What Jesus had to say about the political rulers of his day:
1. Being told by some Pharisees that Herod was seeking to kill him, Jesus answered, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.' Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem."
The fox was a metaphor for meanness, cunning and craftiness. From this passage one could assume that Jesus had no respect for Herod and in fact, viewed him as a crafty and cruel leader. Even though Jesus called Herod a fox (which was a capital offence) he wanted to move on to avoid being caught and taken prisoner outside of Jerusalem.
2. Jesus avoided Jerusalem and Judea preaching mostly in Galilee where it was safer for him. In John 7 his brothers mock him by challenging him to go into Jerusalem to get more attention, knowing that the Jewish leaders sought to kill him there. Galilee was a safer place even though Herod Antipas was there and he had John the Baptist killed.
3. Although Jesus rarely spoke directly to or about the Roman rulers, he regularly spoke out against the religious rulers of Jerusalem. This is surprising, because John the Baptist (his own cousin) was beheaded by Herod Antipas and Jesus grew up under Herod's cruel rule. It is also surprising because John was so vocal about Herod Antipas.
4. Jesus believed that Rome's representatives were given their power by God Himself (John 19:11).
5. Although rulers were sometimes major players in his parables (such as the ruler in Luke 19 who goes to a far country (Rome) to receive a kingdom), the rulers in these parables were given neither positive nor negative attributes. The foci of these parables wers not on the rulers, but rather on the servants.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Gospel of Q
I am not going to get into the debate whether or not Q existed, I just want to explain what it is, because it is important in modern studies of the Gospels. I also would like to address it because Richard Horsley places so much stock in it being a political document.
So I would like to explain what it is and then see if the verses in question are as political as Horsley believes.
What is the Gospel of Q?
It is a hypothetical document or oral tradition that passed down many of the sayings of Jesus. Although there were few signs or miracles in Q, it was mostly sayings that Jesus spoke. According to many modern scholars, Q was a document that existed before all of the other gospels that we have in the Bible. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke copied much of Q and the book of Mark to write their own gospels.
Better explanations as well as cases both for and against the existence of Q is found throughout the internet. For this blog I am not going to commit to either side of the argument, I have already stated my belief that no matter how the Gospels were formed, God had his hand on the texts from start to finish.
So I would like to explain what it is and then see if the verses in question are as political as Horsley believes.
What is the Gospel of Q?
It is a hypothetical document or oral tradition that passed down many of the sayings of Jesus. Although there were few signs or miracles in Q, it was mostly sayings that Jesus spoke. According to many modern scholars, Q was a document that existed before all of the other gospels that we have in the Bible. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke copied much of Q and the book of Mark to write their own gospels.
Better explanations as well as cases both for and against the existence of Q is found throughout the internet. For this blog I am not going to commit to either side of the argument, I have already stated my belief that no matter how the Gospels were formed, God had his hand on the texts from start to finish.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Was the Historical Jesus a Political Figure?
As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I do not believe it is possible to discover any historical Jesus beyond what we have in the Bible. Every attempt to discover the Historical Jesus who is seperated from the Jesus of Faith is founded on and built thoroughly on conjecture.
Let me explain in further detail. As I mentioned in past blogs, many of today's scholars separate the Historical Jesus (the man who lived and died on the cross) from the Jesus of Faith (using the bare details of Jesus' life the early church added stories and sayings about Jesus in order to serve the interests of the early church- this version is what we have in the Bible).
Various methods are used to discover who the real Jesus was, arriving at any number of different possibilities, one of which is this: Jesus was a political figure of his day, but for different reasons, the early church decided to take out most of the political side of Jesus to make Jesus a less politically offensive person. Supposedly, when Jesus faced the certain death, his hopes and dreams were destroyed. This would be embarrassing for the church to deal with, so the church instead recreated a less embarrassing Jesus who promised a spiritual kingdom.
Another view is that the church would have wanted to down play any part of Jesus that was offensive to the political powers for fear of persecution or for the sake of winning over the political players of that day.
I suppose there are other reasons why some assume that the Historical Jesus was far more political than the Bible tells us, but... short of some fantastic discovery in the Middle East, we will never know anything more about Jesus than what the early church passed down to us in what we call the Bible.
Let me explain in further detail. As I mentioned in past blogs, many of today's scholars separate the Historical Jesus (the man who lived and died on the cross) from the Jesus of Faith (using the bare details of Jesus' life the early church added stories and sayings about Jesus in order to serve the interests of the early church- this version is what we have in the Bible).
Various methods are used to discover who the real Jesus was, arriving at any number of different possibilities, one of which is this: Jesus was a political figure of his day, but for different reasons, the early church decided to take out most of the political side of Jesus to make Jesus a less politically offensive person. Supposedly, when Jesus faced the certain death, his hopes and dreams were destroyed. This would be embarrassing for the church to deal with, so the church instead recreated a less embarrassing Jesus who promised a spiritual kingdom.
Another view is that the church would have wanted to down play any part of Jesus that was offensive to the political powers for fear of persecution or for the sake of winning over the political players of that day.
I suppose there are other reasons why some assume that the Historical Jesus was far more political than the Bible tells us, but... short of some fantastic discovery in the Middle East, we will never know anything more about Jesus than what the early church passed down to us in what we call the Bible.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
What about the Historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of Faith?
1. Is there a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith designed in part by the early church to meet their needs and fantasies?
2. If there is, can we ever peel away the layers of church editing both oral and written to discover a better portrait of the historical Jesus?
Here are some options:
1. The most popularly held conservative position is that the historical Jesus is exactly the Jesus we get in the gospels. God is concerned with accuracy and therefore the Holy Spirit helped the authors keep and write an accurate account of Jesus' ministry. In this view one of the apostles wrote from memory or one of their friends wrote what they were told by the apostle.
On the plus side - it is simple and it is and has been believed by most conservative Christians from the 3rd Century on.
On the minus side - it does not always address the issue of how the texts met the needs of the early church...the audience to which the gospels were sent. And it assumes that the early church had little or nothing to do with the formation of the gospel episodes, it was only 4 individuals who authored the texts.
2. The opposite of that would be: There is a difference between the Jesus of Faith and the Historical Jesus. The early church added to and subtracted from the real event as they needed.
On the plus side - it fits the templates of social passing down of tradition. Even in Christianity one only needs to look at the stories of Jesus that circulated 300 years after his life to know that the church developed stories of their own that were quite wild and fanciful.
On the minus side - There is little or no connection between the writings and the historical Jesus, and every modern writer can pretty much create or discover billions of possible historical Jesus's. Take your pick!
3. There are other possiblities as well. The Jesus of Faith could be somewhat different than the Historical Jesus in that the early church needed several decades to look at who Jesus was and to discover and rediscover, refine and then develop what we now have as the gospels. They are not the entire account of Jesus ministry (John 21:25), neither are they bare-boned chronological accounts of his biography. They are stories that survived the early church's verbal chatrooms that met the needs of the early church. Among those needs were as follows:
a. Identity - who are we? who do we follow? why do we follow Jesus?
b. Survival - why do we believe what we do? and how can we answer those who refute us? how can we continue and grow?
In this view, even though there may be one writer per gospel, the writer recorded what the early church had developed and what became popular in the early decades of Christianity: The writer did not simply write down his own memories, he shared the memories of the entire church.
It may be that Mark wrote Mark even though the Bible does not tell us that he did, but if he did write the book, he did not write only what Peter shared with him, he wrote down what the early church had developed in its own chatrooms. Peter may have helped guide Mark and let him know the truth of each episode and helped him keep certain stories out that were fabrications, but the Bible does not tell us even this.
On the other hand it may be that all of the apostles and other disciples were directly or indirectly involved in the process of developing the gospels by being an important part of the community developing the stories about Jesus.
Whatever happened and however the gospels came into existence, the Holy Spirit was intimately involved in guiding and helping the early church so that what we do have today is the Word of God.
So let's go back to the questions:
Q. Is there a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith designed in part by the early church to meet their needs and fantasies?
A. Even though I believe the early church kept the stories that served their needs the most, I believe that what they kept remained:
a. true to what God wanted them to keep.
b. true to the Jesus of Faith / Jesus of history.
Q. If there is a difference between the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of Histroy, can we ever peel away the layers of church editing (both oral and written) to discover a better portrait of the historical Jesus?
A. Even if there were some separation or even a big one, there is no way anybody could possibly peel back the layers of church ideology to discover the original Jesus. We will always only know the Jesus that has been delivered to us by the early church, by those who walked with him and saw him. Any and every search for the historical Jesus is futile.
Scholars who are trying to discover the historical Jesus discover an infinate number of Jesus's.
All we know about Jesus is what is given to us in the Bible, so that is what I will deal with...no more, no less. The only Jesus we will ever know is viewed through the eyes of the early church.
2. If there is, can we ever peel away the layers of church editing both oral and written to discover a better portrait of the historical Jesus?
Here are some options:
1. The most popularly held conservative position is that the historical Jesus is exactly the Jesus we get in the gospels. God is concerned with accuracy and therefore the Holy Spirit helped the authors keep and write an accurate account of Jesus' ministry. In this view one of the apostles wrote from memory or one of their friends wrote what they were told by the apostle.
On the plus side - it is simple and it is and has been believed by most conservative Christians from the 3rd Century on.
On the minus side - it does not always address the issue of how the texts met the needs of the early church...the audience to which the gospels were sent. And it assumes that the early church had little or nothing to do with the formation of the gospel episodes, it was only 4 individuals who authored the texts.
2. The opposite of that would be: There is a difference between the Jesus of Faith and the Historical Jesus. The early church added to and subtracted from the real event as they needed.
On the plus side - it fits the templates of social passing down of tradition. Even in Christianity one only needs to look at the stories of Jesus that circulated 300 years after his life to know that the church developed stories of their own that were quite wild and fanciful.
On the minus side - There is little or no connection between the writings and the historical Jesus, and every modern writer can pretty much create or discover billions of possible historical Jesus's. Take your pick!
3. There are other possiblities as well. The Jesus of Faith could be somewhat different than the Historical Jesus in that the early church needed several decades to look at who Jesus was and to discover and rediscover, refine and then develop what we now have as the gospels. They are not the entire account of Jesus ministry (John 21:25), neither are they bare-boned chronological accounts of his biography. They are stories that survived the early church's verbal chatrooms that met the needs of the early church. Among those needs were as follows:
a. Identity - who are we? who do we follow? why do we follow Jesus?
b. Survival - why do we believe what we do? and how can we answer those who refute us? how can we continue and grow?
In this view, even though there may be one writer per gospel, the writer recorded what the early church had developed and what became popular in the early decades of Christianity: The writer did not simply write down his own memories, he shared the memories of the entire church.
It may be that Mark wrote Mark even though the Bible does not tell us that he did, but if he did write the book, he did not write only what Peter shared with him, he wrote down what the early church had developed in its own chatrooms. Peter may have helped guide Mark and let him know the truth of each episode and helped him keep certain stories out that were fabrications, but the Bible does not tell us even this.
On the other hand it may be that all of the apostles and other disciples were directly or indirectly involved in the process of developing the gospels by being an important part of the community developing the stories about Jesus.
Whatever happened and however the gospels came into existence, the Holy Spirit was intimately involved in guiding and helping the early church so that what we do have today is the Word of God.
So let's go back to the questions:
Q. Is there a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith designed in part by the early church to meet their needs and fantasies?
A. Even though I believe the early church kept the stories that served their needs the most, I believe that what they kept remained:
a. true to what God wanted them to keep.
b. true to the Jesus of Faith / Jesus of history.
Q. If there is a difference between the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of Histroy, can we ever peel away the layers of church editing (both oral and written) to discover a better portrait of the historical Jesus?
A. Even if there were some separation or even a big one, there is no way anybody could possibly peel back the layers of church ideology to discover the original Jesus. We will always only know the Jesus that has been delivered to us by the early church, by those who walked with him and saw him. Any and every search for the historical Jesus is futile.
Scholars who are trying to discover the historical Jesus discover an infinate number of Jesus's.
All we know about Jesus is what is given to us in the Bible, so that is what I will deal with...no more, no less. The only Jesus we will ever know is viewed through the eyes of the early church.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Historical Jesus
Many bible scholars today separate the real Jesus from the one who is recorded in the Gospels. Let me explain their thinking.
1. Jesus lived, built a following and then for whatever reason was crucified and buried. Most scholars of all types (even unbelievers) would agree with this.
2. From Jesus' ministry the early Christians created stories by word of mouth about Jesus. The early church passed down these sayings from group to group and person to person, adding to and taking from the original stories. Every time it was passed on to another, it took slightly different form. Additions were made to address immediate issues and some things were left out because they were not important to the early believers. The stories that fared best were those stories that met the needs of a young growing church. These stories were eventually tied together and put into writing - not necessarily by an apostle or the friend of the apostle, but by a scribe who simply pieced together different stories written or oral. Decades later Church leaders claimed the writings were written by certain apostles or friends of apostles.
3. There were also those who held on to sayings that Jesus said and repeated those to others until Gospels were written with only the sayings of Jesus - such as the Gospel of Thomas (found among the Nag Hammadi texts) and the yet unproven gospel called "Q."
4. Eventually Mark used Q and other stories to build his Gospel.
5. Matthew and then Luke borrowed from Mark and from the other sources to create what is now their gospels. There is disagreement as to how each gospel was built, but this idea remains the same -- the real Jesus was lost to the stories that were created about him after he died.
6. The real Jesus is called "The Jesus of History," and the Jesus that has been handed down to us from the early church stories is "The Jesus of Faith."
7. Many modern scholars believe that with the proper tools we can strip away the layers of legend and discover a closer look at the Jesus of History. In fact, the "Jesus Seminar" was created to do just that.
There have been several periods in history when scholars have returned to what is called the "Search for the Historical Jesus." The 19th Century, Mid 20th and now the past few decades have witnessed the attempt to find the real Jesus.
In their attempts to discover So there are some who claim that Jesus was homosexual and held homosexual rituals, some who believe Jesus was a dilusioned messiah wannabe who thought he that God would come to his rescue, some believed that Jesus practiced certain magic and some believe that Jesus was trying to create a political revolution fighting against the wealthy and the powerful, ie. the Roman government and their supporters - the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
1. Jesus lived, built a following and then for whatever reason was crucified and buried. Most scholars of all types (even unbelievers) would agree with this.
2. From Jesus' ministry the early Christians created stories by word of mouth about Jesus. The early church passed down these sayings from group to group and person to person, adding to and taking from the original stories. Every time it was passed on to another, it took slightly different form. Additions were made to address immediate issues and some things were left out because they were not important to the early believers. The stories that fared best were those stories that met the needs of a young growing church. These stories were eventually tied together and put into writing - not necessarily by an apostle or the friend of the apostle, but by a scribe who simply pieced together different stories written or oral. Decades later Church leaders claimed the writings were written by certain apostles or friends of apostles.
3. There were also those who held on to sayings that Jesus said and repeated those to others until Gospels were written with only the sayings of Jesus - such as the Gospel of Thomas (found among the Nag Hammadi texts) and the yet unproven gospel called "Q."
4. Eventually Mark used Q and other stories to build his Gospel.
5. Matthew and then Luke borrowed from Mark and from the other sources to create what is now their gospels. There is disagreement as to how each gospel was built, but this idea remains the same -- the real Jesus was lost to the stories that were created about him after he died.
6. The real Jesus is called "The Jesus of History," and the Jesus that has been handed down to us from the early church stories is "The Jesus of Faith."
7. Many modern scholars believe that with the proper tools we can strip away the layers of legend and discover a closer look at the Jesus of History. In fact, the "Jesus Seminar" was created to do just that.
There have been several periods in history when scholars have returned to what is called the "Search for the Historical Jesus." The 19th Century, Mid 20th and now the past few decades have witnessed the attempt to find the real Jesus.
In their attempts to discover So there are some who claim that Jesus was homosexual and held homosexual rituals, some who believe Jesus was a dilusioned messiah wannabe who thought he that God would come to his rescue, some believed that Jesus practiced certain magic and some believe that Jesus was trying to create a political revolution fighting against the wealthy and the powerful, ie. the Roman government and their supporters - the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)