Chapter 198 of 404

Coherence of the Conflict Tradition

Tom Holmén shows that Jesus’ conflicts appear in every layer of tradition (i.e., they are “multiply attested”), and that they frequently involve the same issues (i.e., they fit the criterion of cohesiveness). He notes that contemporary Judaism emphasized various “covenant markers” (such as sabbath, circumcision, temple, and purity, including kashrut) as signs of loyalty to the covenant.³⁴ He argues that Jesus was not against these practices, but neither did he treat them as path markers or loyalty tests.³⁵

For example, sabbath conflicts appear throughout the traditions about Jesus, hence are multiply attested.³⁶ The later church did not invent these, because its question was not relaxed Jewish observance (as apparently in Jesus’ case) but whether Gentiles needed to observe the sabbath.³⁷ Various layers of gospel tradition also multiply attest Jesus’ conflicts with some of his contemporaries over issues of purity.³⁸ Jesus criticized the temple and its cult, despite their centrality to his contemporaries.³⁹ Jesus’ approach to tithing (Matt 23:23// Lk 11:42 Q; Lk 18:9-14) differed from its emphatic use as a path marker among Pharisees and some others.⁴⁰ Some apparently treated regular fasting as a covenant marker as well, in contrast to Jesus (Mk 2:17-20).⁴¹

We have noted Pharisaic concern with Jesus’ distinctive practice of eating with sinners; they would have seen this behavior as challenging their understanding of path markers.⁴² Holmén notes that “sinners” were not pervasive in Galilee, hence argues that Jesus was deliberately violating his contemporaries’ holiness conventions.⁴³ (While this might be true, I believe that Jesus may have additional reasons for reaching out to even the alienated of Israel,⁴⁴ while he believed that those who rejected his kingdom message and authority would be excluded because they were rejecting the gift of God’s kingdom.) Jesus’ command to love enemies was (in that emphatic form) distinctive,⁴⁵ which might challenge the nationalism implicit in path markers.

Holmén concludes that these covenant markers are so prominent in the stories about Jesus because they were so central to Palestinian Judaism in his day, but the stories consistently portray Jesus refusing to emphasize such features. ⁴⁶ He proposes that Jesus may have shared covenant belief and expected loyalty, but approached them in terms of the internal law of Jer 31:31-34 and Ezek 36:27 rather than path markers,⁴⁷ as suggested by his possible allusion to the new covenant at the last supper.⁴⁸ I am less inclined than Holmén to think that Jesus relaxed the law,⁴⁹ but I think he has firmly established his case that conflict over key issues of the law, emphasized by Jesus’ contemporaries, pervades the traditions about Jesus.

↑ Back to top