He was certainly no pacifist doormat, in my opinion, but he was no fool either: he "went along" to "get along" and part of his itenerant strategy was just as "foxy" as Herod's ruling scheme.


[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited June 14, 2001).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
On another thread, Ish made the following claim: "Jesus' main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." I disagreed and said so.
Since that thread has gotten rather untidy (too many side issues), I thought I would start a thread devoted exclusively to the question of what Jesus'"message" was, based on the text of the NT. For the sake of argument, I will presume the existence of Jesus as an historical person.

Here is what I consider to be evidence demonstrating that Jesus' MAIN message had nothing at all to do with love:

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.... Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.'"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Akido7: Jesus came preaching the "Kingdom," which in my view was an alternative universe with God on the throne instead of Ceasar Augustus. In other words, what would reality be like if God was the true ruler instead of man?

Are you suggesting that the Israelites of Jesus' time had not considered this a literal possibility before Jesus came along?

We read in the book known as I Enoch (most, if not all, of which dates to well before Jesus) the following: "The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, and the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai, and appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens...And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder, And all that is upon the earth shall perish, And there shall be a judgement upon all (men). But with the righteous He will make peace, And will protect the elect...And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all...And for all of you sinners there shall be no salvation, But on you all shall abide a curse. But for the elect there shall be light and grace and peace, And they shall inherit the earth." (1.3-3.7)

Akido7: This peasant Jesus was obviously orally brilliant, for he used the language of paradox and parable to pull the dominant paradigm out from under his listeners.

Of course we get only one side of Jesus' quarrel with his fellow Israelites--that of Jesus' later followers. It stands to reason that the biased reporters would make Jesus look as "brilliant" as possible.

Akido7: Between the lines of the church's redactions of a bitter and badgering Savior is a Jesus who was compassionate and loving enough to leave behind a tradition placed there by his followers that "this is how God would be talking and acting if he came down to earth."

Unfortunately, if we are allowed to "read between the lines," we could imagine all sorts of things about Jesus.

Akido7: By this I do not mean that he glowed in the dark or was magically resuscitated after dying on a cross. I mean that in a time of first-century cultural dislocation and religious "messiah fervor" and the heavy mallet of Pax Romana, Jesus provided a steadfast alternative to the status quo for many Jews.

I think that Jesus was a man who thought the Day of Judgement was imminent. He and Paul (and probably many others) were greatly influenced by ideas contained in 1 Enoch and other Jewish Pseudepigrapha.

Akido7: He was certainly no pacifist doormat, in my opinion, but he was no fool either: he "went along" to "get along" and part of his itenerant strategy was just as "foxy" as Herod's ruling scheme.

He was "foxy" enough to get himself executed as a troublemaker.

rodahi

James Still

Yes, one of the things I didn't make clear in my post is that the picture of Jesus as pacifist is dependent upon the theory that the Q gospel is a close (if not direct) trajectory of the historical Jesus' teachings. There are many puzzling passages in the gospels where Jesus wishes "to bring a sword" and "set the world ablaze," however these passages are not necessarily early and might belong to later traditions. You raise an excellent point, one that cuts right to the heart of the "humble pacifist" theory, when you point out that Jesus was found guilty of sedition against Rome and crucified as a political insurrectionist. According to the criteria of attestation and embarrassment, this evidence is sound and just as early as the Q layer in which Jesus is portrayed as an apolitical pacifist.

Some scholars have thrown their hands up in despair as a result of these competing portrayals. Others, like Robert Eisenman, prefer to see the Jesus portrayed in the gospels as a composite of several figures. I think both reactions are premature. What ties these two disparate images together, I think, is Jesus' own view on eschatology (the "end times"). From the 12 core sayings five of them touch directly or indirectly on eschatology:

6. Leave the dead to bury their dead (9:60)

8. Carry no money, bag, or sandals (10:4)

9. Say, "God's rule has come near you" (10:9)

11. Don't worry about living (12:22)

12. Make sure of God's rule over you (12:31)

Notice that all five of these sayings assume a present eschatology rather than a future one. We see this especially in Luke and the Gospel of Thomas:

"It [the end times] will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!' Rather, the Father's imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." (Thomas 113:2-4; cf. Lk. 17:20ff).

And right in Mark 1 "the time is fulfilled" and God's Imperial Rule "is at hand."

("Imperial Rule" is a more accurate translation of basileia sou than the old "Kingdom of God" because the latter connotes other-wordly Western images of heaven, angels with wings, and someplace you go after you die. But Jesus understood it in a Jewish sense to mean God's decisive rule on Earth. So when you see the phrase "Kingdom of God" think of something radical that crashes into the present situation and upsets the order of things rather than a distant paradise of wings and clouds.)

Why leave the dead, carry no money, and be carefree about living? Quite simply, because Jesus believed that there was no time for trivial pursuits. God's Imperial Rule was either already breaking into the present situation or it was about to at any moment. Better be ready and make sure you're on God's side! This is why Paul and his early churches weren't prepared to deal with death in the community. They were convinced that within their lifetimes the end times would occur and radically transform the world just as Jesus promised.

My point here is that there may be a way to reconcile the humble pacifist with the seditionist. Jesus preached a present eschaton and told his listeners that God's Imperial Rule was already in their midst -- while most Jews prayed the Qaddish and waited patiently for the future time when the Messiah would establish the house of Israel here on Earth, Jesus believed that the time was here and now and people had better drop everything they're doing and get ready. As you can imagine, the imposition of God's Imperial Rule meant that secular rulers had to cede their authority to the will of God. If you are that secular ruler such preaching amounts to sedition against Rome. Even if Pilate took the time to understand Jesus' teachings (doubtful) it still wouldn't matter much. Here you've got this guy running around Jerusalem stirring people up and telling them that God's Imperial Rule is already breaking into the present situation. At the same time there are zealots and patriots just looking for an excuse to rally the people against Rome. The history of the region is full of such tinder boxes. The priests who collaborated with Rome, and Rome herself, would have wanted to shut Jesus up in a hurry especially on Passover when religious and political fervor was at its peak in Jerusalem.

The tragedy in all this is that the bad guys won, Jesus was put to death never seeing the imposition of the Imperial Rule he believed in with all his heart, and the revolution against Rome culminated in a massacre of the Jewish people. But to this day Christians hold out hope of the eschaton, twisting passages and reinterpreting ancient events to suit modern purposes, even though it has been two millenia and the contexts couldn't be more different. It's truly amazing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
I consider Burton Mack to be an excellent scholar, but I disagree with the presumption that Jesus was humble or a pacifist. (So do many scholars.) There is just too much in the NT that goes the other way. Also, presuming the tradition that he was executed as a troublemaker is correct, it does not stand to reason that he could have been a humble teacher who went around spreading a message of love and "total pacifism."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James: Yes, one of the things I didn't make clear in my post is that the picture of Jesus as pacifist is dependent upon the theory that the Q gospel is a close (if not direct) trajectory of the historical Jesus' teachings. There are many puzzling passages in the gospels where Jesus wishes "to bring a sword" and "set the world ablaze," however these passages are not necessarily early and might belong to later traditions. You raise an excellent point, one that cuts right to the heart of the "humble pacifist" theory, when you point out that Jesus was found guilty of sedition against Rome and crucified as a political insurrectionist. According to the criteria of attestation and embarrassment, this evidence is sound and just as early as the Q layer in which Jesus is portrayed as an apolitical pacifist.

Some scholars have thrown their hands up in despair as a result of these competing portrayals. Others, like Robert Eisenman, prefer to see the Jesus portrayed in the gospels as a composite of several figures. I think both reactions are premature. What ties these two disparate images together, I think, is Jesus' own view on eschatology (the "end times"). From the 12 core sayings five of them touch directly or indirectly on eschatology:

6. Leave the dead to bury their dead (9:60)

8. Carry no money, bag, or sandals (10:4)

9. Say, "God's rule has come near you" (10:9)

11. Don't worry about living (12:22)

12. Make sure of God's rule over you (12:31)

Notice that all five of these sayings assume a present eschatology rather than a future one. We see this especially in Luke and the Gospel of Thomas:

"It [the end times] will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!' Rather, the Father's imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." (Thomas 113:2-4; cf. Lk. 17:20ff).

And right in Mark 1 "the time is fulfilled" and God's Imperial Rule "is at hand."

("Imperial Rule" is a more accurate translation of basileia sou than the old "Kingdom of God" because the latter connotes other-wordly Western images of heaven, angels with wings, and someplace you go after you die. But Jesus understood it in a Jewish sense to mean God's decisive rule on Earth. So when you see the phrase "Kingdom of God" think of something radical that crashes into the present situation and upsets the order of things rather than a distant paradise of wings and clouds.)

Why leave the dead, carry no money, and be carefree about living? Quite simply, because Jesus believed that there was no time for trivial pursuits. God's Imperial Rule was either already breaking into the present situation or it was about to at any moment. Better be ready and make sure you're on God's side! This is why Paul and his early churches weren't prepared to deal with death in the community. They were convinced that within their lifetimes the end times would occur and radically transform the world just as Jesus promised.

My point here is that there may be a way to reconcile the humble pacifist with the seditionist. Jesus preached a present eschaton and told his listeners that God's Imperial Rule was already in their midst -- while most Jews prayed the Qaddish and waited patiently for the future time when the Messiah would establish the house of Israel here on Earth, Jesus believed that the time was here and now and people had better drop everything they're doing and get ready. As you can imagine, the imposition of God's Imperial Rule meant that secular rulers had to cede their authority to the will of God. If you are that secular ruler such preaching amounts to sedition against Rome. Even if Pilate took the time to understand Jesus' teachings (doubtful) it still wouldn't matter much. Here you've got this guy running around Jerusalem stirring people up and telling them that God's Imperial Rule is already breaking into the present situation. At the same time there are zealots and patriots just looking for an excuse to rally the people against Rome. The history of the region is full of such tinder boxes. The priests who collaborated with Rome, and Rome herself, would have wanted to shut Jesus up in a hurry especially on Passover when religious and political fervor was at its peak in Jerusalem.

The tragedy in all this is that the bad guys won, Jesus was put to death never seeing the imposition of the Imperial Rule he believed in with all his heart, and the revolution against Rome culminated in a massacre of the Jewish people. But to this day Christians hold out hope of the eschaton, twisting passages and reinterpreting ancient events to suit modern purposes, even though it has been two millenia and the contexts couldn't be more different. It's truly amazing.

It is refreshing to discuss an issue with someone who is obviously intelligent, knowledgable, articulate, and polite.

I will respond to this post later tonight or tomorrow, and I can promise only to be polite.

rodahi

While Jesus remains an enigma to historians, especially because of the contradictory nature of the material in the NT and other Christian literature, I do think we can gain some knowledge of his message and mission in some of the older written sources, e.g., Mark, M, L, and Q. Surely, these texts contain Jesus’ most primitive teachings (along with the writers’ theological additions/modifications), traditionally speaking. (I think Thomas, John, and all other Christian literature were written after Mk, M, L, and Q and, thus, are not as historically reliable.) As I said earlier, I think Jesus’ message was mainly apocalyptic. As a self-styled prophet/healer/magician, he rarely spoke of or demonstrated love or compassion and, to me, he certainly was no humble pacifist. He believed that the Day of Yahweh was imminent, that the Son of man was about to arrive in the clouds to judge human beings, and that sinners should repent immediately. This is what drove Jesus. Everything else in his “message” was secondary, but directly related to his eschatological world view. The following passages, out of a goodly number, support this view. They come from Mark, M, L, Q, and ancient Jewish pseudepigrapha:

“For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mk. 8:38)

“Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (M: Mt. 13:40-43)
Commentary: The Son of man is viewed as a severe judge. He has no problem with literally burning sinners.

“Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man.” (L: Lk. 21:36)

“For just as the flashing lightning lights up the earth from one part of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.” (Q)

“Don’t get the idea that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies live under your own roof.” (Q)
Commentary: Here, Jesus speaks as a prophet, repeating the words of Micah: “The day of your watchmen, of punishment, has come; now their confusion is at hand...for the son treats his father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.” (7:4-6)

“If any of you comes to me and does not hate your own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life--you’re no disciple of mine.” (Q: note: Matthew softens the harshness of Luke’s passage.)
Commentary: This saying may reflect the true attitude of Jesus. The earliest narrative tradition suggests that Jesus and his family members did not get along. (Mark does not mention the name of Jesus’ father, but does name his mother and brothers. A tradition that can be traced back to at least as early as the middle of the second century says that Jesus was illegitimate. That fact could certainly have caused a rift between mother and son.)

“And you, be prepared, because you do not know about the hour when the Son of Man is coming.” (Q)
Commentary: Jesus believed the Son of man was to come very soon.

“The kingdom is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.” (Mt. 10:7-8)
Commentary: I include this one quote from Matthew because it sums up what Jesus seemed to think was his (and his disciples) mission, as it related to the coming of the kingdom. It could be a genuine saying or a paraphrase of what he actually said. This passage seems to echo Isaiah 35:4-6: “’Behold your God will come with vengeance...He will come and save you.’...Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy.”

Love
I should note that Jesus does mention love of one’s neighbor in Mark 12:31. When a scribe asks Jesus which commandment comes first, Jesus states: “The first is, Hear O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is One...The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” What many readers do not realize is that Jesus is merely repeating the Law. For in Leviticus, we read: “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (19:18) The one time Jesus mentions love, he merely states what was expected of all who followed the Law: Love your fellow Jew. To my knowledge, in all of Mark, M, L, and Q, this is the only time Jesus mentions the “love your neighbor” commandment.

SIDE ISSUE
In my view, Jesus DID NOT think of himself as the “Son of man.” He believed he was announcing the arrival of this supernatural person. Jesus (and Paul) appeared to be greatly influenced by current Jewish apocalyptic (oral and/or written) notions. His “Son of man” messiah comes directly from Jewish writings.

The following passages are from I Enoch, a composite Pseudepigraphic work that R. H. Charles and others think was composed before the common era. Note: There is little in I Enoch that suggests the Son of man believed Jews should have love or compassion for one‘s neighbor, but there is a great deal that seems to have influenced Jesus and/or the writers of the NT. All quotes were translated by Charles.

Judgment
“And for all you sinners there shall be no salvation, But on you all shall abide a curse. But for the elect there shall be light and grace and peace, And they shall inherit the earth.” (5.6-7)
Commentary: The writer seems to be echoing Psalm 37:22: [The] blessed shall inherit the earth and the cursed shall be cut off.

“When the congregation of the righteous shall appear, And sinners shall be judged for their sins, And shall be driven from the face of the earth: And when the Righteous One [messiah] shall appear before the eyes of the righteous, Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits, And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the earth, Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners, And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits? It had been good for them if they had not been born.
Commentary: This surely prompted the writer of Mark to write: “For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to [damn] that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” (14:21)

“When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners judged, And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect, From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be powerful and exalted.”
Commentary: This is precisely what Jesus preached: When the Son of man comes to judge, the lowly will be exalted; those in exalted positions will be made low.

“Then shall the kings and the mighty perish.”
Commentary: The exalted are brought down.

“These are the names of the holy who dwell on the earth and believe in the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.”
Commentary: I think later Christians changed “Lord of Spirits” to “Lord” in some NT works, implying Jesus.

“And into the heaven they shall not ascend, And on the earth they shall not come: Such shall be the lot of the sinners Who have denied the name of the Lord of Spirits, Who are thus preserved for the day of suffering and tribulation. On that day Mine Elect One [messiah=Son of man] shall sit on the throne of glory”

“And the Lord of Spirits placed the Elect One on the throne of glory. And he shall judge...”

“’Open your eyes...if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.’ And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory. And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face.”
Commentary: These last three quotes seem to have inspired the writer of Matthew to write: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another” (25:31)

“And those who have called upon My glorious name: Then I will cause Mine Elect One [messiah] to dwell among them. And I will the heaven and make it an eternal blessing and light, And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing. And I will cause Mine Elect One to dwell upon it: But the sinners and evil-doers shall not set foot thereon.
Commentary: The heavenly father will make a new earth for the Elect and the Elect One to rule. Sinners will not be allowed to enter.

Heavenly Father
“And I [Enoch] looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and there was the vision of cherubim. And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so that I could not look thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason of the magnificence and glory, and no flesh could behold him.” (14.18-21)
Commentary: I think THIS is the heavenly father that Jesus (and Paul) speaks of. Also, I think the above concept influenced Matthew to describe an angel in the following way: “His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.”


Heavenly Father and Son of man
“And there I saw One who had a head of days, And his head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man [messiah], who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him.

Son of Man
“And at that hour that Son of Man was named...Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits...He shall be a staff to the righteous”

“For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, And revealed him to the elect.”

“And he shall be the light of the Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless him and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits. And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for evermore.”

“For the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous; Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness; And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits. For in his name they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life...For on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not (be able to) save themselves, And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect: As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy.”

“And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth, And before them they shall fall and not rise again...For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed”

“Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [And she has pain in bringing forth] When her child enters the mouth of the womb, And she has pain in bringing forth. And one portion of them shall look on the other, And they shall be terrified...When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory.”

“The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed.”

Summary
I think Jesus came along at a time when many Jews expected the Day of Yahweh to be close. He and John the Baptist acted as heralds. Further, I think Jesus was well acquainted with current apocalyptic traditions and based his message on many of the ideas contained therein. Everything he said and did was for only one purpose: To prepare his fellow Jews for the new kingdom, which was to replace the old, during his own lifetime. His main message had nothing to do with spreading love.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 17, 2001).]

Rodahi, you are bringing in an important dimension to this question by highlighting the literalism of Enoch and somewhat alluding to the patterned language of the Hebrew Bible which points to a long-awaited "in-breaking" of the Kingdom of God (or "God's Imperial Rule" as James Sill and many modern translators would have it).

Of course Jesus' audience had a tradition of waiting for an apocalyptic scenario! We know that at least John the Baptist, the Essenes, the Zealots and the apocalyptic writers of the Old Testament had it too.

Jesus saw Israel headed for catastrophe. And it did indeed come in the form of the Roman/Jewish War. It probably didn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing then. Jesus was one of many in his own time who stood out like a sore Ralph Nader while the first-century Bushes and Gores continued the dominant dog and pony show.

The character of Jesus' god was different than the wrathful, promising and vengeful god of the traditional prophets. His was one who he described like a loving "daddy." It is very telling that Jesus rarely mentions God at all, but points instead to the power in people and the force in life in people and in nature.

It is telling too, that the gospels do not paint a portrait of a "brilliant" hero, but one with doubts and anxieties, anger and pain. The brilliance is in his authentic (distinctive) speech--the aphorisms and parables, which still speak across the centuries to deep levels in grammatical and linguistic structure. It is a hallmark of this distinctive speech that makes him stand apart from the other prophets. His message was not timeless but his followers soon found they could adapt it to new times and places--thereby insuring its resonance and staying power.

The early Christians began to apocalypticize his message to new and changing situations almost immediately. Paul expected a final ending in his own lifetime. Mark's gospel has hints of it ("What I say to you I say to you all") and Matthew's later account is even more heavy-handed with judgement and wrath.

Schweitzer seems to have taken a similar approach to yours: Jesus preached the Kingdom and the end, Jesus died and failed and what came instead was Christianity.

The no-frills Jesus, I believe, saw turmoil ahead and preached repentance and faith in the coming Kingdom of God--a kingdom that could only come when people repented and trusted ("had faith") in the power behind it all. He demonstrated this earthly kingdom by feasting and celebrating with all the people--outcast and in-crowd--who belonged to his world.

Indeed, "reading between the lines" employs nothing but our imagination! It is an interesting idea that biblical scholarship is confined to a literalistic approach only; I am just surprised to hear that coming from you!

And perhaps Jesus died for his vision. And maybe he was dragged kicking and screaming and the gospel writers plugged into the ever-available hero/scapegoat archetype. I've sometimes wondered what Jesus would have been like if he had not been killed. What would a mature Jesus do? How would his thought have changed if he had lived to 45, 50 or 60?



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited June 17, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aikido7:
[b]Rodahi, you are bringing in an important dimension to this question by highlighting the literalism of Enoch and somewhat alluding to the patterned language of the Hebrew Bible which points to a long-awaited "in-breaking" of the Kingdom of God (or "God's Imperial Rule" as James Sill and many modern translators would have it).

You are correct.

aikido7: Of course Jesus' audience had a tradition of waiting for an apocalyptic scenario! We know that at least John the Baptist, the Essenes, the Zealots and the apocalyptic writers of the Old Testament had it too.

Yes.

aikido7: Jesus saw Israel headed for catastrophe. And it did indeed come in the form of the Roman/Jewish War. It probably didn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing then. Jesus was one of many in his own time who stood out like a sore Ralph Nader while the first-century Bushes and Gores continued the dominant dog and pony show.

I don't see Jesus as the Ralph Nader type. You, I, and Ralph Nader live in modern times. Jesus lived almost two thousand years ago, if we can believe the tradition. I don't think it is a good idea to try to fit Jesus into our times so we can relate to him. It is very possible that he said and did very little that is even relevant to us.

aikido7: The character of Jesus' god was different than the wrathful, promising and vengeful god of the traditional prophets.

I am not sure how you can substantiate this claim, using the text of Mark, M, L, and Q.

aikido7: His was one who he described like a loving "daddy." It is very telling that Jesus rarely mentions God at all, but points instead to the power in people and the force in life in people and in nature.

I think you are correct in saying that Jesus paid less attention to Yahweh than he did to himself and his audience. I disagree with the idea that Jesus thought of Yahweh any differently than did previous self-styled prophets.

aikido7: It is telling too, that the gospels do not paint a portrait of a "brilliant" hero, but one with doubts and anxieties, anger and pain.

I think this is the best evidence for a historical Jesus.

aikido7: The brilliance is in his authentic (distinctive) speech--the aphorisms and parables, which still speak across the centuries to deep levels in grammatical and linguistic structure.

Here is where I definitely disagree. For one thing, I don't find his speech particularly "brilliant." Some of it is downright confusing for modern readers. For another, it is impossible to know for sure what he actually said (or did). ALL we have to go on is a collection of the available extant texts, virtually all of which were written by FOLLOWERS, not opponents or neutral ovservers.
The fact that many people discuss the "deep" meaning of some of Jesus' words points up the fact that those words could mean virtually anything to anybody at anytime. Shouldn't language be more precise than that?

aikido7: It is a hallmark of this distinctive speech that makes him stand apart from the other prophets. His message was not timeless but his followers soon found they could adapt it to new times and places--thereby insuring its resonance and staying power.

The ONE distinctive thing that Jesus said, and this is evidenced clearly and abundantly in Mark, M, L, Q, is that the Day of Yahweh was imminent and that the Son of man was to come soon to judge the sinners of Israel. In my view, everything else that he said and did was directly related to his mistaken belief.

aikido7: The early Christians began to apocalypticize his message to new and changing situations almost immediately.

With respect to apocalypticism (as opposed to theology), I see no evidence in Mark, M, L, and Q, that early Christians CHANGED anything that Jesus said and did.

aikido7: Paul expected a final ending in his own lifetime. Mark's gospel has hints of it ("What I say to you I say to you all") and Matthew's later account is even more heavy-handed with judgement and wrath.

I think Jesus and Paul were deeply influenced by apocalyptic notions that were prevalent during their time. I have attempted to show why I think this. In my view, Mark, M, L, and Q are more saturated with apolcalyptic urgency than any work that was written after them. Actually, there seems to be a tendency in the later writers, especially Thomas and John, to get away from the idea that the End was near.

aikido7: Schweitzer seems to have taken a similar approach to yours: Jesus preached the Kingdom and the end, Jesus died and failed and what came instead was Christianity.

Yes, and I think he hit the nail on the head.

aikido7: The no-frills Jesus, I believe, saw turmoil ahead and preached repentance and faith in the coming Kingdom of God--a kingdom that could only come when people repented and trusted ("had faith") in the power behind it all.

I have great respect for Robert Funk, Helmut Koester, Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, and the rest of the Jesus Seminar members. I think they are sincerely interested in finding the historical Jesus. However, I disagree with their portrait of Jesus. The "no-frills" Jesus makes less sense to me than the one I have argued for in my previous posts. Yes, I have been influenced by Albert Schweitzer, but I have also been influenced by Charles Guignebert, F. C. Conybeare, and, most especially, Bart D. Ehrman. That being said, I think it important to add this fact: I do not agree totally with any critical scholar or group of scholars.

aikido7: He demonstrated this earthly kingdom by feasting and celebrating with all the people--outcast and in-crowd--who belonged to his world.

I disagree here. Jesus DID NOT "feast and celebrate" with all. There is evidence that he shunned his own family; chastized the rich and powerful; and constantly argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees. Further, he showed contempt for anyone who questioned his "authority." When any disciple became anything less than a complete "yes" man, Jesus ridiculed him.

aikido7: Indeed, "reading between the lines" employs nothing but our imagination! It is an interesting idea that biblical scholarship is confined to a literalistic approach only; I am just surprised to hear that coming from you!

1. I always begin my search for the truth by reading the text to see what it SAYS.
2. Generally, I think most writers attempt to SAY what they mean.
3. Most good readers can distinguish between literal and figurative language.
4. The meaning of figurative language is open to interpretation and misinterpretation.

aikido7: And perhaps Jesus died for his vision. And maybe he was dragged kicking and screaming and the gospel writers plugged into the ever-available hero/scapegoat archetype.

Perhaps Jesus was executed because of the content of his message and the WAY in which he delivered it.

aikido7: I've sometimes wondered what Jesus would have been like if he had not been killed. What would a mature Jesus do? How would his thought have changed if he had lived to 45, 50 or 60?

We will never know.

The KEY, though, aikido7, is that you, James, and I agree on ONE basic issue: Jesus, if he existed, was a human being, nothing more and nothing less. I consider that more important than any disagreement that we may have with respect to what Jesus may have said or done.

rodahi

And how is one to give to everyone who begs if one carries no money?

Isaac

James Still

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that Jesus' god was different from that of the traditional prophets. The one difference, which aikido mentions below, is Jesus' use of the term "Father" when referring to God. This misled many later to think that Jesus must have been the son, which ignores the fact that Jesus' taught all of his disciples to pray to God as the Father. I'm also suspicious of making Jesus out to be someone who was recasting or reconceptualizing God because it goes against common sense (as well as the internal evidence). Common sense tells us that a Galilean rabbi of the period, who taught many of the things that the Essenes and Pharisees also taught, would not have a concept of God radically different from the other sects of the day. As far as the internal evidence goes, we learn from Acts that after his death and resurrection, Jesus' followers continued to pray in the Temple, to break bread together in communal meals, and otherwise continued to behave as observant Jews.

I'm afraid I must disagree with both of you on this point. I can't see how you can make the case that "Jesus rarely mentions God at all" or that "Jesus paid less attention to Yahweh" in his ministry. Compared to whom? Compared to the Baptist or Ezekiel then I can agree in a certain sense. But the Shema confession of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 seems central to his ministry and he continually puts the focus on God the Father and how best to be ready for God's imminent return in glory. Yes, there is a great deal of ethical teaching to be sure but it is in the context of doing good works in order to obey God.

I agree with one caveat: the Synoptics portray a man with anxieties and pain but the fourth gospel will have none of that. There is no Gethsemene, no passion, and no cry out to God on the cross (only a ridiculously sterile "it is finished" as if this were the last thing on his cosmic to-do list).

Ah rodahi put aside algorithmic critical thinking for a moment and just appreciate the passion and beauty of poetry that speaks across the ages! Yes, language should be precise if we're building bridges or software but when language is put to use by a wisdom teacher it must invoke shared feelings and speak to universal truths. So when Jesus says to bless those who curse you and to offer the other cheek he might well be talking about conditions in the region today where an "eye for an eye" seems to be the rule. Hopelessly naive? Perhaps but who says poetry and ethical teaching must be practical. I think there's a reason people compare Jesus, the Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and (increasingly) the Dalai Lama. They each rose above their situations to speak universal truths about human conditions, to offer hope for the hopeless, and to be the change they wanted to see in the world.


Yes, for all the talk of the truth in his wisdom teaching it's undeniable that his eschatology was way off the mark. But humans do make mistakes from time to time...

If I may offer a compromise, it could be said that Jesus' view that the end times were imminent was softened over time when it was slowly realized that the world was moving right along. Interestingly, John's Gospel solves the dilemma by saying "hey, the second coming and its promise of everlasting life is already here so quit looking for it."

It should tell us something that Jesus is different things to different people. People read their own hopes and expectations into the text and come away with a Jesus that appeals to their own aesthetics. And it's so easy to do because the real historical Jesus is buried beneath so many layers of post-Easter liturgy and interpretation that it's probably impossible to draw an accurate portrait of the real man.

A case in point. Each of you are emphasizing different stories within the text and privileging the one portrait over the other. Which one is right? That's probably the wrong question to ask.

Yes, I believe that a historical Jesus existed and that he was a human being just like the rest of us. If we disagree as to his words and deeds it is because there are too many redactors in between the man and the final canonical form.

rodahi: Here is where I definitely disagree. For one thing, I don't find his speech particularly "brilliant." Some of it is downright confusing for modern readers.... The fact that many people discuss the "deep" meaning of some of Jesus' words points up the fact that those words could mean virtually anything to anybody at anytime. Shouldn't language be more precise than that?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Still: Ah rodahi put aside algorithmic critical thinking for a moment and just appreciate the passion and beauty of poetry that speaks across the ages!

I appreciate beautiful poetry. The problem for me is the fact that one must be VERY selective in his reading of Mark, M, L, and Q to think that Jesus' words were either beautiful or poetic. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with clear communication.

James Still: Yes, language should be precise if we're building bridges or software but when language is put to use by a wisdom teacher it must invoke shared feelings and speak to universal truths.

Wait a minute. When I read what appears to be the most primitive tradition of Jesus' words and deeds, I don't see a "wisdom teacher." I see a self-styled prophet/healer/magician--one who fits perfectly well within the context of his time. I think the textual evidence is far stronger for my view.

James Still: So when Jesus says to bless those who curse you and to offer the other cheek he might well be talking about conditions in the region today where an "eye for an eye" seems to be the rule. Hopelessly naive? Perhaps but who says poetry and ethical teaching must be practical. I think there's a reason people compare Jesus, the Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and (increasingly) the Dalai Lama. They each rose above their situations to speak universal truths about human conditions, to offer hope for the hopeless, and to be the change they wanted to see in the world.

The texts of Mark, M, L, and Q do not paint the picture of a humble, peace-loving, spreader of poetic love and compassion. They depict a self-styled prophet/healer/magician who believed the end was imminent and that the Son of man was about to arrive in the clouds with a band of angels to judge sinners at any moment. He was argumentative and confrontational. No one knows if this was the REAL Jesus or not, but it would take a very selective reading and the dismissal of most of the text to find a Jesus who was a peace-loving and humble teacher.

This Jesus had little in common with Buddha. (I don't think it is appropriate to compare the traditional Jesus with modern day men.)

What we need today are sincere men and women to speak out against hate and violence and all forms of discrimination. Further, we need people who can clearly and eloquently articulate that message in no uncertain terms. These people are rare; poets are not.

rodahi