Chapter 336 of 404

Notes to Chapter 2

1 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 421.

2 Mack, Myth, 68. He offers further Cynic comparisons on 67-69 (though not identifying Jesus’ teaching completely with “a Greek philosophical ethic,” he believes such influence was natural “at the end of the Hellenistic age” (69). Cf. also Lost Gospel, 203: “. . . its nearest analogy in contemporary profiles of the Cynic-sage. This is as close to the historical Jesus as Q allows us to get, but it is close enough for us to reconstruct a beginning of the movement that is both plausible and understandable.”

3 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:3. I should note that Funk has offered serious scholarship; it is his output associated with the Jesus Seminar to which Meier objects here.

4 As Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 75, aptly calls it. For a view from within the Seminar, also responding to criticisms, see Miller, Jesus Seminar. While most view the Jesus Seminar as the more skeptical fringe of Jesus scholarship, there are some even more skeptical voices who view the Seminar as too conservative (Price, “Database”).

5 A frequent complaint (e.g., Wright, “Seminar,” 108-10; against Crossan, see Cromhout, “Construct”).

6 This is a generalization, since the Jesus Seminar includes a range of scholars, including some we treat or cite separately elsewhere in this book (and even one of my esteemed former professors). Nevertheless, the dominant majority (who control the vote, hence the outcome) are accused of tending in this direction. For some comments on diversity within the group and ambiguities in evaluating the votes, see e.g., the discussion by Witherington, Quest, 45-46.

7 Funk et al., Gospels, 4; see similar statements about their target cited in Witherington, Quest, 44. In other settings Funk admits that the Seminar’s reconstructions are fictive, but regards their fiction as socially preferable to the canonical Gospels and their popular understanding (Johnson, Real Jesus, 6-9).

8 See Funk et al., Gospels, 35.

9 Its effect, in any case, as suggested also in Funk et al., Gospels, 36. Okoye, “Seminar,” concludes that it is legitimate for the Jesus Seminar to market itself provided that it is clear for whom it speaks (a problem; see discussion below).

10 Witherington, Quest, 45-46; see Funk et al., Gospels, 257. They contend that 82% of Jesus’ words portrayed in the Gospels are inauthentic (Funk et al., Gospels, 5), and 84% of his deeds (Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 1).

11 Johnson, Real Jesus, 2; more harshly, Johnson, “Quest,” 22: “This is not responsible, or even critical scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade.” Others also have criticized the Jesus Seminar as a radical fringe of NT scholarship (e.g., Craig, “Jesus Seminar”).

12 Johnson, Real Jesus, 3. For listings of scholars participating, along with the sources of their degrees, see Funk et al., Gospels, 533-37; idem, Acts of Jesus, 537-42; most are NT specialists, but some are not.

13 Wink, “Write,” 9.

14 Johnson, Real Jesus, 5 (noting more explicitly this statement of the Seminar’s methodology on 24).

15 Johnson, Real Jesus, 4-5, 9-20.

16 Most of us would agree that Jesus’ sayings and parables are often short, shocking, humorous, and so forth; the problem is excluding the reliability of any other sayings, as if any sage spoke only in such ways (cf. Funk et al., Gospels, 31; cf. idem, Acts of Jesus, 9). Likewise, I would agree that such sayings were most memorable (cf. Funk et al., Gospels, 28) — though again not that nothing else would be remembered about him or his teaching. I would readily agree that the Gospels relocate sayings to different contexts (cf. Funk et al., Gospels, 19), but I would not allow as much free invention as they do.

17 See e.g., Funk et al., Gospels, xviii, claiming that this version is free from the biases that plague “other major translations into English,” which reflect “ecclesiastical and religious control.” Should one assume that those who worked on, say, the NRSV, were not scholars or that most of the translators were biased? At the least, this claim (which sounds ad hominem) is poorly worded.

18 Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 1.

19 As Raymond Brown noted in his back cover endorsement of one 1995 survey of Jesus scholarship (Witherington, Quest), in what may have been a backhanded criticism of the Seminar and its kin, the work “should help dispel the confusion created by media publicity as to where the majority of scholars stand on the relation of Jesus to the Gospel portraits of him.”

20 For some scholars complaining about the Seminar’s starting bias in rejecting Jesus’ eschatological outlook, see e.g., Pearson, “Exposé”; Kee, “Century of Quests.”

21 Johnson, Real Jesus, 41. Even Koester allows that Jesus’ message probably contained eschatological elements (see Koester, “Victim”).

22 Wink, “Write,” 9.

23 E.g., Kee, “Century of Quests”; cf. Stanton, “Message,” 65. This is not to claim that the Jesus Seminar deliberately made Jesus “comfortable”; they themselves quite clearly warn, “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you” (Funk et al., Gospels, 5).

24 Overman, “Deciphering,” 195.

25 As often noted (e.g., Spencer, Profiles, 258; Schröter, “Historische Jesus”; Evans, “Quest”). See also Meier’s shorter treatment in Meier, “Reflections”; for one consideration of Meier’s hermeneutical approach, see Geyser, “Geskiedenis.”

26 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:177. For contrasts between Meier’s detailed scholarly work and more populist approaches like the Jesus Seminar, see e.g., Meier, “Dividing Lines”; Boswell, “Essay.”

27 Cf. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:177; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 177; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 136.

28 Sanders, Figure, 183 (cf. 95).

29 Johnson, Real Jesus, 25; Sanders, Figure, 183; see our ch. 11. This would remain essentially the case even if the vision of the future deliverance in John and other wilderness prophets involved a radical transformation of the present order rather than a cosmic conflagration or resurrection (for this perspective on John, see e.g., Webb, Baptizer, 301-4, 381).

30 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 237-38.

31 See Kraeling, John the Baptist, 139; cf. ARN 28, §57B.

32 Cf. Acts 19:1-6; some discussions on Jn 1:6-8.

33 In the Gospel tradition, Elijah was the background for John (Mk 1:6 [with 2 Kgs 1:8]; 9:13; cf. Matt 11:14), despite John’s lack of signs; they viewed both as prophets (e.g., Mk 6:4; 11:32).

34 Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 22.

35 The movement may have spread in Judea with an increased Jewish emphasis, but how would later (as opposed to earlier) sources reflecting that emphasis have become property of the Diaspora churches? Portraying Palestinian Jewish features as the earliest makes greater sense, and those who recognize this priority should give much more detailed attention to early Jewish context than the Jesus Seminar’s methodology tends to do.

36 Overman, “Deciphering,” 194.

37 He emphasizes Cynicism as background in Historical Jesus, 72-88, but it is not the book’s pervasive theme.

38 Historical Jesus, 421-22, in his epilogue. Some accuse Crossan of “closet positivism” (Hal Childs in Rollins, “Crossan”), a charge to which he responds in Crossan, “Knowledge.”

39 Historical Jesus, 1-102.

40 For example, while I agree that patronage informs a cultural understanding of Jesus’ context, eastern Mediterranean benefaction did differ in some respects from the specifically Roman model of political patronage when the latter is used in its narrower, technical sense (cf. Joubert, “Exchange”; Harrison, Grace, 15; Gehrke, “Euergetism,” 155).

41 Historical Jesus, 103-226.

42 Historical Jesus, 227-353.

43 Historical Jesus, 354-94.

44 Historical Jesus, 395-416.

45 I intend this as an observation about Crossan’s method, not as a complaint. In a similar manner, in this book I expend considerable space on the Gospels’ genre, and do not explore all the Jesus traditions the way I do in more detailed commentaries.

46 Cf. Malina, Anthropology, 72-73 (defining “peasant” as non-elite, hence 98%); Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, xii, following Sjoberg, Preindustrial City, 110.

47 See e.g., Erdkamp, “Agriculture.”

48 See Bauckham, Climax, 378-83; for the empire more generally, Erdkamp, “Agriculture.” Urban areas depended heavily on the countryside (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 119; MacMullen, Social Relations, 48-56), although some cities like Corinth do not fit this pattern (Engels, Roman Corinth, 27- 33, 131-42).

49 Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 43-46. On Greek farmers, see Osborne, “Farmers”; on Roman farmers, Rathbone, “Farmers.”

50 Grant, Social History, 72. For independent subsistence farmers, despite their relative invisibility, see also Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 75-77. Independent workers earned small wages (e.g., White, “Finances,” 232), and could find extra work only during harvest (Finley, Economy, 107); landowners kept their workforce no larger than necessary to maximize profits (MacMullen, Social Relations, 42). On day laborers’ lack of security, see also Arlandson, Women, 92-98.

51 Lee, “Unrest,” 127, compares them with a sort of rural client (employing the image more loosely than its narrower political sense).

52 Foxhall, “Tenant” (also noting various kinds of tenancy). For tenant farmers’ difficult situation, see also Krause, “Colonatus,” 538-39.

53 See especially Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 43-46; MacMullen, Social Relations, 1-27; Arlandson, Women, 92-98 (esp. 98).

54 Phaedrus 1.15. A modern economic historian in fact argues that “Cato gave his chained slaves more bread than the average peasant in Graeco-Roman Egypt could count on as a regular staple” (Finley, Economy, 107).

55 MacMullen, Social Relations, 13-14.

56 E.g., Apul. Metam. 9.35-37. On class prejudice, see e.g., MacMullen, Social Relations, 138-41. Some landowners might even send their own slaves or tenants to seize the land of those too weak to protect their interests (MacMullen, Social Relations, 7-12; cf. e.g., Philost. Hrk. 4.1-2). The drive was toward consolidating rural resources into increasingly “fewer hands” (MacMullen, Social Relations, 6).

57 Pliny Ep. 9.37.2. (Aristocrats often accumulated land through peasants’ debts; Horsley, Galilee, 215-21.) One solution he considers is to lease the land for a proportion of produce rather than monetary rent (9.37.3). Pliny would reduce rents also after a bad harvest (10.8.5); what is noteworthy to us is how easily he could afford to do so.

58 Pliny Ep. 9.20.2.

59 Pliny Ep. 3.19.6.

60 Pliny Ep. 3.19.7 (insisting that he wants to employ good slaves there who need no chains, since he does not use chained labor).

61 For the deep urban/rural divide in Mediterranean antiquity, cf. MacMullen, Social Relations, 15, 32; we discuss this at greater length later in the book.

62 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.60. For details regarding agriculture in Jewish Palestine, see Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 646-56.

63 Jos. Apion 1.60; Goodman, State, 27; Freyne, Galilee, 144-45; Horsley, Galilee, 189.

64 Jos. War 3.42-44.

65 P. Maas. 2:1; Freyne, Galilee, 246-47; Borg, Conflict, 31-32.

66 Freyne, Galilee, 155, 160. Conditions appear to have been much worse in Egypt; see MacMullen, Social Relations, 13-14; Finley, Economy, 107.

67 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56 (suggesting 1600-2000 inhabitants); more recent estimates are even lower (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193), though these match other Galilean villages (Horsley, Galilee, 193).

68 Indeed, its insignificance invited attempts at biblical justification (such as Matt 2:23; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:274).

69 Though Jn 1:46 might reflect local civic rivalry (Barnett, Reliable, 64), a common issue in antiquity (MacMullen, Social Relations, 58-59).

70 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 164-65.

71 Biblical prophets had depicted prophecies, especially those of the end-time, in agricultural terms (Is 32:13-17; 35:1-2; 44:3-4; Jer 31:28; 51:33; Joel 3:13; Amos 8:1-2; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 150).

72 Agreeing here with Freyne, “Servant Community,” 111, 124.

73 Although “carpenter” was not another term for teacher (pace Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 21-22; Borg, Vision, 39; see p. Hag. 2:1, §8) one could be both; Shammai was reportedly a carpenter (stories even equip him with a carpenter’s measure to beat an unruly Gentile inquirer — cf. b. Shab. 31a). Similarly, Herod trained priests as masons for the temple (Jos. Ant. 15.390, 421).

74 Jos. War 2.68; Ant. 17.289.

75 Cf. Grant, Judaism, 99; Thurman, Disinherited, 18.

76 In view of the correspondence between Lk 4:22 and Matt 13:55, Mark may rework earlier tradition also reflected in Matt 13:55 here.

77 Jewish fathers sought to equip their sons with a trade (Moore, Judaism, 2:127; Safrai, “Education,” 958; carpentry in p. R.H. 1:3, §35; elsewhere in the Mediterranean, MacMullen, Social Relations, 97-98), and most trades were learned by apprenticeship (e.g., Lewis, Life, 135).

78 Cf. Hengel, Property, 26-27; Freyne, Galilee, 241.

79 We discuss both later in the book; but for fishermen, cf. Freyne, Galilee, 241; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 29-30; Hengel, Property, 27. Mark declares that Zebedee’s family employed “hired servants” (Mk 1:20; Hengel, Property, 27).

80 The Greek school year ran from October to June (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 83). While Jesus and his disciples could have traveled more often than that, weather conditions may have limited their travels to some degree. Galilean rains fell on average thirty to fifty days a year, concentrated in the four months from early December to early March, which would make travel during those periods more difficult (though temperatures on the lake in January average between 50 and 65 degrees F; Sanders, Figure, 110).

81 Cf. e.g., Malina, Anthropology, 71; Scott, Parable, 85-86, 92; Oakman, “Peasant,” 117-18.

82 E.g., Oakman, “Peasant,” 120-21.

83 Cf. Vermes, Religion, 6; Witherington, Christology, 75.

84 Cf. Cromhout, “Judean,” objecting that both the “peasant” (Crossan) and “marginal” (Meier) classifications of Jesus obscure his fundamentally “Judean” character.

85 Hengel, Leader, 27-33; Theissen, Sociology, 14-15; cf. Kee, Origins, 68.

86 See Bowers, “Propaganda,” 318-19; Scroggs, “Sociological Interpretation,” 172.

87 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 421-22; idem, “Jewish Cynic.”

88 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 421, viewing Jesus as non-Cynic in this (and some other) respects. The qualifications are, however, in my opinion sufficient to greatly weaken his analogy with Cynics.

89 Among all ancient Cynics named, we know of no exceptions. Hard-working farmers often mistrusted philosophers in general as impractical (Alciph. Farm. 11 [Sitalces to Oenopion, his son], 3.14) and against farming (Alciph. Farm. [Sitalces to Oenopion, his son], 3.14; 38 [Euthydicus to Philiscus], 3.40, ¶3). Stoics could link rustics with the ignorant (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11k, pp. 80-81, lines 12-15), though they also could view urban life as a distraction from philosophy (Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.10- 11).

90 Cf. Fiorenza, Memory, 74; Witherington, Sage, 117-45; Eddy, “Diogenes.”

91 See Overman, Crisis, 67.

92 E.g., Diog. Laert. 2.22.

93 Safrai, “Home,” 762; see also Safrai, “Education,” 965; Sipre Deut. 43.3.7.

94 E.g., Boyd, Sage, 151-58; Eddy, “Diogenes,” 463-67; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 103-19.

95 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 421.

96 Cornfeld, Josephus, 216. More Gentiles may have also moved there, at least after 135 (see Horsley, Galilee, 104). For Christians coming there, cf. e.g., b. A.Z. 17a; Herford, Christianity, 115; Crocker, “Sepphoris.”

97 Jos. Life 346-48; cf. 30, 38, 124, 232. For archaeological and literary data on the city, including claims of a later Christian presence there, see Meyers, Netzer and Meyers, “Ornament”; idem, “Bytmydwt”; Crocker, “Sepphoris”; Weiss and Netzer, “Sty”; cf. Boelter, “Sepphoris.” Still, Josephus may have minimized contrary elements for the sake of his apologetic (Miller, “Josephus on Cities”).

98 E.g., Jos. Life 30, 38, 124, 232, 346-48, 373-74. Its pacifism may have stemmed from its historic devastation in a previous revolt in Jesus’ childhood (Jos. War 2.68).

99 See Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 105; cf. Meyers, “Judaism and Christianity,” 76. Note also careful observation of the Sabbath in the other hellenized city, Tiberias (Jos. Life 275, 279). For Sepphoris as hellenized but genuinely Jewish, see Reed, Archaeology, 100-38; although it was more hellenized than the countryside (Reed, Archaeology, 134-35), “Theories accentuating Greek education or Cynic philosophical schools at Sepphoris are equally implausible” (Reed, Archaeology, 135). On Galilean Jews as fully Jewish, see also Dunn, “Synagogue,” 207-12.

100 Chancey and Meyers, “Sepphoris”; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 114. Cf. also ritual baths there (with Reed, Archaeology, 49; also Eric Meyers in Eshel and Meyers, “Pools,” though Eshel was more skeptical).

101 M. Kid. 4:5, implying that Galilean records had been kept there.

102 P. Sanh. 5:1, §3. Rabbis also attest the presence of later followers of Jesus in Sepphoris (b. A.Z. 17a; cf. Herford, Christianity, 115).

103 Goodman, State, 27, 60. Though Sepphoris’s theater seated 4000-5000 (Freyne, Galilee, 138), that would not seat all the adults of Sepphoris, much less rural “tourists” (Horsley, Galilee, 250-51). The limited trade connections (for agriculture, cooking ware and storage containers, see Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Trade”) do not suggest a religiocultural continuum (see Freyne, “Ethos”; Horsley, Galilee, 250-51).

104 That one of the priestly courses reportedly settled here after 70 CE indicates “that the remnants of temple Judaism found Nazareth ‘clean’ and unsullied by paganism” (Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 27), though for questions on the tradition see Trifon, “Msmrwt.” Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 72 (citing p. Ber. 7c; b. Ber. 34b), thinks that Johanan ben Zakkai settled not far from Nazareth before 70 CE. On ancient Israelite pottery before resettlement in the hellenistic period, see Horsley, Galilee, 193; on the proper Hebrew form of the name, see Rüger, “NAZARETH.”

105 Miller, “City.”

106 Reed, Archaeology, 138, suggests that especially his caution regarding Antipas kept him from Sepphoris.

107 Reed, Archaeology, 98-99.

108 Horsley, Galilee, 177; for relevant estimates of Sepphoris’s population, see Horsley, Galilee, 166. Sepphoris was probably Roman Galilee’s most critical market center (Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Trade”).

109 Jos. Life 373-75, 382-84, 392.

110 E.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.121.

111 See Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse,” passim (= also Malherbe, Philosophers, 35-48). Many disdained the harsh, uncompromising “hard Cynics” while respecting the more tolerant “soft Cynics” (see Moles, “Cynics,” 418; Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse,” 210, 214; Malherbe, Philosophers, 20-22, 71-72). Malherbe, Philosophers, 14, points out that the Cynic materials themselves display this division.

112 Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, pp. 98-99.24-28 (also n. 222 on pp. 127-28, citing esp. Cic. Fin. 3.68; Apollodorus Ephillus in Diog. Laert. 6.104, 7.121; Epict. Diatr. 3.22). Embarrassed by their Cynic roots, Stoics had moved away from them in many respects (Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 76); but first-century Stoics like Seneca and Epictetus celebrated the Cynic model of simplicity, which regained popularity in the first two centuries BCE and first century CE (Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 78; cf. Epict. Diatr. 2.22; 4.8.30-32).

113 For comparison of Cynics to dogs, see e.g., Cereidas frg. 1; Mart. Epig. 4.53.5; Lucian Phil. Sale 7, 10; Runaways 16; Peregrinus 2; Diog. Laert. 6.2.40, 45-46, 60, 77; Athen. Deipn. 13.611bc; Gr. Anth. 7.63-68, 115 (perhaps also 116); Philo Plant. 151; more positively, Dio Chrys. Or. 32.62; Paus. 2.2.4; Crates Ep. 16; Diogenes Ep. 2, 7; Lucian Dial. D. 329, 1 (1) Diogenes 1; 425, 2 (22) Charon and Menippus 3; Dial. D. 336, 3 (2) The Dead to Pluto against Menippus 1; 420, 4 (21) Menippus and Cerberus 1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.31-33.

114 Dio Chrys. Or. 8.36 (cf. insanity accusations in 9.8; 12.8; 34.2, 4); dogs were associated with indecent acts (Plut. Exile 7, Mor. 601DE; p. Taan. 1:6, §8).

115 See e.g., Philod. Crit. frg. 52.2-3; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 95.31; 103.2; Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.27-29; 14, p. 92.21-22; Epict. Diatr. 2.9.3, 5; 4.1.127; 4.5.21; Diog. Ep. 28; Marc. Aur. 3.16; 4.16, 28; Porph. Marc. 29.463-65; 1 Cor 15:32; 2 Pet 2:12.

116 Thus when Demonax was not Cynic enough to please the Cynics, one accused him of being insufficiently “doggish,” to which he responded that his interlocutor was insufficiently human (Lucian Dem. 21). When a Stoic kept a rich woman’s dog and it wetted him, people mocked him as a Cynic, a dog (Lucian Posts 34).

117 E.g., Lucian Dem. 48; Indictment 7, 11; Dead/Fisherman passim, e.g., 15, 37, 42.

118 Lucian Runaways 17, 20; Dial. D. 374 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 10); Hermot. 9, 18; Peregr. 13; Tim. 54-57; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 42; cf. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse,” 216; for the same charge against religious charlatans, e.g., Soph. Antig. 1061; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.41; against other public figures, see e.g., Lysias Or. 28.3, §179; Aeschines Ctes. 218.

119 Lucian Indictment 6; Runaways 12.

120 E.g., Lucian Dem. 61.

121 Lucian Runaways 15.

122 Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 13, 24-25; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 45-46; cf. Montiglio, “Wandering philosophers.”

123 On harsh Cynics, cf. Pliny N.H. 7.19.79; Lucian Runaways 19, 27. On such Cynics as demagogues, see Lucian Dem. 61.

124 Peregr. 3, 18; Runaways 14; Phil. Sale 10. One wept and tore (gently) at his hair, to stir emotion (Peregr. 6).

125 Peregr. 3, 5; Runaways 14, 27; cf. Icar. 31.

126 Peregr. 31. One imagines that some hearers’ motives for listening resembled those of some watchers of horror movies or graphic violence today: the cheap thrill of an adrenaline rush that does not risk one’s safety.

127 Lucian Fisherman 44. Pliny complains that a severe Cynic like Diogenes lacked normal human feeling (N.H. 7.19.79).

128 More positively, they were known for frank speech; see Vaage, “Barking”; Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse,” 208, 213; Diog. Laert. 6.2.51; 6.5.92. Diogenes probably employed his rude wit effectively, humorously attracting attention (see Bosman, “Selling Cynicism”).

129 Diog. Laert. 6.2.32.

130 Diog. Laert. 6.2.60, 64; he is unafraid of Alexander also in 6.2.68, and Alexander respects him in 6.2.32. Crates also answers Alexander boldly in Diog Laert 6.5.93.

131 Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42.

132 Malherbe, Philosophers, 12, 24. Some Cynics may not have adopted the entire lifestyle; e.g., Demetrius the Cynic sought to defend someone in court (Tac. Hist. 4.40).

133 E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9; Lucian Dem. 5, 7; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16; 4.40; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 26 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 8.4-5, 9-16).

134 See Branham, “Humor.”

135 If the Qumran community consisted of wilderness Essenes (the dominant, though debated, view), they provide an even more extreme example of withdrawal from not only society’s conventions but from proximity to it. Cynics remained a largely urban phenomenon.

136 See Goodman, State, 39.

137 They did exist in antiquity (Collins, Sibylline Oracles, 6; Burkert, Cults, 31).

138 Boring, Sayings, 59-61; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 211-14; pace Harnack; Theissen. Strangely, Gerd Theissen contends that wandering Palestinian charismatics known from the Jesus tradition were Paul’s opponents (noting the contrast with Paul in Theissen, Social Setting, 35-40); yet Paul himself constitutes our best concrete evidence for a literal practice of this lifestyle. Many arguments for continuing itinerant prophets in the Gospels themselves are tenuous (cf. e.g., challenges in Tannehill, Sword, 139-40; Hill, Prophecy, 154; Aune, Prophecy, 211-16, 243; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 105).

139 1 Sam 7:16-17; 2 Kgs 4:8-10; cf. Hengel, Leader, 16-24; Culpepper, School, 227.

140 Crates Ep. 18, 30.

141 On the prohibition of the bag forbidding begging, see also Deissmann, Light, 108-9.

142 Liefeld, “Preacher,” 247; Meeks, Moral World, 107; also of priests of Cybele, e.g., Babrius 141.1-6. Cynics typically wore rough robes (e.g., Epict. Disc. 3.22.10; cf. 4.8.12, 15) and carried only a bag and a staff (Epict. Disc. 3.22.10; Crates Ep. 16, 23, 33; Diogenes Ep. 6, 7, 13, 19, 26, 30, 46; Diog. Laert. 6.1.13; 6.2.22-23, 76; cf. Anacharsis Ep. 5). Many of these references also emphasize that Cynics let their beards grow long, but coins indicate that Palestinian Jews in this period generally already had beards, so this feature of Cynic lifestyle would not be relevant to mention. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 167-79 treats the distinctive cloaks of many philosophers and religious figures and notes that some kinds of philosophers — not just Cynics — traveled with only one.

143 Liefeld, “Preacher,” 260; cf. Overman, Crisis, 146-47; Eddy, “Diogenes,” 461-62.

144 Cf. Matt 5:40//Lk 6:29; Theissen, Sociology, 34-35. This level of deprivation would, however, be more true of rural Egypt than of most of Galilee.

145 1QS 1.11-13; 6.22-23; Jos. Ant. 18.20; War 2.122; Philo Prob. 76; Hypothetica 11.4-5; Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity,” 243; Mealand, “Community of Goods”; cf. Fabry, “Umkehr.”

146 Jos. War 2.124-25. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 215-16, note that Jesus’ instructions are not Cynic, since these Essene “travel rules” are equally close.

147 E.g., 1 Kgs 18:13; 2 Kgs 4:38; 5:15-19; 6:1. Cf. Meeks, Moral World, 106.

148 E.g., Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 215-16; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 172. Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 169-70, n. 65, notes supporters of the Cynic thesis, including Downing, “Context”; idem, “Reflections”; idem, Cynics; and detractors, including Tuckett, “Cynic Q”; Betz, “Jesus and Cynics”; Eddy, “Diogenes”; Witherington; Boyd; Robinson, “Blocks.”

149 Stanton, “Message,” 65.

150 Downing, Church and Jesus, 78-79. He is emphatic that “An abundance of illustrative material does not itself entail a causal connection” (Downing, Church and Jesus, 79; again, 84).

151 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 11.

152 E.g., Hengel, Judaism; Lieberman, Hellenism; Levine, “Beth-She’arim” (esp. p. 311); Meyers and Meyers, “Sepphoris.” For the history of the scholarly dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism (esp. as used for anti-Judaism, but sometimes, as in the biblical theology movement, also in an apologetic for Christianity and Judaism), see Meeks, “Judaism”; Martin, “Dichotomy.”

153 E.g., Feldman, “Hellenism”; connections to the east via a shared Aramaic language in Wasserstein, “Non-Hellenized Jews”; cf. e.g., Philo of Alexandria or Artapanus. Josephus is Judean, but reflects the more hellenized ruling elite (contrast the Qumran scrolls). Alexander, “Hellenism,” 72-79, finds little “hellenization” in rabbinic literature (vs. elsewhere in early Judaism), but defines hellenization narrowly, as educated Greek, with a rhetorical level of education.

154 Magic and monotheism being the largest exceptions, though even these (and esp. the former) often appear with minimal Jewish influence.

155 Mack, Myth, 87 n. 7.

156 Dunn, New Perspective, 62. Cf. the insistence in Segundo, Historical Jesus, 69, that “Jesus was a first-century Jew. No one in their right mind would attempt to comprehend him directly in terms of cultural categories proper to the Greek world, the Far East, or the modern West.”

157 Thus, e.g., even though the version of Q directly behind Matthew and Luke includes both the narrative context and the sayings concerning John the Baptist’s proclamation of a coming judge (which represents an exalted figure, perhaps even divine — see ch. 11), and Mack allows it in Q2 (Lost Gospel, 82), he necessarily omits it for his “early” Q1 (Lost Gospel, 73-80). Wright, People of God, 104 n. 41, correctly provides Mack’s book (Myth) as one “modern example of a hypothesis which constantly dismembers the evidence in the interests of a broad overall scheme.”

158 With whom Mack himself is not in complete methodological agreement (Lost Gospel, 193).

159 Perhaps especially by way of protest oracles, hellenism may have exerted some influence on Jewish eschatological thought (cf. Glasson, Influence, though overstated); Roman yearning for a new golden era in Augustan propaganda may have also contributed (Virg. Ecl. 4.4-25; 8.27-28). Nevertheless, the Egyptian Potter’s Oracle and prior Egyptian and Asian models for apocalyptic suggest that the influence moved more from east to west (cf. also Baker, “Review of Glasson”). In our period, eschatological material would reflect more a definite Jewish than a purely hellenistic milieu.

160 One Cynic sage is from the general region, albeit from a Gentile part of it; we have no Jewish Cynics anywhere in antiquity.

161 Lost Gospel, 46, 114-15.

162 On the more general nature of most alleged “Cynic” parallels, see also e.g., Witherington, Sage, 117-45.

163 Cf. Vermes, Religion, 78-90, comparing Jesus’ teaching style.

164 See e.g., Diog. Laert. passim.

165 Cf. further Young, Theologian, 171-80; Keener, John, 503-4.

166 E.g., Mack, Myth, 57, 87 n. 7; cf. idem, Lost Gospel, 31-32. This dichotomy was a common one in twentieth-century approaches; see Hallbäck, “Apocalyptic.”

167 Lost Gospel, 228.

168 Lost Gospel, 1-2.

169 A contrast for which Mack has predecessors (see Mack, Lost Gospel, 31-33).

170 It is only for those whom one does not expect to survive the judgment that one provides no model of an ideal community; and it is only if one is certain that history cannot continue for more than a few days that one fails to provide an interim ethic or guidance concerning how to live until the end comes. Qumran’s duration of imminent expectation originally may have comprised forty years, trusting that the end would come within that generation (CDB1 2.14-15; cf. 4Q171 frg. 1-2, col. 2.7-8).

171 Collins, “Wisdom”; cf. Harrington, “Wisdom Texts.” Many think that the mantic form of wisdom found there influenced apocalyptic thought (VanderKam, “Mantic Wisdom”). Aune, Prophecy, 113, notes that while most scholars reject wisdom as the source for apocalyptic, both are scribal traditions, weakening the clear boundaries between mantic wisdom and apocalyptic (citing the model of Daniel as interpreter of mysteries). Bedenbender, “Apocalypticism,” argues that apocalyptic in general derives especially from prophetic tradition, and only marginally from mantic wisdom.

172 Witherington, Christology, 243. Burkes, “Wisdom,” even finds elements relevant to apocalyptic in Wisdom of Solomon, but this work is too hellenized for many connections.

173 The fluid categories of ancient charismatic leaders were not always contradictory; logic’s law of noncontradiction only works for genuinely contradictory items.

174 Mack, Lost Gospel, 126.

175 Mack, Myth, 70-73; idem, Lost Gospel, 126.

176 On the kingdom in Jewish teaching, see e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:240-69; Chilton, “Kingdom,” especially 280; cf. Vermes, Religion, 127-30; Neusner, “Kingdom,” acknowledging its subordinate function.

177 Lines that he himself retains as authentic in his Q1 (Lost Gospel, 76). This is not his only inconsistency. For example: like many scholars, he rejects Jesus’ foreknowledge of the cross; nevertheless, he accepts the saying, “Whoever does not accept his cross and so become my follower,” interpreting it only figuratively (Lost Gospel, 79). While some Gentiles did employ this image figuratively (Keener, Matthew, 434 n. 103), if Jesus spoke these words without expecting his execution, we are forced to assume a large coincidence with what in fact happened to him.

178 Bonsirven, Judaism, 133; Jeremias, Prayers, 98; idem, Theology, 21; Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 136; Hill, Matthew, 136-37; Perrin, Language, 28-29; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:595; Luz, Matthew, 371. At least some people probably already used the basic form of the Kaddish in Jesus’ day (cf. Oesterley, Liturgy, 72); it is quite difficult to believe that the Kaddish adapted the Lord’s Prayer instead.

179 Jeremias, Prayers, 98; Oesterley, Liturgy, 73; Bonsirven, Judaism, 133.

180 Lapide, Hebrew, 8.

181 Not limited, by the way, to the Cynics (pace the implication for the unprepared reader in Lost Gospel, 126). See e.g., Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.13; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.122; and other sources cited in our ch. 21.

182 For God’s or his agent’s kingdom, cf. 1QSb 4.26; 5.21; 4Q174 f1 2i.10; 4Q200 f6.5; 4Q246 f1ii.5; 4Q252 5.2, 4; 4Q400 f1ii.1, 3; 4Q400 f2.1; 4Q401 f14.i.7; 4Q403 f1i.25; 4Q403 f1ii.10; 11Q13 2.9.

183 Gnostics, for example, moved in the other direction (cf. Smith, Gnostic Origins). Those of us who date Matthew after Mark can observe a process of re-Judaization (e.g., Matthew’s fairly consistent “kingdom of heaven”), but Matthew can move in this direction because he belongs to a movement that has never lost its Jewishness, and he writes about a genuinely Jewish teacher whom Mark has somewhat (though far from fully) universalized. Sometimes Matthew’s “re-Judaization” may depend on genuine oral tradition (e.g., probably Matt 10:5-6; possibly 15:24) or plausible and possibly correct inference (e.g., Matt 14:1; 27:46, in view of 27:47 [see Keener, Matthew, 13-14, 315, 398 n. 9, 682-84]).

184 Lost Gospel, 220.

185 For family members, cf. e.g., Gen 33:4; Tob 7:6; 10:13; Jub. 22:10-11; 26:21; 31:21; Plut. R.Q. 6, Mor. 265B; Ach. Tat. 1.7.3; it was also extended to close friends (Artem. Oneir. 2.2) and others; see Keener, “Kiss.”

186 Indeed, even in the pagan world the philosophers emphasized an idea much closer to the early Christian notion of conversion than did the eclectic mysteries (see especially Nock, Conversion).

187 Cf. e.g., Burkert, Cults, 101; Nock, Gentile Christianity, 60-62, 133; Wagner, Baptism, 71-72, 102-3; Meeks, Urban Christians, 152-53.

188 Epict. Disc. 2.9.20; probably Juv. Sat. 14.104; Sib. Or. 4.162-65; see also e.g., m. Pes. 8:8; tos. A.Z. 3:11. The debate surrounding the date and influence of Jewish proselyte baptism continues, but I provide further documentation for my position in Keener, John, 442-48 (esp. 444-47); see also Abrahams, Studies, 1:42; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:8; Rowley, “Baptism”; Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 128; idem, Jew, 26; against it, e.g., Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 18-31; Taylor, “Baptism”; Smith, “Baptism,” 13- 32.

189 Josephus notes Essene lustrations (War 2.129), including one when joining the sect (War 2.150). Many have viewed Essene baptism as the background for John’s and early Christian baptism (e.g., Fritsch, Community, 7; Smith, “Baptism”; Brownlee, “Comparison with Sects,” 58; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4; Bertalotto, “Immersion”; Flusser, Sage, 19); others point out that it was merely the first among many lustrations (e.g., Driver, Scrolls, 496-506; Ringgren, Faith, 221; Milik, Discovery, 102-3; Pryke, “John,” 483-96; Simon, Sects, 75).

190 Such cult meals were common in all sorts of ancient associations (cf. e.g., Wilken, “Collegia,” 280-81; Theissen, Social Setting, 131-32; Willis, Meat, 14); the idea of sacramental meals in the Mysteries may have derived in conjunction with later Christian sacramentalism, however — the Mysteries borrowed many features from the rapidly spreading Christian cult in the third and fourth centuries, which are not attested in earlier sources concerning the Mysteries (cf. e.g., Nock, Gentile Christianity, 74; Willis, Meat, 18-46, 62). Despite challenges on numerous points, the most thorough treatment of Jesus’ Last Supper in a paschal context remains Jeremias, Eucharistic Words.

191 Lost Gospel, 256-57.

192 Price, Son of Man, 247.

193 Price, Son of Man, 247.

194 That is not to say that they were absent in Palestine; they probably appear among Gentiles in Caesarea Maritima and Caesarea Philippi, for instance (though our documentation for them is largely much later; see discussion in ch. 22). Yet the Gospels provide no hint that Jesus traveled near the former (in contrast to later believers in Acts), and his time in the latter vicinity appears only once, and there in outlying villages, probably among Jews (Mk 8:27).

195 Future mysteries in Dan 2:18, 19, 22-23, 27-30, 47; 4:9; the mystery involves the kingdom in 2:44-45; Nock, Gentile Christianity, 30; Gibbard, “Mystery,” 109; Caragounis, Mysterion, 126.

196 Cf. e.g., Brown, “Mysterion”; idem, Mystery; Ellis, “Uses,” 208; Ramirez, “Misterio.”

197 We treat proposed mystery parallels more fully in ch. 22.

198 See Ant. 18.116-19.

↑ Back to top