James Still

Yes, as you say the comparison is strained at a certain point. Like Ghandi, Jesus taught voluntary poverty and wanted to affect society but unlike him he was not a secularist in his politics. I'd say that your comparison between Jesus and David Koresh is the closest of the three. Both were convinced the parousia was near, both were martyred by the state, both had a small group of dedicated followers and they were both largely ridiculed by contemporary society. Does that mean we're going to see web sites and tracts about Koresh in a hundred years? The comparison is only for fun though since there are important differences and an enormous time span separating them.

Jeremy Pallant

Could be. The Branch Davidians still exist, and apparently expect him to return "soon" to judge the rest of the world. I don't suppose they were at all put off by their failed prophecies that targeted 1999 as being the year he would return. Any religion that survives the siege of Ranch Apocalypse and Koresh's misplaced interpretation of it as being a prelude to The End Of The World As We Know It (a few years and a continent out of place, mind you), has staying power.

Vinnie

Hi James.

"""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."""

I'm not sure why myself. Here is some speculation from Crossan in Jesus A Revolutionary Bigoraphy:

"I wonder in fact, if the emphasis given to James, who is known to both Paul and Josephus as Jesus' "brother", might indicate that James was the eldest in the family and that his prominence after the death of Jesus was due not just to his renowned piety but to his leadership position in a [large] family whose father, Joesph, may well have been long dead. That is, of course, sheer speculation, but I mention it to remind us that Jesus as Mary's firstborn child is secure only in combination with Jesus' virginal conception taken literally, factually, and historically." p 23-24

"""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 definately agree in general. Criticism of that nature usually amounts to little more than saying x person does not reflect the views of a protestant Christian or secular humanist.

"""""" I do agree that Jesus was often harsh to his mother.""""""

The vast majority of Jesus' life (really just the ministry aspect is outlined) is not even touched upon by the synoptics or GJohn as you no doubt are aware. Often harsh---or the Gospels display a few harsh incidents during Jesus' ministry? Which incidents do you have in mind?

The 12 year old Jesus astounding people in the temple is a fabrication IMO. The Lucan infancy narrative gives a pretty clear message with its parallelism: Jesus is superior to JBap. Interesting to note is the following verse of Luke (2:51) "Then he [Jesus] went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them." But this is slightly off topic as you felt the tract projected "emotions" onto Jesus not found in the text. I agree.

Does the miracle of transforming water into wine in John 2:4 display harshness: "Dear woman, why do you involve me?"

I don't see where harshness is inevitably portrayed by the text. Another issue is that this is an account of a miracle. Do we accept the validity of this account to begin with?

I am thinking of Matthew 12:47:

Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[7] 48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

[7] Not all manuscripts have verse 47. Thats irrelevant because its found in Mark as well:

Mark 3:31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Luke 8:19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." 21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

Looking at all three it looks like this block is an isolated pericope. I'm not sure how much context one can actually draw from this incident. Is this an issue of harshness? If so, why? What would an exegetical study of Jesus' words tell us about his meaning here? What purpose did the Gospel authors have in mind when including them? How did Jesus treat his family on other occasions? Do you accept Jesus' teaching/rebuking concerning corban as authentic (Mark 7)? Doesn't that encapsulate a basic "honor thy father and mother" message?

Do you believe Jesus was "harsh" to his mother (according to presnt standards I assume) simply becuase, statistically, tha is how men at the time behaved or do you have Gospel references in mind?

"""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."""""

For sure? Why do you accept this passage as authentic? The embarrassment criterion?

I think given the authenticity of this and other passages you are right. There is another passage somewhere wher Jesus' family went to take charge of him as they thought he was crazy or something. That reference (IIRC) is found in Mark and happens to be omitted by Matthew and Luke. Also, John 7:5 says Jesus' own brothers didn't believe him.

""""""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? """""""

I take it the local hermit is JBap? I actually hear JBap could/did have a large following. Possibly larger than Jesus' (before death anyways). I admit little knowledge in this area though. But the Jesus' material might not have been very radical in that light. Was JBap really considered a nut by many of his fellow Jews?

""""""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. """"""""""

I'm not convinced thats exactly how it happened with Jesus but I think that is a very good description of a common process.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

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.

I think, realistically, we moderns have to drop the notion that ancients were somehow culturebots. If James really did have a powerful position, it is quite likely that Jesus, assuming such a person existed and was related to James, might have taken over the running of household because James was too busy. The same thing happens in modern societies like here in Taiwan where I live, sometimes, for many reasons, the responsibilities fall on the second and not the elder.

Marduk

I don't really understand why Jesus family, especially his mom, thought he was nuts. Did Mary and Joe forget that before Jesus was born they were visited by an Angel telling them their kid would be God????? What did they expect him to do sell insurance?! Oh how soon we forget.

Vinnie

""""""I don't really understand why Jesus family, especially his mom, thought he was nuts. Did Mary and Joe forget that before Jesus was born they were visited by an Angel telling them their kid would be God????? What did they expect him to do sell insurance?! Oh how soon we forget.""""""

Because there was no virgin birth IMO. As I mentioned above, there is a parallelism in the Lukan infancy narrative. The message is clear: Jesus is superior to JBap.

Abrief rundown of the paralleles:

1. The angelic pronouncement:

a. John is born as a miracle to aged parents beyond the years of birth.

a. Jesus is born of a virgin!

b. The angel Gabriel says John will be great before the Lord.

b. The angel says Jesus will be great and called Son of the most high.

In the words of Crossan, "The point of the parallelism is already clearr. It is intended to exalt Jesus, born of a virgin mother, transcendentally above John, born of infertile and aged parents." p7 Jesus: Rev Bio

2. publicised birth of each child:

a. John is told first but rather succintly. Compare 1:57-58 with 2:7-14

b. When JBap is born "neighbors and relatives rejoice" but when Jesus is born there is "a multitude of the heavenly host, paraiseing God"

3. Circumcison

a. The only aspect of 3 that might emphasize primacy is Jesus being named by an angel before birth but John being chosen after by his father. Thats iffy though. But the parallelism is here. It relays the circumcision of both children.

4. Public presentation and prophecy of destiny for each child

a. John occurs in his home and the reports go out through neighbors to the surrounding hill country. The prophecy is actually more abot Jesus than John (1:65-17)

a. The public presentation of Jesus is in the temple! The report goes out to all who "were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem". Jesus' prophecy was also ggiven by both Simeon and Anna and focuses exclusively on Jesus (2:21-38).

5. Description of the childs growth.

a. John grew and became strong in spirit and was in the wilderness until he appeared publically to Israel.

a. Jesus grew anjd bacame strong, was filled with wisdom and the favor of God was on him. At age 12 Jesus was found in the temple amazing all those who heard his answers. John is hidden in the wilderness but Jesus is already astounding people at twelve years of age.

I drew and adapted that from Crossan's Jesus A Revolutionary Biography. In conclusion, Crossan says, "Luke, in that double infancy story sends two powerful messages to hearer or reader: John is the condensation and consumation of his people's past, but Jesus is far, far greater than John.

There is also another funky incident like this in the gospels. If we accept Jesus was baptized by JBap and at the start of his ministry what do we make of John's words? John says that Jesus should baptize him and that he is not fit to untie Jesus sandals or something. Later on john sends a message from jail (IIRC) asking if Jesus reallly was the Messiah.

Going back to the birth narrative:

Vinnie

HelenM

Vinnie, you're quoting Crossan? Wow, you sure are liberal!

Anyway, I think one could argue forever over whether Jesus' words and behavior in a given situation were appropriate or inappropriate.

It's axiomatic to Bible-believing Christians [believers in inerrancy, that is] that they were perfectly appropriate...

So they will always find a way to say that they were.

It's interesting to me that whatever objections are raised today, against Jesus' sinlessness: either a) they must have not been seen by the authors of the NT, as proving that Jesus was not sinless or b) the authors didn't think he was sinless. (But the author of Hebrews did, at least...)

I don't know how much this is a reflection on cultural changes in how we talk to one another. I think that's probably part of it, at least.

love
Helen

Vinnie

I agree that this has nothing to do with hating your family. The cartoon is littered with sloppy exegesis. Jesus teaches us to love our enemies but to literally hate those closest to us? He teaches us to love thy neighbor as thyself but to literally hate ones own parents? 'Honor thy father and mother' is probably a theme found in his statements concerning Corban yet he advocates the hating of one's own parents? It makes little sense in my mind. As far as hating ones family goes in the cartoon it is often argued that in Biblical idiom, to hate can mean to love less. See Deut 21:15 or Mal 1:3 for example. Also compare Luke 14:46 which says to hate ones family with the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37 which says (paraphrased) He who loves his family more than me is not worthy of me." I think it can be seen as an idiom for "love less" or similarly as a vivid hyperbole. Its emphasis seem to be on the priority of the kingdom of God in a persons life.

A lot of Christians would point to 1 Tim 5:8 which says that if a person does not take care of his family he has renounced the faith and is worse than an internet infidel. I usually refrain from using such a verse as I don't like the camparison being made to you heathen unbelievers But as for the teaching on taking care of one's family, I see nothing there that contradicts with the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels.

Vinnie

James Still

Jesus taught to "let the dead bury the dead" and to ignore traditional customs of family and marriage because he was focused on the imminent kingdom of God. Why get married and start a family when the trumpet is just about to sound? "Carry no purse, no knapsack, and no sandals" (Lk 10:4) because "the son of Adam is coming when you least expect it!" (Lk 12:40).

Contrast this teaching -- not just with 1 Timothy's exhortation to care and provide for one's immediate family -- but with the thrust of the whole letter to set up rules for how communities should organize themselves. Of course, there's a reason the Timothies and Titus are called the "Pastoral Epistles." They were probably not written by Paul. (Scholars largely agree that the language is all wrong for Paul; perhaps more damning Marcion doesn't know of them and Tatian denied the authenticity of 1 Timothy outright.) So they were probably written sometime in the late second century. And this makes total sense. By that time, the communities in the Disapora had given up on Jesus' apocryphal message. It was quite clear that the end of the world had not come as Jesus himself anticipated and there was increasingly a need to take a long-term approach to the faith. So I agree that modern Christians who are concerned about "family values" can take solace in 1 Timothy. But they should do so knowing that Jesus himself did not share their concern. Jesus was focused on the imminent kingdom of God and, like John the Baptist before him, operated in a social climate far different from the post-Easter situation that produced the Pastorals.

-DM-

I have the sneaking suspicion that this is based on my mini-essay, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html" target="_blank">Jesus Was a Hypocrite</a>. But it is funny!

--Don--