Notes to Chapter 3
Notes to Chapter 3
1 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:3.
2 Vermes, Religion, 5.
3 Charlesworth, “Jesus and Theology”; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 11; Levine, “Introduction,” 11. Freyne, “Search,” surveys Jewish, Cynic, and revolutionary pictures of Jesus in the Third Quest. One may also note social approaches (Geyser, “Uitgangspunte”; Stegemann, Malina and Theissen, Setting of Jesus; Aarde, “Methods”) and archaeology (Charlesworth, Archaeology; esp. the articles Charlesworth, “Research and Archaeology”; Freyne, “Archaeology”).
4 Borg, “Reflections,” 27; Bird, “Quest.”
5 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 11, preferring the latter.
6 E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; idem, Figure; idem, “Know,” 57; Kee, “Century of Quests”; Meier, “Project”; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 240-80; Allison, “Eschatological Jesus”; idem, Jesus of Nazareth (esp. 96-171); McGaughy, “Words”; McKnight, Vision; Ehrman, Prophet, 125-39; Wright, “Seminar,” 101-7; Broadhead, “Priests,” 140; Pikaza, “Jesús histórico”; cf. Pearson, “Exposé.”
7 So Holmén, “Introduction,” 4, 8; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 133; Meier, “Present State”; Bird, “Quest”; De Rosa, “Chi è Gesù”; McKnight, Death, 44. Cf. earlier discussion in Keck, History, 22- 64; Sanders’ praise of Vermes and Paula Fredriksen for their emphasis on Jesus’ Jewishness (Sanders, “Quest”).
8 Vermes, Religion, 6.
9 Holmén, “Introduction,” 4, 8; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 133; Bird, “Quest”; for some examples, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, passim; Levine, Misunderstood Jew; Evans, “Context”; Tomson, “Jesus and Judaism,” 25-40; Lüdemann, Two Thousand Years, 4; Wright, “Seminar,” 108-10; Bock and Herrick, Jesus in Context. The Third Quest does usually also acknowledge diversity within Judaism (cf. Gisel, “Jésus historique”).
10 Even this is a generalization of sorts. For example, Wright’s treatment of the resurrection gives significant attention to detail.
11 One ancient writer avoided writing about speakers who were his friends, lest he be accused of bias (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.628). Sanders’ work is too important to avoid discussing, and I am reticent to think that students should avoid mentioning their teachers. Nevertheless, I try to balance a student’s respect with an observer’s critique, in the hopes of minimizing my bias.
12 Cf. this concern e.g., in Borg, Vision, 12-14.
13
Conflict, 13. Borg is right to raise the question of definition; Borg’s own approach does not completely negate Jesus’ concern for the future (such as an imminent danger to Israel) per se.
14
Conflict, 27-49.
15
Conflict, 51-72. This point may be less clear, although it is true that an oppressed group often emphasizes features that reinforce their self-definition as over against oppressors.
16 E.g., Conflict, 236.
17
Conflict, 237-38. He compares sages in various cultures. See also Borg, Vision, 97-124.
18
Conflict, 198, 234-37. See also Borg, Vision, 150-71; on Jesus as charismatic, see further ibid., 39-56; idem, “Experience.”
19 Borg recognizes in Vision, 142-43 n. 2 that he and Sanders share this perspective.
20
Conflict, 70. Horsley, “Movements,” views the earliest Jesus movements (in Mark and Q) as also seeking the renewal of Israel.
21
Conflict, 198. Borg envisions this as a crisis within history (201-77; also idem, Vision, 162-63). Certainly historical crisis did materialize (exemplified esp. in the temple’s destruction).
22
Conflict, 232 (like Jeremias, emphasizing “Abba”).
23
Conflict, 232-33.
24
Conflict, 173; cf. idem, Vision, 174-76. Although not addressing here the problem that Sanders raises about the new temple, Borg notes that the temple charge (Mk 14:58) “is always attributed to opponents” in the tradition (Conflict, 180).
25 E.g., Conflict, 73-121. One may contrast Sanders’ approach below.
26
Conflict, 143, 162. One may contrast Vermes’ skepticism that Jesus as a charismatic sage focused much on Torah disputes.
27
Conflict, 123-43. He appears to weigh too much on the use of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13; 12:7, though he recognizes these texts as Matthean redaction (Conflict, 124). In Vision, 129-41, he prefers the language of “compassion.”
28
Conflict, 145-62.
29
Conflict, 163-99.
30
Conflict, 100-1. One could construe Matt 23:23//Lk 11:42 as requiring something in addition to tithes rather than critiquing tithes, but Jesus does critique a “superscrupulous,” hyperbolic Pharisee here, perhaps poking fun at Pharisaic academic attention to details.
31
Conflict, 244-45.
32
Conflict, 247.
33 E.g., the dismissal of sayings failing only the criterion of coherence (Conflict, 16); the negative use of dissimilarity (20-23). He points out the inconsistency of scholars who fail to follow their own criteria to their logical conclusions (22).
34 E.g., Borg, Conflict, 3, 17-20, 28-49.
35 E.g., Conflict, 76-78.
36 He argues for a non-eschatological Jesus in Borg, Jesus in Scholarship, 47-68. For one persuasive eschatological response to Borg, see Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 96-122.
37 Borg, “Disagreement,” 240-41, arguing that because N. T. Wright reduces eschatology to Christology, they may not differ so much about eschatology. Others complain about Wright’s excessive realization (or demythologization?) of eschatology (Eddy, “(W)Right Jesus,” 59-60; Allison, “Victory of Apocalyptic,” 140-41). (Wright, however, affirms future bodily resurrection, as Borg himself recognizes [“Disagreement,” 230].)
38 For most of Jesus’ future message relating to a crisis within history, see Conflict, 201-27.
39
Conflict, 220; in Borg, Jesus in Scholarship, 60, he notes that over half of the scholars surveyed (i.e., eleven versus ten) doubted that Jesus expected imminent end in his lifetime. He does recognize Jesus as an “eschatological prophet” as the prior consensus (Vision, 11-14), though noting that it has been eroded by doubt that Jesus spoke “coming Son of man” sayings (14). Cf. again the warning in Poirier, “Consensus,” that scholars use “consensus” as a rhetorical substitute for an argument.
40 Borg, Jesus in Scholarship, 18-43, surveys contemporary Jesus scholarship, arguing that only Sanders (19-21) holds to an eschatological Jesus. But Borg’s approach is highly selective in whom he covers (Mack, Fiorenza, Borg himself, and Horsley; he summarizes Horsley’s approach [29] as translating the function of apocalyptic into addressing oppression, hence translating eschatology into anti-imperialism). He argues that only a minority of active North American scholars now view Jesus as eschatological (Borg, “Reflections,” 20-21), but this would probably be true only if one counts only those “active” in the Jesus Seminar. Patterson, God of Jesus, 170-71, also claims that the eschatological consensus has collapsed (true if by consensus we mean near-unanimity; but not all clear if we refer to a strong majority of detailed historical Jesus scholarship).
41 E.g., 4 Ezra 7:74; later, Lev. Rab. 15:1.
42 E.g., Jub. 23:26-27 (probably); Test. Dan. 6:4; later Sipre Deut. 43.16.3; R. Judah in b. B.B. 10a. For a plausible combination of the two approaches, see Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.3. For various views side by side, see b. Sanh. 97a-98b.
43 See 1QS 9.17-18; m. Ab. 3:15 (according to the usual interpretation); Sipre Deut. 312.1.1-2; 319.3.1; cf. the discussion in Jos. Ant. 13.171-73; War 2.162-65.
44 This is certainly the idea of others in Mk 11:10; 15:43. We will address the kingdom in ch. 14.
45 Nearly all scholars accept the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians; scholars divide on 2 Thessalonians, though most accept at least Pauline tradition. I deal with the more controversial question of the dating of 2 Thessalonians later, in appendix 4.
46 For parallels, see again appendix 4.
47 Borg, Conflict, 73, 230-31, 305, 373. I will make more of the cross-cultural approach in my following book on the plausibility of eyewitness claims in historical miracle reports.
48 Borg, Conflict, 253.
49
Conflict, 257.
50
Conflict, 260-61.
51 Cf. Conflict, 258-59.
52 Vermes has authored several important works, including Jesus the Jew; Religion; Jesus and Judaism; for a briefer summary, see Vermes, “Jesus the Jew.”
53
Jesus and Judaism, 37.
54 Cf. e.g., Jesus the Jew, 58-80; idem, Religion, 70-74.
55
Jesus and Judaism, 30; idem, Religion, 46.
56
Religion, 8-9.
57
Jesus the Jew, 55-57.
58
Jesus and Judaism, 31.
59
Religion, 11-45.
60 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 80-82.
61
Religion, ix-x.
62
Jesus the Jew, 36.
63
Jesus the Jew, 36.
64 Keener, John, 852, 1073.
65 For summaries of this consensus, see Blackburn, “Miracles,” 362; Eve, Miracles, 16-17; Welch, “Miracles,” 360; for examples, see Betz, Jesus, 58-60; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11; Smith, Magician, 16; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:617-45, 678-772; Brown, Death, 143-44; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 281-315; Twelftree, Miracle Worker. Ehrman, Prophet, 197-200, notes that scholars can accept Jesus as an exorcist and healer without passing judgment on whether he acted supernaturally.
66 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 5. Horsley, Galilee, 152-55, suspects Galileans’ loyalty to Torah.
67 Most of the fairly rare reports of rabbinic miracles, probably fitting the predominantly halachic character of rabbinic literature, are “rule miracles,” i.e., signs to demonstrate the truth of one’s legal teaching (Theissen, Miracle Stories, 106-12).
68 Thus Eve contends that, against Vermes, it is not clear that Honi represents a class of people beyond himself (Eve, Miracles, 274).
69 Cf. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 5; note also Hengel, Leader.
70 Blackburn, “Miracles,” 378.
71 Blackburn, “Miracles,” 378-79.
72 Eve, Miracles, 285. None involved exorcism (Eve, Miracles, 294).
73 Jos. Ant. 14.22. Cf. Eve, Miracles, 277-78, arguing that Josephus’ focus is not on this but on his role in the war (Josephus’ focus).
74 The only Tannaitic account is m. Ta?an. 3:8 (Eve, Miracles, 274-75), and Eve notes (Eve, Miracles, 275-77) that W. Scott Green and Jacob Neusner both deny reliable information even there.
75 Eve, Miracles, 281, notes that this date is uncertain (on 282 conceding, however, that he was probably from the Second Temple period). Amoraic traditions place him in the first century (see Eve, Miracles, 287-88).
76 Eve, Miracles, 280-81, cites m. Ber. 5:5; Sot. 9:15 (= tos. Sot. 15:5); Ab. 3:10-11; tos. Ber. 3:20; Mek. on Ex 18:21.
77 Eve, Miracles, 282-83 (four centuries, on the Bavli); Blackburn, “Miracles,” 378 (three centuries, on the Yerushalmi).
78 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 307-8; Blackburn, “Miracles,” 379 (who notes that Jesus rarely is said to pray before working a miracle); Eve, Miracles, 377-78.
79 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 89; idem, Jesus and Judaism, 6, 10, 27-28; cf. Eve, Miracles, 377.
80
Jesus the Jew, 90.
81 For Elijah and Elisha as examples of healing miracles in Josephus, see Betz, “Miracles in Josephus,” 219-20; as models among signs-sages, see Galley, “Heilige.”
82 With Cohen, Maccabees, 200. Eve, Miracles, 385, argues that the only miracle directly attributed to Isaiah in the account was the shadow going up; but Isaiah does play a role in the healing here.
83 E.g., Sir 48:13; Liv. Pr. 2:3 (on Jeremiah, in OTP 2:386-87; Schermann, 81-82, §25).
84
Jesus the Jew, 95; cf. 94-99.
85 For one survey, see Teeple, Prophet, 4-8.
86 Aune, Prophecy, 124-25; cf. Brown, John, 1:47. This is relevant even if rabbinic evidence for Elijah’s role as forerunner (e.g., b. Erub. 43ab, bar.) is later (as contended by Faierstein, “Elijah” [see especially 86]; Fitzmyer, “Elijah”; contrast Allison, “Elijah”).
87 Among those who never died (Enoch, Moses, “and possibly Ezra, Baruch, and Jeremiah”; Longenecker, Christology, 33).
88 See the survey of material in Keener, John, 434-36.
89
Sipre Deut. 41.4.3; 342.5.2; b. Men. 63a; at the redemption of the new exodus in Ex. Rab. 3:4; he would punish the Gentiles in Gen. Rab. 71:9; involved in the resurrection in m. Sot. 9:15; p. Sheq. 3:3. Ford, Revelation, 179, cites also Pirke R. Eliezer 43, 47; Eliyyahu Rabba 25ff.
90 E.g., the figures in b. Suk. 52b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Song Rab. 8:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15. (One may compare the priest anointed for war — and perhaps the two messiahs — in these texts with earlier Qumran expectation; see the chapter on christology above.) In late texts of varying date and opinion he is associated with the Messiah (Lev. Rab. 34:8; Deut. Rab. 6:7; Song Rab. 2:13, §4), preceding him (b. Erub. 43b; Pesiq. Rab. 35:4); coming with him (Ex. Rab. 18:12); knowing something about the time of his coming (b. B.M. 85b); he is also protective of his coming reign (Gen. Rab. 83:4); or Elijah is Phinehas the high priest (Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Ex 6:18; cf. L.A.B. 48:1). Elijah would also exercise an eschatological halakhic role (mainly in later texts, e.g., b. Ber. 35b; B.B. 94b; B.M. 3a, 30a; Men. 45a, bar.), especially (in line with the rabbinic interpretation of Malachi) in determining proper lines of descent (Israelites vs. proselytes, etc.; m. Ed. 8:7; tos. Ed. 3:4; cf. Song Rab. 4:12, §5). Although the bulk of this evidence derives from the more numerous Amoraic texts, some of it is also Tannaitic (e.g., m. Ed. 8:7; Sot. 9:15).
91 See Aune, Prophecy, 124-25; Ford, Revelation, 179; 4Q375 frg. 1, 1.1-4.
92
Jesus and Judaism, 123-56, 222-37.
93
Jesus and Judaism, 143.
94
Jesus and Judaism, 157-73.
95
Jesus and Judaism, 172, 238-40. Against Smith’s view, see e.g., Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 305-7 (protesting the distinction between Jesus’ Galilean milieu and magical papyri). Neusner, in “Foreword,” xxvii, and idem, New Testament, 5, 173, offers perhaps the harshest critique of Smith’s magical thesis.
96
Ant. 20.97, 170.
97 Josh 3:16-17; 6:20; Jos. Ant. 5.18, 27; cf. Ex 14:21.
98
Jesus and Judaism, 234.
99
Jesus and Judaism, 10-11. For the narrative tradition grounding early Christians historically, cf. Schröter, “Anfänge.” Koester, “Cult,” appears to go too far, in suggesting that the historical Jesus is not recoverable by studying his sayings, but rather through studying early Christian cult.
100
Jesus and Judaism, 61-76.
101
Jesus and Judaism, 77-90.
102
Jesus and Judaism, 91-119.
103 See e.g., Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 141-51; McKnight, Vision; Freyne, “Servant Community,” 109-13.
104 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 91-94; idem, “Know,” 57. For John, cf. also Schweitzer, Quest, 240; Ehrman, Prophet, 185.
105
Jesus and Judaism, 95-106.
106
Jesus and Judaism, 174-211.
107
Jesus and Judaism, 210; for his view on Jesus and repentance, see 106-13. On this point I think that Borg has the stronger case from the Jesus tradition (Vision, 163-65).
108
Jesus and Judaism, 245-69. 109. Jesus and Judaism, 270-318.
110 I do this partly to guard against my own potential bias, though it is rightly said that a disciple is not greater than the teacher (Matt 10:24-25; cf. Jn 13:16), a point that would certainly be true in this case with or without textual support.
111
Jesus and Judaism, 65 (concluding that he attacks neither).
112
Jesus and Judaism, 141-42.
113
Jesus and Judaism, 150.
114
Jesus and Judaism, 148-50.
115
Jesus and Judaism, 140. He obliterates some of the circular arguments for Matt 12:28//Lk 11:20 referring to the kingdom as present (133-37), although it is not clear that the verb cannot involve the present; it at least may suggest that the kingdom was expected imminently enough so as to affect the present.
116
Jesus and Judaism, 138. His question of what made Jesus’ movement “uniquely successful” in contrast to the other movements (138; cf. 240) might be answered at least in large measure by the unique resurrection claim concerning him (which we address in ch. 22).
117
Jesus and Judaism, 111. His contrast of Jesus’ teaching on judgment with that of contemporary Jewish expectation (Jesus and Judaism, 116-18) similarly argues too much from the tradition’s silence (especially after constricting the gospel tradition’s evidence too narrowly).
118
Jesus and Judaism, 92-93.
119
Jesus and Judaism, 113. Jesus’ wording is conformed to John’s most clearly in Matt 4:17 (cf. 3:2), but if one accepts Markan priority, it is actually John’s wording that Matthew conforms to Jesus’ here (cf. Mk 1:4, 15).
120
Jesus and Judaism, 203.
121
Jesus and Judaism, 67. Cf. Jn 5:14; possible tradition in Jn 8:11. Jesus appears supportive of the temple cult in Mk 1:44.
122
Jesus and Judaism, 206.
123
Jesus and Judaism, 207, dismisses the relevance of Mk 1:44, which involves impurity rather than repentance.
124
Jesus and Judaism, 252-55.
125
Jesus and Judaism, 206-7; idem, Figure, 230.
126 This is true even in the special Lukan material that might sound closest to it (Lk 3:11-14, demanding radical obedience, but not restitution).
127
Jesus and Judaism, 139-40.
128
Figure, 94.
129
Figure, 230-33. He does show the extent to which it is a Lukan emphasis; but Luke draws the idea from “Q,” and the same appeal to word statistics would readily minimize the centrality of “love” for Jesus’ teaching.
130
Jesus and Judaism, 270-93; idem, Jesus to Mishnah, 95-96. Invoking Schweitzer, Sanders rightly criticizes scholarship that too easily produces a Jesus that “agrees with their own version of Christianity” (Jesus and Judaism, 330). While an irenical motivation is much wiser than a polemical one, as historians we also struggle to be vigilant against it producing a tendentious lens through which we view historical data. (History produces negative examples as warnings as well as positive ones as models.) Still, Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 94, recognizes that Jesus’ movement experienced persecution.
131 See especially Jesus and Judaism, 294-318.
132 See especially Holmén, Covenant Thinking.
133 Unless we excise it as redactional, based purely on the presupposition that realized and future eschatology must have been incompatible for late first-century Christians, in contrast to Paul several decades earlier. This presupposition conflicts with our other early Christian evidence; I discuss this question in Keener, John, 320-23.
134 Although Josephus, writing for a Gentile audience, is naturally coy about future eschatology (if he himself embraced it), his figures evoking Moses would speak of figures who appeared eschatological in early Judaism, even though we cannot be certain how many who expected such deliverance allowed that it might come in stages, rather than God’s future kingdom being consummated at once.