Term Paper Update

Something terrible happened today.

During thanksgiving break I knocked out about 90% of my paper leaving only a little bit of the last section and the conclusion to go. Tonight I opened word to pound out the final part, and was instead greeted with a message from word that the file I was trying to open had either been “moved or deleted.” So essentially, Word didn’t save my paper (even though I have auto-save) and deleted my paper. Gotta love technology.

With the deadline fast approaching, and having lost every word of it and no other copy to go from, other than the research portion (which is huge) I am basically starting from scratch. Already the opening paragraph resembles nothing of the paragraph I wrote last weekend.

So given this huge setback, I’m pretty much faced with the reality that now i’m going to have to sacrifice length for quality, which probably means more work for me because I’m going to have to be less in depth about certain things. When dealing with a topic like this that can be kind of hard. But given the other daunting assignments I have coming up in other classes, I just don’t see myself being able to spit out 18-20 pages on this. I’m gonna have to reduce the length and hope I can make up for it with precision. I guess following the saying ‘less is more’ it’s possible this could end up being a far better paper.

Regardless, I really liked the section on adoption in Roman society that I wrote and am furious that I lost the whole thing.

I am posting this during a writing break. I will not be sleeping tonight, or at the very least will get very little sleep as I stay up to pound out this paper. If I can get the sections on divine humans in the roman world, divine humans in ancient judaism, if and if Jesus thought he was God, tonight…er, this morning, I will feel good. Then I can pull another allnighter tomorrow and do the rest and then skip all my classes Wednesday to sleep for 20 hours.

Ok, back to work. Just a quick update.

–m

Is The Passion Narrative Historical?

When considering the historicity of the passion narrative, several issues must be examined closely to see if they can be verified as being historical. Among these include; the arrest and trial of Jesus, the story of Barabbas, and some specific details about the crucifixion scene.

The focus of this post is to very briefly go over why in my opinion, the passion narrative is mostly literary myth, and not historical. The parallels between the passion narrative in Mark and the Pslams, Isaiah, and even Leviticus ( as we will later see) are too great to be mere coincidences, and as such it is most likely that Mark, as a follower of Jesus constructed his narrative using Old Testament passages to create his narrative.

The Trial of Jesus

This is probably the most unlikely historical event in the entire passion narrative. As Philo notes in The Embassy of Gauis, as a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate frequently executed prisoners without trial.

“This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.” – Gauis 299-305

It was very common for the Romans to squash a political enemy in swift action without any kind of trial. At the time of Jesus’ arrest, anti-Roman sentiments amongst the Jews was widespread and the Romans easily rounded up rebels and executed them. The fact that a dime-a-dozen political rebel would be any different is highly unlikely. As such, it is very likely that Jesus never had a trial.

However, even granting that there was a trial, there is no reason to think that the disciples would be allowed to witness the trial. Jesus’ disciples were peasants, tax collectors, and fisherman who had no political connections and would never have been allowed as spectators. So even if there was a trial, the disciples would not have known the details of it, and the account we get in Mark is certainly literary creation.

Who Is Barabbas?

One of the more interesting stories in Mark’s gospel is the story of Barabbas. According to Mark 16, Pilate confronts the Jewish crowd and asks what they want. They insist that Barabbas the bandit be released and that Jesus be crucified. Pilate objects, stating that he has found no wrong doing by Jesus. Again the crowd demands that Jesus be killed. So Pilate rolls over and hands Jesus over to be crucified, and releases Barabbas, just as the chief priests had demanded.

“Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom.Then he answered them, ‘Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. Pilate spoke to them again, ‘Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?’They shouted back, ‘Crucify him!’ Pilate asked them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they shouted all the more, ‘Crucify him!’ So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.” – Mark 15.6-15

As has been stated above, there is no reason to think that Pilate would have so easily given into the whims of the crowd. As J.D. Crossan notes, in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, “brutal crowd control was Pilate’s specialty.” Indeed, it is very hard to imagine that someone as aggressive as Pilate, one who showed no sensitivities toward the Jews, would simply recoil in fear of the Jews.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no record of such a tradition as releasing a prisoner during the passover festival. Again, Pilate was not one who gave a damn about Jewish sensitivities, and as Crossan notes, even when Philo writes of governors allowing for a postpone in execution, or allowing for the family of the executed to burry the body, it is only when the event occurs on the Emperor’s birthday and is exclusive to Egypt, not Judea.

Now, as far as Barabbas goes, the name Barabbas, means ‘son of the father’ in Aramaic. This is very suspicious since Jesus is also believed to be the son of God the father. All we know about Barabbas is that he was a political bandit and that he was released via a Roman practice that didn’t actually exist.

I would contend that Barabbas is not a historical figure and instead is a literary device used to draw parallels between the passion of Jesus and the Old Testament as allegorical myth. While there is no evidence of a Roman practice releasing prisoners during passover, there is evidence of a Jewish practice involving sacrifice and atonement.

Leviticus 16 contains a practice sometimes referred to as, the scapegoat ritual. In this ritual, two goats are selected, one to be released into the wild, bearing the sins of Israel (such as murder and insurrection), while the other was sacrificed in the temple to atone for the sins of Israel.

That this is almost certainly a case of allegory used by Mark to paint Jesus as the ultimate atonement sacrifice. In Mark’s narrative, Barabbas presents the goat that is released into the wild (the Jewish mob) bearing the sins of Israel, whereas Jesus represents the goat whose blood is shed to atone for those sins.

With that it is the most likely explanation that Barabbas is not a historical person and that the entire story of Barabbas being released is literary myth.

The Crucifixion Scene

Even the crucifixion scene itself is riddled with parallelism and “patchwork assembly.” Two of the most common texts that were quote mined to construct Mark’s crucifixion narrative, were Pslam 22, and Isaiah 53. In many cases these texts were quoted verbatim. This is a clear example of Mark using older, well known texts to create his story. Some will argue that Isaiah is a prophetic text and that the reason the text seems so similar is because Isaiah predicted Jesus. Two problems with this notion; 1) ancient prophetic texts did not predict the future, and 2) even so, Isaiah 53 is a poem or song, not a prophecy.

Getting back to the parallels, Richard Carrier points out in On The Historicity of Jesus, three instances in which Mark clearly copies from Psalm 22.

Example #1

“They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them” –Mark 15.24

Now compare that to Psalm 22.18 which reads:

“They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.” 

Example #2

“All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head saying “He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.” –Psalm 22.7-8

“And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying…’save yourself’…and mocked him, saying “He who saved others cannot save himself.” –Mark 15.29-31

Example #3

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” –Mark 15.34

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” –Psalm 22.1

It is clear as day that Mark heavily utilized Psalm 22, among several other texts to create the crucifixion scene. Again, which is more likely, that someone predicted the future, or that someone took well known texts and used them to patchwork together a story to suite his theological persuasions.

Conclusion

Based on this evidence, the implausibility of the trial, the clear allegory of the Barabbas story, and the quote mining and patch working of the crucifixion scene, it is my opinion that the passion narrative is most likely not historical.

What can be said about the passion narrative can be reduced to the fact that a Jewish man named Jesus was executed by Roman authorities for political insurrection.

Sources

[1] Philo of Alexandria, The Embassy of Caligula 299-305

[2] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

[3] Richard Carrier, On The Historicity of Jesus: Why We May Have Reason for Doubt

–M

Did Jesus Think He Was God?

For my upcoming research paper, one of the questions I will be dealing with, is the issue of whether or not Jesus considered himself to be divine. In this post I will provide a brief overview of the argument I will be using in the paper. Note that this is not the full or even the most thorough version of the text that will appear in the final essay.

First, it is certainly a fact that orthodox Christianity believes that Jesus is divine, and it is certainly a fact that many of Jesus’ earliest followers believed he was divine. Yet neither of those addresses if the historical Jesus believed about himself, or taught to his followers, that he was divine.

If Jesus thought he was divine in any sense it would certainly not have been in the orthodox (or porto-orthodox) sense.

Before we begin to dive further into this question, we must first make a few distinctions between; the messiah, the son of man, and God. There is good evidence to suggest that Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, but not enough convincing evidence that he thought he was God. We must also first establish some background information before moving any further.

To begin with, Jesus was a Jew, and as such he most likely held the Jewish view about who the messiah was, and what the messiah was suppose to be. In Judaism, the messiah was to be a future king of the Davidic line, and rule Israel.

In 2 Samuel, God promises that there will be always be a descendant of David on the throne. However, soon the Babylonians came in and conquered Judea, and there was no longer a Davidic king ruling Israel. Later still, the Greeks invaded Judea, and after that, the Romans took over rule of Judea. The belief then was that God would still someday fulfill his promise to Israel, that one day in the future, there would once again be a king from the Davidic line, on the throne, ruling over Israel. The messiah was supposed to be a warrior king who would drive out the enemies of Israel, and reestablish the Davidic kingdom in Israel. Notice, in that description, nowhere is the word “divine” found. The messiah was not supposed to be God, the messiah was not supposed to be divine, the messiah was not even supposed to be the son of God. The idea that the son of God is the same thing as the messiah is a later Christian development that has nothing to do with the original Jewish expectation.

Naturally then, when Jesus was executed by the Romans, Jews rejected the idea that he was the messiah, precisely because that did not fit the expectation of what the messiah was suppose to be. The messiah was not suppose to lose, and the messiah was not suppose to die. Jesus did not fit the Jewish prototype of what the messiah was, and for that reason Jews, to this day, do not believe that he is the messiah.

To summarize that point: The messiah was not believed to be a divine being, but merely a future ruler of Israel who would drive out the enemies and “resurrect” the Davidic Kingdom. Having established that, the notion that Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, but not God, is not a contradictory statement.

The next question I will attempt to answer, is one that has perplexed the field of New Testament studies for decades, probably a few centuries, and that is; who is the son of man in the New Testament? Many evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians are hellbent on turning to the son of man passages in the New Testament to show that Jesus clearly sees himself as God. As has just been established, the messiah and God are not one in the same. So to can be said about the messiah and the son of man.

If we can be almost certain about anything regarding Jesus, it is that he was an apocalypticist. Apocalypticism was widespread in ancient Judaism, preaching that the end of the world was near. John the Baptizer was an apocalyptic preacher, and Jesus probably got his start as his follower before later breaking off and starting his own movement. At that time, baptizing someone was a sign of mentorship. The fact that Jesus was baptized by John indicates that he was a follower in John’s movement. As Ehrman articulates;

“Jewish apolalypticists, were convinced that God was very soon to intervene in this world of pain and suffering to overthrow the forces of evil that were in control of this age, and to bring in a good kingdom where there would be no more misery or injustice.” (How Jesus Became God, 99)

This was a view that was held throughout the Jewish world and is attested to in various Jewish texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.  One of the core tenants of apolalypticism was the concept of dualism. This was the belief that there existed two forces in reality; the forces of good, and the forces of evil. Both sides were engaged in a cosmic battle against each other. Apocalypticists also believed in two phases of time; the present age, and the age yet to come. Ultimately it was believed that God, and the forces of good would win out. It was the common belief that the time when God would intervene and overthrow the forces of evil was very near.

Now, how does this all play into the son of man? The son of man was what Jesus believed would be the figure used by God to deliver this new age. Jesus did not believe that he was the son of man, rather that the son of man was a different figure.

To demonstrate this we must use a method of historiography called, the criteria of dissimilarity. The criteria of dissimilarity is a way to determine which statement attributed to Jesus are authentic. If for example, a statement attributed to Jesus goes against what early Christians promoted or believed, it is more likely to be authentic. Early Christians would not make up quotes by Jesus that contradicted their beliefs and message, as that would be counterproductive. The only reason they would appear in their writings then would be because they were quotes actually spoken by the historical Jesus. For example, If one were writing a biography about Ronald Reagan, and believed that tax cuts were the best way to stimulate the economy, one would probably not include a quote in which Reagan proposes tax increases, unless it was a statement truly uttered by Ronald Reagan.

In the New Testament there are several sayings about the son of man spoken by Jesus, that refer to a coming, cosmic, judge from heaven. These are probably the most interesting sayings to focus on when deciding which of the son of man sayings go back to the historical Jesus. In these sayings, Jesus is clearly describing a future coming judge, who is explicitly not him. For example, in Mark 13.24-27 Jesus says;

“24But in those days, following that distress,

“‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.”

Notice the language Jesus is using. He is describing future events yet to unfold, and that when those events take place, the son of man will come down from heaven on clouds. Compare that to other son of man sayings where Jesus is describing himself as the son of man such as in Mark 8.31;

“He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.”

This is clearly Jesus describing himself as the son of man. So which one of these is more likely to be historical? The one where Jesus portrays himself as the son of man, or the one where the son of man is portrayed as future coming judge who is not Jesus. Because we know that early Christians believed Jesus was the son of man and worshiped him as such it is not hard to imagine that the writer of Mark created sayings to fit that narrative. On the other hand, since early Christians believed Jesus was the son of man, it is unlikely that they invented sayings that go against that and suggest that the son of man is someone else.

Consider another passage, Mark 8.38 where Jesus states, “Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Now to those already convinced that Jesus is the son of man, there is nothing wrong with this passage. Yet upon closer examination, it is evident that this passage follows the same theme of Mark 13.24-27, in that the son of man is being described as someone else, separate from Jesus. Notice that Jesus says “those who are ashamed of me in this adulterous and sinful generation,” meaning people who are ashamed of Jesus, now in the present, “the son of man will also be ashamed when he comes.” Two things to look at here, 1) Jesus says when “he” comes, implying that the son of man is not himself but someone else. Second, the phrase when he “comes” implies that it is someone else who will come in the near future.

Again since this goes against what early Christians would have taught about Jesus, that he was the son of man, and not some other figure, it is more likely to be historical and to have been spoken by the historical Jesus than passages such as MK 8.31.

In The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Rudolf Bultmann concluded that only a few of the son of man sayings in the New Testament, actually go back to the historical Jesus, namely, the ones that distinguished Jesus from the son of man.

To wrap this all up, Jesus was an apocalypticist, who believed that God would soon intervene and overthrow the forces of evil. He believed the messiah would be the future ruler of the Davidic kingdom. He also believed that the coming kingdom would not be established by military force like his Jewish contemporaries expected, but by a cosmic intervention by the son of man who would bring about the new kingdom, a kingdom which Jesus believed that he, as the messiah, would be the ruler of. So Jesus believed as an apocalypticist, that God would intervene and the son of man would come down from heaven and thwart all things opposed to God, and the forces of evil. A new kingdom would be brought be this son of man, and Jesus would rule over that kingdom.

It has now been established that the messiah was not God, and that the son of man was not God, and was not Jesus. What then is left for the claim that Jesus was divine. Well, not much, and the reason for that being, that Jesus never claimed that he was God.

To demonstrate this further I will examine two more passages from Mark where Jesus explicitly denies God status. The first, is from Mark 15.34 (it is also Matthew 27.46) which states; “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” This statement occurred as Jesus hung on the cross. As Raymond Brown notes, it seems odd that Jesus would address someone else as God, if he taught that he was God. Here he is indicating that someone other than him is God.  At the very least, this supports a subordinate christology, but certainly cannot establish that Jesus claimed to be God.

Lastly, Mark 10.18, while out and about, a man comes up and kneels before Jesus and asks, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” To this Jesus replies, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” This is perhaps the most clear piece of evidence that Jesus did not believe he was divine, as he outright rejects the idea that he is divine and on par with God. There are probably many ways some can interpret that passage, but the most natural way in my opinion is that Jesus is simply saying, I’m not God. Using methods of historiography, and for reasons I’ve already stated, Dale Martin believes this statement, to have the greatest claim to historicity.

With all that being said, it can be argued with confidence that the historical Jesus, most probably did not believe or proclaim that he was God.

–M