Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 As I was reading the gospel accounts which present Jesus as an itinerant apocalyptic prophet, it occured to me that in the everyday needs of life he would have had to rely on the good will of others. He doesn't ask a potential follower to give up all his possessions for nothing.. it was part of how this group operated. It's different to Qumran because they had a permanent home, with guaranteed food and lodgings. Jesus didn't. He still has to live. Go to the toilet, eat, wash, sleep. So, either he lived rough, or he relied on friends and followers...and indeed this is what the texts suggest. People supported him. Does this make sense if he believed the kingdom was coming soon...a new order to put things right...on earth...within a generation... Paul knows of the claimed right to be supported by those offering good will because he makes a point of not using that right and my take is he thinks he is superior for not doing so. Already, the everyday realities are overtaking an ideal.....maybe the eschaton is delayed.... So, who was providing the funds for Jesus perhaps intermittently, the food, the good will, the sleeping quarters? We know Peter, and others...Susanna, Mary, Joanna...and the texts suggest that the women weren't cooking for them but providing them with means to care for themselves. We know Mary and Martha, and Lazarus. So, all this suggests that Jesus relied on others. He couldn't have given up his own material goods without some kind of reciprocal agreement that others would take care of that task for him. The evidence implies that many who took on that role were infact women! Oh for the re emergence of the importance of those women!
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 We don't have much evidence for how he lived in the NT. But we do know he was a carpenter for his first 30 years before he started his ministry. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 "Was Jesus a scrounger or is his life evidence of a failed apocalyptic hope." Should there be a question mark there somewhere? I must say, those aren't particularly attractive options. Is there a possible third alternative? Like The Son of God, just for example? And did you start this thread really to discuss the thread title, or merely to segue into your feminist diatribe at the end? 1
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: We don't have much evidence for how he lived in the NT. But we do know he was a carpenter for his first 30 years before he started his ministry. Oh absolutely. I am not saying Jesus was lazy or didn't know how to work. But his public ministry seems to be about giving up all material benefits and relying wholly on others. In modern day terms he would be considered a scrounger. That tension is indicated in Paul's unwillingness to make use of that right to rely on others. He continued tent making.
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: "Was Jesus a scrounger or is his life evidence of a failed apocalyptic hope." Should there be a question mark there somewhere? I must say, those aren't particularly attractive options. Is there a possible third alternative? Like The Son of God, just for example? And did you start this thread really to discuss the thread title, or merely to segue into your feminist diatribe at the end? I consider myself corrected. Would you consider proof reading a dissertation! I am not arguing that Jesus wasn't the or a son of God anymore or less than you or I are. We are all offspring of the divine; right? The feminist ( as opposed to masculine?) diatribe comes from reading the Lukan passages on Mary, Susanna and Johanna. Someone was looking out for and looking after the earliest itinerant group! Edited April 30, 2016 by Abulafia Sp
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 Apocalyptic outlook is also central to the idea of an itinerant lifestyle. No need to be married, forget family, don't worry about having children because the kingdom is about to break in..that is great as a temporary ideal but can't be (and wasn't) maintained over the long term.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, Abulafia said: I consider myself corrected. Would you consider proof reading a dissertation! How long is it? Actually I'd be delighted. 7 minutes ago, Abulafia said: I am not arguing that Jesus wasn't the or a son of God anymore or less than you or I are. We are all offspring of the divine; right? Well yes we are, but I believe that Jesus was/is the Son of God in ways that you and I are not. 7 minutes ago, Abulafia said: The feminist ( as opposed to masculine?) diatribe comes from reading the Lukan passages on Mary, Susanna and Johanna. Someone was looking out for and looking after the earliest itinerant group! You may be on to something there. But my question is, what's the real point of this thread? To discuss whether Jesus was a scrounger or a failed prophet? Or to argue that women need to be more publicly important in the Church?
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 Well.. they are all linked. If Jesus relied on the good will of others..asking his immediate followers to give up all their material wealth...he may have done so because it was a temporary situation in his mind.. (the kingdom will come within a generation)..but he still had to live off the good will of others. ..and those others appeared to have a strong female contingent among them. Not necessarily cooking for them. .men would have done that too..but also providing out of their means. Basically, did he live off the good will of others during his public ministry and if so why and by whom..and why didn't the model last.
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 *How long is it? Actually I'd be delighted.* Really! My proposal has just been accepted so early stages of what will become about a 16000 word paper.
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Abulafia said: Oh absolutely. I am not saying Jesus was lazy or didn't know how to work. But his public ministry seems to be about giving up all material benefits and relying wholly on others. In modern day terms he would be considered a scrounger. That tension is indicated in Paul's unwillingness to make use of that right to rely on others. He continued tent making. I don't believe Jesus was saying that no one work for their living, or giving up all material goods. But to put them in proper perspective. Are we working for the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdoms of the World?
Calm Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 5 hours ago, Abulafia said: . Not necessarily cooking for them. .men would have done that too..but also providing out of their means. Are you suggesting that women aren't allowed to do that in the Church or aren't celebrated when they do because that is one thing I see the Church giving a lot of recognition to women for (the story of the china for temple walls, the constant participation and thanking of the RS for providing of food and support for almost every event that happens at church)?
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 Quote I don't believe Jesus was saying that no one work for their living, or giving up all material goods. But to put them in proper perspective. Are we working for the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdoms of the World? Yeah, I think he maybe was referring to the expectations he had for those that joined his Inner circle. The story of the rich young man comes to mind, as well as Jesus saying that foxes have holes *but the Son of man has nowhere to sleep* Jesus also doesnt appear to have any money of his own (the tax...or maybe that was just the gospel author's way of dealing with a tricky Loyalty situation).
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 Calm, no not at all, just suggesting that is not all they did. There were wealthy women who could offer financial support. The women are so hidden in the texts that we really have to go digging to find them..
Abulafia Posted April 30, 2016 Author Posted April 30, 2016 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Door number 3 None of the above. If Jesus didnt rely on others for support then how did he live? Was the early movement apocalyptic? Did the return come within a generation as the gospel authors (Who put the prophecy on the lips of Jesus) clearly Imply?
Robert F. Smith Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 6 hours ago, Abulafia said: .................................................. Really! My proposal has just been accepted so early stages of what will become about a 16000 word paper. Wonderful to hear that things have moved so far along since we last discussed your academic endeavors. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 12 hours ago, Abulafia said: As I was reading the gospel accounts which present Jesus as an itinerant apocalyptic prophet, it occured to me that in the everyday needs of life he would have had to rely on the good will of others. He doesn't ask a potential follower to give up all his possessions for nothing.. it was part of how this group operated. It's different to Qumran because they had a permanent home, with guaranteed food and lodgings. Jesus didn't. He still has to live. Go to the toilet, eat, wash, sleep. So, either he lived rough, or he relied on friends and followers...and indeed this is what the texts suggest. People supported him. Does this make sense if he believed the kingdom was coming soon...a new order to put things right...on earth...within a generation... Paul knows of the claimed right to be supported by those offering good will because he makes a point of not using that right and my take is he thinks he is superior for not doing so. Already, the everyday realities are overtaking an ideal.....maybe the eschaton is delayed.... So, who was providing the funds for Jesus perhaps intermittently, the food, the good will, the sleeping quarters? We know Peter, and others...Susanna, Mary, Joanna...and the texts suggest that the women weren't cooking for them but providing them with means to care for themselves. We know Mary and Martha, and Lazarus. So, all this suggests that Jesus relied on others. He couldn't have given up his own material goods without some kind of reciprocal agreement that others would take care of that task for him. The evidence implies that many who took on that role were infact women! Oh for the re emergence of the importance of those women! Both early Christians and Essenes appeared to exist in small communities all over Palestine -- and were very communal in orientation. As a Galilean Wunderrebbe, like Honi the Circle-Maker, Jesus certainly depended on the charity of those he met en route. That he treated Samaritans, women, and Gentiles with such respect and kindness is in the best rabbinic tradition, the Pharisaic tradition of Beth Hillel, even if Jesus took it much further than any others. That is why he is such a beloved figure, even if he had never given his life as a ransom for us all. 4
JAHS Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 Because He was a carpenter I think we could assume that He has a home to live in (perhaps even a wife) where he did his work. But of course as he traveled around to teach and preach He must have relied on others to take Him in where He could eat and sleep. It's in the same way His apostles were to go out without purse or script to preach the gospel. 2
mfbukowski Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Abulafia said: If Jesus didnt rely on others for support then how did he live? Was the early movement apocalyptic? Did the return come within a generation as the gospel authors (Who put the prophecy on the lips of Jesus) clearly Imply? I think differently than you do- what matters to me is the message overall as a spiritual philosophy. Interesting questions, certainly, but typically social issues like these are not important to me. My first reply was simply to suggest there are other ways of seeing Jesus from other perspectives and was in retrospect pretty smart-alecky. I am more concerned with the philosophy than the historical person, but good luck. Of course if we choose to see most of the message allegorically, indeed each of us is a "return" of the master, so in some sense it can be interpreted as happening for each individual in each generation. Perhaps it should not have been taken as a "prophecy" at all, but as a comment on the fact that his kingdom is within, and "not of this world". If his kingdom is not of this world, why believe in a literal kingdom which IS of this world? Certainly the story of restoring the temple in three days is not taken literally, but as applying to the savior personally, with his resurrection. His "prophetic return" in the next generation might have been similarly misunderstood. I am not saying I necessarily believe this, just that it is one possible interpretation I see. I often drive my wife crazy with all the weird interpretations of anything that I can dream up! On the other hand, I can't really say that I do not believe it either. It's just a different perspective on what it could possibly be. Edited April 30, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Kevin Christensen Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 From John McDade, "Jesus in Recent Research" Quote I point you to Telford’s summary of how Jesus emerges as a social type if he is considered in the light of ‘foreground data’ (the narrative tradition, especially the miracles, sayings and the traditions surrounding his death) and ‘background data’ (the elements of general context posited as appropriate to understanding him in his first century setting). Here, weighting is all and what should strike us about this helpful taxonomy is the selective and constructed character of the images of Jesus offered by historians, depending on their choice of emphasis, what counts as primary data, which heuristic models are used, etc. Telford speaks of a consensus today ‘that a combination of teacher, prophet, healer best captures historically his social identity or role’ (Telford, p.55). Foreground data · If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician (Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healer and exorcist (Vermes). · If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced. · If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg, Robinson, Funk). · If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings is retained, then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth). · If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns. · If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, a social prophet, with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach). · If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist victim of oppression. Background data The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him: · When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee (Falk). · If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be seen as the ‘humane apocalyptist’ (Charlesworth) or the ‘reasonable visionary’ (Sanders). · If his Galilean provenance is emphasised, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes). · If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasised, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher (Mack, Crossan) · If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of these categories (Hengel) The Jesus who is envisaged in these accounts is the pre-canonical Jesus, arrived at through certain judgements about the nature of the Gospel traditions (both canonical and extra-canonical -- the Gospel of Thomas is now a controversial card in the game), and set in the dynamics of the religious, social and economic life of Palestine. There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood. ‘Determines’ is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus. As an interesting alternative to all of this, McDade eventually cites Margaret Barker: Quote Barker suggests that at his baptism -- the point in his life when we may be right to envisage a mystical ascent into the presence of God -- Jesus had a vision of the throne in which he was given to understand that the slain lamb that he saw, slain as an offering for sins yet standing in God’s presence, was himself. ‘This vision showed what Jesus had to accomplish: the sacrifice of the Servant, the Lamb, which would inaugurate the Atonement and save his people from the imminent wrath.’ If these connections are possible, then Jesus understood himself as the Lamb, the Servant, the LORD, come to deliver his people by making a sacrifice for the definitive atonement of Israel, and subsequently to be enthroned in the divine presence. Drawing on these two traditions she thinks that Jesus saw himself as the great high priest who was to shed his blood for the great Atonement, and that it is this high priestly paradigm that is the generative core of the earliest Christology and the Soteriology. Barker, Op.cit., p.51. ... If so, then, she says, ‘what Jesus believed about himself was identical which what the young church preached about him, even though he had been imperfectly understood at times. It makes Jesus himself the author and finisher of the faith, rather than the early communities, a supposition which has been fashionable for some time. The great message of atonement was not just a damage limitation exercise on the part of a traumatized group of disciples who could find no other way of coming to terms with the death of their leader. The sources do enable us to see how Jesus understood his own death, if only we listen to what they are saying and do not sit in judgement upon them with preconceived notions of what could and could not have been the case. The predictions of the Passion were made by Jesus himself, even though the details may have been added later.’ Barker, Op.cit., pp.109-110 FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 2
Abulafia Posted May 1, 2016 Author Posted May 1, 2016 Kevin, I got to meet and later have lunch with Margaret Barker a couple of weeks ago. I like McDade's outlines here, and agree that Jesus can be seen in many ways depending upon what we choose to concentrate on. My tutor (also a respected scholar who is good friends with Margaret) stated clearly and in opposition to Margaret's theory, that priesthood wasn't a part of the early christian communities. Where Qumran seems to replicate temple practice, originating with a priest who leaves Jerusalem against what he saw as a corrupt temple leadership, Jesus appears to open up the temple to all. The feeding stories in the gospels can be seen in this light. The central temple liturgy was sharing a meal with God via sacrifice. For Jesus, the field became the temple with the meal provided for all. I am sure one could argue that he was acting as a high priest and/or that he saw himself that way, but that needs also to be weighed against his respect for the priestly institution as well as his portrayed dislike of many of its practices and priorities. I think temple theology and apocalyticism aren't mutually exclusive. There can be both. Did Jesus rely on others for his daily needs? 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 10 minutes ago, Abulafia said: Did Jesus rely on others for his daily needs? Maybe and no. Definitely not before his active ministry. Most of his ministry takes place in the warmer months, with little to no information about what he did when it was colder.
Kevin Christensen Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 When Richard Bushman spoke about Joseph Smith biographies at Washington DC in 2005, he made basically the same observation as McDade does about Jesus Research: Quote Bushman sees the same relationship between the context a scholar chooses as background and foreground, and the appreciation they show for Joseph Smith. As you can imagine, the context in which he is placed profoundly affects how people see the prophet, since the history selected for a subject profoundly colors everything about it. Is he a money digger like hundreds of other superstitious Yankees in his day, a religious fanatic like Muhammad was thought to be in Joseph Smith’s time, a prophet like Moses, a religious revolutionary like Jesus? To a large extent, Joseph Smith assumes the character of the history selected for him. The broader the historical context, the greater the appreciation of the man. If Joseph Smith is described as the product of strictly local circumstances--the culture of the Burned-Over District, for example--he will be considered a lesser figure than if put in the context of a Muhammad or Moses. Bushman argued that Joseph Smith came to understand himself best when he put himself in a Biblical context. So the issue is not whether a person has an ideology,but whether, as Goff has it, whether a person is aware of the implications or their own ideology. And of course, how a person goes about deciding which approach it "better." "Not orthodox," or "Not us," is an ideologically dependent, and therefore self-referential way of deciding. It it possible to decide on other grounds than that. I'm inclined to agree with Barker of course. The high priestly imagery is thoroughly woven through the New Testament and related writings that any attempt to do away with priesthood strikes me as ideological at heart. Just because a person, Jeremiah, for example says something las scathing as describing the temple as "a den of robbers" (Jer. 7:11), that does not mean that he can't also look forward to "sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD." (Jer. 33:11). Nice that you had lunch with Margaret. My wife and I are planning to visit England and France in September, and hope to spend some time with Margaret. Best, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 1
Stargazer Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 On 4/30/2016 at 6:51 AM, Abulafia said: *How long is it? Actually I'd be delighted.* Really! My proposal has just been accepted so early stages of what will become about a 16000 word paper. I should like to be helpful in that regard, too, actually! Proofreading, that is. I'm sure I'd be no use as any kind of mentor!
Recommended Posts