Ether

I was not sure to post this here or in the humor section.

<a href="http://www.minitru.org/llf/tosm.html" target="_blank">http://www.minitru.org/llf/tosm.html</a>

I like the "Fools" toon.

Vinnie

As far as accuracy goes, that rivals any chick tract.

Vinnie

Toto

Please point out the errors.

B. H. Manners

The only problem I have with it is that I wish the author had given the exact qoutes of Christ in the bubbles. That would have made it even more effective than it already is.

Dark Jedi

The relevant passages are annotated.

James Still

Ok, regarding the "anti-tract" here are some problems and comments that I have. I'll list them in order by frame:

(1) the illustrator is projecting "rudeness" and "disrespect" onto the youthful Jesus but we don't know that this was so. The story in Luke 2 cannot be read in the modern sense (like he was lost at the shopping mall or something). At 12 years of age, Jesus was almost an adult by the standards of his day. The purpose of this story is to illustrate that Jesus was wise beyond his years.

(2) I do agree that Jesus was often harsh to his mother. What this tells us is that he was a typical male Jew of the period. His father was probably dead by now and so he was now the head of the household.

As for Jesus being a drunkard this is just not supported by the story in Luke 7, which reads:

"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." 'But wisdom is proved right by all her children.'"

This is one of those rare passages that reveal the strong connection that Jesus had to John. Combined with the fact that the first thing Jesus does in his public ministry (as far as we know from the texts anyway) is to seek baptism. I agree with those who say that Jesus was a disciple of John and that he went out on his own after he was ready. This was probably very well known to the gospel writers and that explains the attempt to distance the Baptist from Jesus even as they didn't dare write John out of the story altogether. In any case, this story is not about getting drunk. Jesus is saying that his critics accuse him of gluttony and drunkenness but that their polemics are just as wrong as when they misunderstood John's radical asceticism for demonic possession. He is saying that they are exaggering. Maybe Jesus did get drunk but we cannot infer that from this passage.

(3) "Let the dead bury the dead." This is indeed a very radical thing for Jesus to say. In the ancient world, it was the highest priority of the eldest male to bury his father in the proper way. Not to carry out this solemn duty would get you shunned or worse. It was unthinkable not to bury your father properly. So Jesus is being way over the top when he tells the man to ignore this duty. However, the purpose of this story is to illustrate that the kingdom of God (when God's rule comes crashing into the present order of things) is imminent. Jesus is saying that there is no time for custom and duty. The world is about to be changed radically and everyone must be prepared for it. This has nothing to do with hating your family.

(4) To forsake family for God is difficult for us moderns to understand. But the picture is flat wrong. Jesus is not talking about a grown man with a family deciding to take off one day. He's talking about becoming a disciple for God *instead* of marrying and having children. In the ancient world marriage was extremely important and young adults didn't have much of a choice in the matter. It would be a very radical thing for a young man to say, "Thanks for arranging for me to marry the next door neighbor's daughter dad but I'm throwing it all away to follow God." That's what gave the story its punch. Jesus is saying to those who think his way is too high of a price to pay that they will be rewarded for throwing away tradition and custom.

(5) Who knows what Jesus meant by bringing a sword. We could read the passage literally of course (as Hyam Maccoby does) and conclude that Jesus was mixed up with the Zealots and wanted to bring about political change. Or we could read it allegorically and conclude that Jesus wanted his radical teachings were like a sword, cutting deep into the traditions and customs of the day. The things in (3) and (4) above that Jesus teaches would certainly be so unthinkable to most young men of the period, that it would be like a weapon hitting you full on.

(6) I agree that Jesus' family considered him crazy ("beside himself") and during his early ministry they tried to restrain him. This is the fascinating part of the story about Jesus and the reason why he later says that a prophet is never welcome in his own town. Jesus' ministry never really takes off until he leaves his rural community and sets off for Jerusalem. It's the old story of the midwestern girl who leaves Iowa for Los Angeles to become a star. In Iowa she had the cumulative baggage of her upbringing but in L.A. she could re-create herself into the person she wanted to be for others.

(7) The illustrator/author makes it appear as if Jesus is supposed to be some sort of flower child. The Jesus of the NT is passionate, driven, and radical. The NIV translates this as "Woe to you Korazin! Woe to you Bethsaida!" but really this should read "Damn you Korazin! Damn you Bethsaida!" Luke's Jesus was acting in his role as a prophet and prophets are radical. Jesus was not like that Prozac meek fellow in contemporary pictures holding a lamb and smiling for the camera. You know that crazy guy downtown who is screaming at passers by? That's Jesus. He's cursing Capernaum because he is a prophet who is rejected in Galilee. After this rejection, Jesus will "turn his face" toward Jersusalem and forget his compatriots.

(8) and (9) The fig tree pericope is one of those strange stories that made its way into the canon but is probably ahistorical. I suspect its real meaning was lost in the transition from the oral tradition to its written form.

(10) This is a misunderstanding of magic in the ancient world. Healers and magicians got their power from the spirits that inhabited the natural world, but the magic wouldn't work if the recipient failed to have sufficient faith. In this way, the ancients explained why cures sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. The ancients, including Jesus, were very superstitious by today's standards and to a man they didn't understand medicine.

(11) I don't really disagree with the "Fools!" contradiction. But keep in mind that Jesus is a prophet and prophets aren't exactly operating with a full deck -- they are absolutely convinced that they have been chosen by God to fulfill an important mission. They're not saying, "uh oh. Better make sure everything I say doesn't violate the Internet Infidels' rules of logical fallacy."

(12), (13) and (14) The story of the Syrophoenican woman places emphasis on the fact that she is a Gentile, a non-Jew. Jesus doesn't call her a "dog" [kynos]. He uses the diminutive form [kynaria] which would be better translated as "little bitch." This is a racial slur. As a Jew, Jesus felt that Gentiles were unclean and undeserving of the kingdom of God for which God chose the Jews to inherit. After her retort, in which she says, "yeah you're right but even bitches get leftovers" he takes pity on her and performs the miracle. Probably the reason Mark preserved this passage was because it shows that even Gentiles can receive healing and redemption. The kingdom of God was not just for the Jews. Gentile converts could take part as well.

(15), (16) and (17) Wow, the illustrator must be the most honest person in the world! If you read the story you get the impression that his brothers might be conspiring with the men who were waiting to kill Jesus. So he deceives them to foil the plot. I don't understand what the problem is here unless you're operating under the naive assumption that Jesus is God and cannot tell a lie. John's gospel is on the paranoid side and he presents a Jesus who is "above it all" and doesn't concern himself with human politics. If there is any problem it's that John's Jesus is so remote and alien that he is no longer relevant. But that's another story.

(18) Cool picture. It reminds me of those old 60s "keep on trucking" t-shirts. If the illustrator is saying that Jesus wasn't supposed to feel fear or that he was supposed to confront his enemies at every opportunity then that's naive. With his radical teaching, Jesus wouldn't have lasted five minutes if he didn't operate clandestinely. (Look what happened to Socrates after the Athenians overthrew the tyrants and turned their attention to the corrupters of the youth...)

(19) and (20) Earth to illustrator. Come in illustrator. Jesus wasn't God and he had the same fears and apprehensions as the rest of us. Despite the attempt by the evangelists to portray Jesus as someone with foreknowledge of his fate, I think that a fair and unbiased reading of the texts reveal that he didn't know he was going to be crucified. Here's the story in a nutshell:

* Jesus is a disciple of John the Baptist

* After baptism, he sets out on his own in Galilee.

* His fellow Galileans find his teachings so radical and so upsetting that they shun him.

* Jesus gives up on Galilee and heads to Jerusalem.

* He attracts a lot of attention and turns a lot of heads but his radical teaching earns him powerful enemies.

* Eventually he is too much of a hot potato and his enemies put him to death.

* End of story except that his followers keep waiting for the imminent kingdom of God and they preserve his teaching.

* When the stories about him (as well as his own parables) hit the Greek cities to the north they catch on and thrive. These stories are told and retold, and probably changed with each retelling although their core is discernable. (Think of the core of a joke; the details change but the structure does not.)

* The Greeks, in typical Greek fashion, make a god out of Jesus and the cult continues to grow and thrive in the Diaspora.

Toto

Hi James, thanks for the analysis. So where on <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html" target="_blank">Peter Kirby's HJ page</a> do you find yourself? Jesus as radical nutcase street preacher?

Vinnie

"""""His father was probably dead by now and so he was now the head of the household."""""

Why would Jesus be the head of the household and not one of his other brothers? Did the eldest male of the family become the head of the household? Is that where those who believe Jesus was the eldest would draw the connection? For some reason I think this though I can't recall anything factual off the top of my head to back this up. If one assumes the virgin birth then Jesus would be the oldest child but I don't view that event as factual and I highly doubt you do so I don't think either of us have any reason to believe Jesus was or wasn't the oldest sibling. He could have been the youngest for all we know. I don't think there is any reason to assume he became the head of the household either. I could be missing something though. I think many Catholics (with Mary being an ever virgin or something) would posit that Jesus had no siblings.

Mark 6:3 "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Jesus had two sisters at least and four brothers according to this. If the connection of who is head of the household is determined by age I don't think there is any reason to assume Jesus was the oldest. Is there a different reason as to why you think Jesus was the head of the household? Some Catholics might argue that brother can be cousin or something right? I can't remember the exact view but I do remember that I never found the arguments convincing.

Vinnie

James Still

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html" target="_blank">Peter Kirby's HJ page</a> do you find yourself? Jesus as radical nutcase street preacher?[/QB][/QUOTE]

That's a great resource Peter has put together there. I find myself agreeing with Fredriksen, whom Peter quotes as saying:

"The Jesus encountered in the present reconstruction is a prophet who preached the coming apocalyptic Kingdom of God. His message coheres both with that of his predecessor and mentor, John the Baptizer, and with that of the movement that sprang up in his name. This Jesus thus is not primarily a social reformer with a revolutionary message; nor is he a religious innovator radically redefining the traditional ideas and practices of his native religion. His urgent message had not the present so much as the near future in view."

This sums up my feelings exactly.

Vinnie writes, "Why would Jesus be the head of the household and not one of his other brothers?"

Excellent question. Robert Eisenman and others think that James is the elder brother. I don't really know and I admit that I was just assuming it as a convenient bit of conventional wisdom. Even if we assume that Jesus was not the eldest, my point was that it is problematic to project our own modern notions of respect for our parents back onto the historical Jesus. Women were second-class citizens.

I've always been fascinated by this passage. It is indeed puzzling how Jesus treats his family and how his fellow Galileans react to him. Jesus was definitely not taken seriously by his contemporaries in his village that's for sure. Here's how I've come to understand what might have been the case. Suppose you grew up in a very small rural town with one church. Everyone knew who you were since you were a baby and people have watched you grow up. Then when you're an adult you start hanging out with a local hermit (whom the locals consider a nut) and you become greatly influenced by his apocalyptic views. One day you are in church and you start preaching some pretty radical stuff about the end of the world. The locals are going to ask themselves, is this Mary's kid talking? That skinny kid who fell from the Johnson's tree and broke his leg? The halfback on the school football team? What the hell is he talking about? What's gotten into him?

It's impossible for them to distinguish between the new spiritual person you've become from the lanky kid who used to hang out in front of the drug store. Your identity is solidified in the community and you are powerless to change it on your own. Naturally, no one in your town will take you seriously. But suppose you leave the small town and go to a big city. You're there for a year or two and you've really honed your philosophical views and you've become quite well spoken about them. You walk down the street and see an 18-year old man hanging out at an outdoor table in front of a coffee shop. Approaching him you lay it on him with all of your views, ideas, and your vision for what is going to happen in the world. He may think to himself "freak alert" and look for a way to avoid you. Or he may be totally struck by the passion with which you present your views. He is not seeing that lanky kid who fell from the tree or the one who played football. He's seeing a fully-formed man with a polished philosophy who looks like he's either totally insane or he's so crazy he's actually on to something.

That's how I think we should understand Jesus. We should see him like a Ghandi or a Martin Luther King, Jr., i.e., as a polarizing figure who creates enemies just as easily as he attracts followers to his cause.

Toto

Ghandi and King were leaders who attracted followers and created enemies, but both seem a far cry from nutcase street preachers. For one thing, both of them created organizations to carry on their work. Both left writings. Your version of Jesus seems to be largely irrelevant to the movement that bears his name.

Do you see Jesus as more on the level of Jim Jones or David Koresh? Or maybe the Bagwan Rajneesh? Or Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker movement?