Of Men and Muses

Well Book 1 is here!  It’s not my monograph, however.  Two more yet to go this year!

Richard Carrier’s New Book

Richard Carrier recently published a new book! (No, it is not his Jesus book–he is still working on that one) Check out his blog post about it here: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-impossible-faith.html

Also check out his book (as in ‘pick up a copy’) at Lulu here: http://www.lulu.com/content/4580954

The Jesus Project: Offering Another Perspective on the Chilton-Hoffmann-Crossley Exchange

By Thomas Verenna

James Crossley recently commented on the exchange between Bruce Chilton and R. Joseph Hoffmann. I would like to weigh in with my own opinions on this recent exchange. I can only hope that my suggestions will prove useful to the Project and continue to generate the sort of dialog we have seen so far in the community. Although I respect James and Bruce a great deal, I feel some of their advice may be misplaced when one considers the goals of the Jesus Project as a whole. Overall I agree with where they feel the Jesus Project’s focus needs to be. This is a gem from James’ article which I feel was overlooked by the Jesus Seminar and should not be underestimated in the Jesus Project’s investigations:

There is enough work on social history and social anthropology and enough empirical data collected and analyzed to exploit these issues. Areas ripe for exploitation might include: social networks, ethnic interaction, and the origins of gentile inclusion; class-conflicts and the emergence of a new religion; universal monotheism, developments in communication, and the origins of the deification of Jesus; and so on. In each case, the influence of Jesus the individual could be tested.

It is unfortunate that he employed these suggestions in such a limited and narrowed manner (applying these issues specifically to “the influence of Jesus the individual”). They can and should be expanded upon (instead of the “individual Jesus” which implies historicity, for example, these articles should be tested against the character or figure of Jesus, the authors intent, matters of intertextuality, literary composition, and the development of textual-tradition in the Jewish communities and later Christian communities throughout the ANE). I agree with James that these “ripe issues” are often overlooked or misrepresented by historical Jesus scholars. With the exception of a few scholars off the top of my head (Crossan and Mack most prevalent in my mind, but there are perhaps others as well), the Jesus Seminar et al seems to ignore the lack of orthodoxy in Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, instead opting for the dated perspective that Jews had some sort of unified interpretation of who and what the Messiah would be (and ignore the conclusions of the Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins in 1987 onward). The focus of too many studies rest entirely on Jesus’ sayings and deeds, as James rightly points out (but ironically, he is guilty of in his own study when he compares sayings and deeds to Talmudic sayings and deeds). But while this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is done in an often backwards manner (the method of voting comes to mind, used by the Jesus Seminar; thankfully voting will not be used by the JP) or where authorial intent is often ignored or taken for granted–sometimes to ridiculous proportions (like N.T. Wright’s perspective that the author of Matthew 27:52 documented honestly that the saints really did rise from the dead and walked around Jerusalem).

I would like to see some of the project dedicated to textual structure, narrative creation, model use, eponymic character creation (often indicated by how their names correspond with their actions in the narrative), and to some extent, liturgy (in the sense that we must challenge long-held presuppositions about Paul’s letters being read aloud to congregations of Christians; likewise the Gospels) and the development of “Christian” as a designation (and what came before); these should be explored without the shackles of commonly-held presumptions. In other words, I feel some portion of the project should ask why the Gospel/Acts/epistle/pastoral authors wrote and who they wrote to. These questions cannot be answered as they have been previously (as Philip Davies would put it, “because it happened” is not an adequate reason).

Other questions should also be considered. Could those who read them be considered “full-knowing readers”? Did the authors intend to have their works read as history or something else? Can it be decided what genres we’re dealing with? It cannot be supposed that the Gospels are Graeco-Roman biographies, as Charles Talbert had suggested, as this has been challenged more recently by several scholars like Mary Ann Tolbert, Michael E. Vines, Thomas L. Thompson and Dennis R. MacDonald (the latter two being a part of the JP). Answering the question of genre (as well as the other questions proposed above) will not only provide for the project a new direction by which to judge the New Testament literature, but will answer some of those “big, big questions” that James talked about. If it is determined that the genre of the Gospel of Mark is Jewish Novel (and not Jewish/Graeco-Roman biography or history) that changes the direction of several perspectives, does it not? As Kurt Noll has discussed in a recent SBL article (Why Does the New Testament Exist?, SBL 2008), textual interpretation can change as rapidly as cultural memes, especially in antiquity. Where a letter may have been written with one purpose in mind, that would not change others from using the letter for another purpose entirely. So it may be that Mark’s intention was lost on the second wave of readers or used in a manner he never intended, much like how Paul’s letters were thrown about and used by different sects of Christianity in the second-third centuries CE. The answer cannot be known without first asking, then investigating the questions.

I also fear that Bruce and James are a bit biased in their desires to incorporate Aramaic scholars into the Project. After all, if you start with the assumption that “Jesus spoke Aramaic” (as both Bruce and James do), there would have to be some urgency to incorporate scholars into the project who can authoritatively speak about it, right? While Aramaic scholars should be included for other reasons, and while I feel they are useful for socio-cultural investigations, what should be apparent to everyone is that the statement “Jesus spoke Aramaic” is precisely what has yet been investigated and is not something we should start off assuming. If it can be shown that Jesus existed historically, in some form, using the specific methodologies this Project is working towards perfecting now, the question of “which language Jesus spoke” will have to be asked. But, it will have to be asked while investigating the socio-cultural world of that particular figure of Jesus. It can not even be suggested that Jesus was a Galilean (another oft-to assumed “fact”) and therefore spoke Aramaic, as this subject has also not been investigated thoroughly (it has only been assumed based on readings from the Gospels alone)–nor can it be investigated until the question of historicity has been established in any detail. Until then, all scholars on the project should be open to the possibility that the answer to the question “did Jesus exist” might make their questions obsolete (including those of mythicists–that statement was not just directed towards historicists). Remembering that fact (i.e. every perspective we now have might be turned on its head) will hopefully generate more interesting, thought-provoking questions that will likewise bring about more thought-provoking studies and one-on-one interactions between participants.

Joe’s More “Gloves-off” Approach to Jesus Project Criticisms

All interested parties should read this article.  It’s the revised version of the article published below.

Inerrancy and Mythicism: My Turn

James McGrath published a recent article on mythicism after I sent him over a link to a radio interview with Richard Carrier.  James makes some very good points and also some not-so-good points (but its okay, he’s still new at thinking like a “mythicist”).  So instead of doing what I normally do (write a ten page, highly detailed article with endnotes and citations), I’ll repost his statements and add my thoughts which, I hope, will produce a very good discussion (I’m in great need of a good discussion after another recent debacle).

There is an interesting parallel between the situation of those arguing for the inerrancy of the Bible and that of “mythicists”, i.e. those who argue that Jesus was originally thought of as a heavenly figure, one who was later then turned into an allegedly historical figure. The case for inerrancy has to be able to demonstrate that every single factual claim made in the Bible is without error. The case for errancy, by contrast, has only to demonstrate conclusively that there is a single error.  The situation for mythicists is similar. They must show that all the stories about, sayings attributed to and evidence about Jesus is best explained in terms of his never having existed as a historical figure. The historicist, on the other hand, only has to show decisively that one event in the life of Jesus makes best sense if Jesus was in fact a historical figure, and that makes the case for there having been such a figure more probable.

This is 100% accurate.  I have the burden of proof to some degree and, as James describes it here, he is correct.  However, there is something missing from James’ critique.   It does not just require the mythicist to explain the sayings and events of Jesus from the Gospels, and Paul’s statements in the Epistles, as something other than historical (because historicists still have some part of the burden of proof on them, i.e. they must show that the Gospels are not, in some fashion, similar to Plutarch’s biography of Romulus).  Both historicists and mythicists have the burden of proof in this area (as there is insufficient data to establish, with any certainty, historicity or ahistoricity).  The mythicist, however, must show that the interpretations of the sayings and events of Jesus, Paul, et al, are inferior; conversely, the mythicist must also show how their interpretations of the data are superior.  Additionally, the mythicist must show where the historicist might have overlooked or taken for granted additional, related materials.  (These last few methods swing both ways)

While I have accepted the burden of proof, I have also met this burden (to a large degree).  The question is, when will historicists (like James McGrath) take it upon themselves to show how my arguments for mythicism are inadequate, lacking, or inferior?  It is one thing to continue to repeat an opinion (for example, James, et al, can say how unpersuaded they are by the arguments all they’d like), it is another thing entirely to show in what manner you were unpersuaded, and offer alternative reasons that refute or expose the arguments of mythicists (like me).

Richard Carrier’s example (used in the podcast below) of the guards at the tomb in Matthew is a case in point – that story is clearly a creation by Matthew, or someone between the time Mark wrote and the time in which Matthew was composed. It is patently unhistorical, but that doesn’t show it to be an unhistorical narrative about the burial of a mythical figure.

James is right again.  But as he even said, it is just *one example* that Carrier used.  Carrier used another example (and remember, Richard even points out that it would be impossible in a show clip to explain his position to its entirety, or to give all the examples required to produce a study or monograph) of the Bar’abbas scene related to Leviticus.  I have made cases against the crucifixion and Gethsemane, and the sayings on divorce.  Although these last few are also not comprehensive (they cannot be; after all, this is a blog and I am still working on my monograph–and Richard is writing a monograph on this subject as well), they do offer a sufficient-enough interpretation that it meets (albeit wth minimal standards as, once again, it is just a blog post at the moment) the burden of proof required from my position.  Thus, the burden has shifted back to the historicist.

There is an additional problem as well.  Assuming the Jesus Seminar is right, very little can be said to be “probably authentic” historically (remember that the Jesus Seminar went in assuming historicity).  That already leaves the majority of the Gospels, Paul, etc…fictional or legendary (opposite: historical).  Other studies that have been done more recently (Dennis MacDonald’s work, for example) exclude everything in the Gospels (entirely) as historical.  I would even remind James that as I have shown in my article here, no two scholars can sit down and agree on even five things that are historical from the Gospels or the Epistles.  Opinions in this area are too far strung, and James is overstating his position by suggesting what he has in this particular manner.  The job of the mythicist is mostly reduced (thanks to the work of historicists).  Although it should still be done, the fact that the vast majority of scripture, New Testament Gospel or Epistle, is already accepted (whether fully or in part) as fictional, the little left behind is all the mythicist really needs to expose.  The job, in other words, is already done.  To put it bluntly, the historicists have just done a very half-assed job of it.  It is left to the mythicist, in this case, to clean up the crumbs that were brushed to the floor.

Carrier (a mythicist) has some wise advice for mythicists on how to make the case for mythicism. I don’t find his viewpoint persuasive, but it deserves to be heard and considered seriously in a way that some pseudo-historical claims, popular among so-called skeptics prone to engaging in parallelomania, do not (HT Tom Verenna).

(Just curious what “HT” means in context with the statement and my name)

But I find it problematic when Carrier claims that the Romans must have known that Jesus did not exist, since otherwise they would have rounded up the followers of Jesus.  Why do Roman sources (Tacitus or the letters of Pliny) not mention that this movement is seeking to historicize a mythical figure? How is it that, in all the history of Roman opposition to Christianity, the non-existence of Jesus never gets a mention?

Why don’t Roman sources (the many we have on Orpheus and Dionysus) discuss how the Orphites and Dionysiacs are historicizing fictional characters?  I think the answer is not that far off.  But also, these sources (Pliny and Tacitus in particular) both show disdain and apathy towards Christians and their “superstitions” (a word shared by Tacitus and Pliny alike).  Tacitus was so put-off by Jewish cults and religious history that he recited rumor concerning their exodus in his Histories instead of even consulting Jewish literature on the subject or examining the claims made by the rumor proveyors.  Pliny (as Carrier rightly points out, one of the more influential characters of the Roman state at that time, holding many high positions) was completely unaware of Christians prior to his torturing of a few of them (and seems to only have recieved his information from them upon torturing them).  It wasn’t as if Pliny had known of Christians prior to this event (in fact, it appears to be quite the opposite) and what he does know, he seems to not to care much about.  (Once more, he likens Jesus to a God and never once refers to Jesus as a human, in past tense or otherwise–this is interesting).

Paul himself claims that Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh, and there is a reasonable likelihood that Paul may indeed have been executed by the Romans.

This claim is handled here.  (By the way, James, I have linked you to this article five times now over the course of our friendship!)

Mark and Paul

A member over at FRDB has been kind enough to link to one of my blogs dealing with John Loftus’ posts on a historical Jesus.  Another member, aa5874, responded to some of the errors he felt were present in my blog.  I would like to address them.

There are errors in Tom Verenna’s post. He wrote, “The fact that Mark used Paul is not new to scholarship.” But it is not a fact that the author of Mark used Paul, it is just a theory.

This is correct. It is not a fact. However I feel that it has merit and will be writing an article for a collection of essays dealing with this possibility. There are many instances in Mark where it seems as though he is pulling from Pauline theology. It would not be contra-scholarship for Mark to have had copies of Paul’s letters, in some form, and to have used them as models for his narrative.

Again, in the same post, he wrote, “The Gospel author of Mark used Paul’s account to create the Last Supper scene.” But upon examination, words found in Paul’s Last Supper scene are only found in gLuke.

That is not necessarily correct. Just because Mark did not copy Pauline literature (assuming he had copies, that is) verbatim, does not suggest that Mark had no available copies. Mark very well could have utilized the last supper scene from Paul and altered it to fit his narrative better, which would explain discrepancies. Luke, writing against Marcion in the second century (if Tyson and Price are correct, which I think they are) would have made it more clear where he was drawing the scene from being as he was trying to secure Paul’s letters as orthodox tradition.

The Jesus Project in Amherst: Reopening the Question of the Historical Jesus

This Just arrived in my inbox. It may be a little hyped (and a little early for the headline), but it certainly got my attention enough that I am really considering submitting a paper or two. Check it out.

————————————————————————–

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Nathan Bupp

Phone: (716) 636-4869 x. 218

E-mail: nbupp@centerforinquiry.net

Quest for the Historical Jesus Begins Anew

Amherst, New York (December 08, 2008)—Scholars gathered this past weekend, December 5-7, in Amherst, New York, for the inaugural meeting of The Jesus Project in a renewed quest for the historical Jesus. The project, sponsored by the secular think tank Center for Inquiry and its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), is an effort by historians, biblical scholars, and theologians to determine what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity.

An earlier inquiry, “The Jesus Seminar,” founded by Professor Robert Funk in 1985, concerned itself primarily with the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and related sources. Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and CSER, said that the “The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered.”

The project has drawn together a diverse and rich group of scholars, including, among others Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, David Trobisch, Bruce Chilton, Dennis MacDonald, and R. Joseph Hoffmann.

At the session this past weekend, participants agreed that a rigorous scientific inquiry was needed, and that the Project would be committed to a position of neutrality towards the sources used as “evidence” for the Jesus tradition. Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor’s argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive. “Jesus remains after 2,000 years the most fascinating figure of Western civilization,” said James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. “Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archaeological record.” Tabor says that scholars today find themselves uniquely positioned to examine the issue of who Jesus was in new and challenging ways. During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that “the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions.” All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.

The Project has outlined a set of priorities for its next meetings, including a “consistent” translation of the Gospels, an inquiry into the causes of the canonization of the existing New Testament documents, parallels between Islam and early Christianity in delineating its sacred books, and the need to carve a middle path between what Hoffmann describes as “Da Vinci Code sensationalism and the truly fascinating story that underlies the history of Christianity.”

Papers delivered at the conference will be published under the title “Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry,” by Prometheus Books in 2009. The Project’s next conference is scheduled tentatively for May 2009 in Chicago.

*Listen to Robert Price interview about The Jesus Project on WBFO, Buffalo’s NPR affiliate.

CSER was founded in 1983 and is now a research committee of the Religion and Science division of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York. It encourages the use of the historical and applied sciences in the study of religion and provides educational programs for the public as part of its religious-literacy initiatives. The Center for Inquiry/Transnational is a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York. Their research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-scienceclaims; and medicine and health. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .

A Reply to John Loftus: Messianism and the Myth of Jewish Orthodox Nationalism in Antiquity

This was a comment originally posted here.  I moved it to its own blog post primarily because I know I’m going to have to address these issues in the future, somewhere at sometime, to somebody who (for some reason or another) won’t feel like using the search function on this site to locate these details.  So, to make things just a little easier on you (whoever you are), I’ve decided to dedicate a post to this reply to John Loftus.  John’s comments are quoted and italicized.  My rebuttal will hold to this current format (bold).  As promised, sometime this week I will work in a critique of John’s Part II of his article on Jesus.

—————————————————————————–

Thanks for your critisims of my position. I look forward to the rest of what you have to say.

You’re welcome. I’ll be sure to link you when I have the article done.

Dale Allison told me this: “Obviously I think you are right: there was an historical Jesus.

This isn’t an argument, it is a statement of opinion.

Detractors of Christianity would be in a much stronger position I think if they were to accept this…

Why do I get the sense that Dale is taking the lazy way out? Sure, detractors would be in a much easier position, but just because it is easier to say “Jesus probably existed” does not make it the more correct one. I am going to come down hard on this perspective when I review your second part, because I find this to be rather embarrassing to those of us who take the time to examine the issue fully. It’s embarrassing because so many apatheists and apostates, or even Christian progressives, would much rather be lazy (just as lazy as their religious counterparts) and take the safe route rather than take the more logically sound, scientific approach. It may get you more hard stares from evangelicals, but who cares? This is not about what is going to gain us more respect…its about what the best representation of the evidence is.

So no, I cannot agree. I find Dale’s statement to be epistemologically repulsive and harmful to what some historians and scholars are trying to accomplish; working to bring the question of historicity back into a field of scholars who are more willing to take things for granted than actually critically examine them. The lazy way is often the most ignorant path to tread.

…and then interpret the early church in the light of comparative messianism and comparative religion.

Let me get this straight…Dale would have you start from the conclusion and work backwards (in order to make the evidence “fit” the conclusion) instead of the scientific process of starting with the data and working towards a probable conclusion? Because that is exactly what Dale is suggesting here: Accept a historical Jesus first, and then ask questions about the origin traditions later, but make them fit into the conclusion that has already been accepted. Do you really agree with this, John? If so, I’m going to have to question whether or not you’ve really shed all of your theistic presuppositions. This is not how real historians in the field work. This is how apologists do business. I know you’re not an apologist, so what gives?

So much has its parallels elsewhere.” You see, in the day of Jesus messianism was rampant; the idea that a messiah was to come. In those days apocalyptic prophets had it easy.

You’re making some mistakes here and I would like to spend some time here to correct them.

To start, you’re confusing two things. First, you are confusing Gospels for history which I have already dealt with. (Please read the above article if you haven’t done so already; I spent a lot of time on it and have addressed this issue extensively there) Second, also addressed in the article above, is the fact that just because messianism “was rampant” (or rather, you seem to assume it was) does not mean that early Christendom was a messianic cult in the same manner that the Zealots were. There is a distinct difference between what Paul was saying and what Bar Kokhba or the so-called Maccabean revolts were all about. Clearly, messianism like that spawned of the Temple Cult was not the same type of religious cult that Paul was a part of and what Mark wrote about. So Dale (and your) hypothesis does not follow.

I sometimes think that some scholars are so completely lost in “messianism” that they forget that there were Jews all over the Diaspora, all with different perspectives and with different beliefs. The concept of “orthodoxy” which is the pillar of absolutist-messianism (which is my term for those, like you, who propose this line of argumentation), simply did not exist in antiquity. When Mark has Jesus condemning Jews, it isn’t “Judaism” that Jesus is portrayed to condemn, but rather other types of Jews. John M.G. Barclay has an excellent book containing a lot of this information. A Jew in Palestine for example, in the area of Jerusalem, may have a completely different perspective on “messiah” than a Jew living in the chora would. This brings us to my next point.

Messianism—that is those figures who started a religious movement—functioned primarily as an outlet for fundamentalists in the same way that certain Islamic organizations do today. These messiahs (like Loukuas) were only a portion of the Jewish community, those who were often hoping for nationalistic expectations to be fulfilled, along with the return of the homeland to them. The message of Paul and that of the Gospel authors is clearly distinct from this group. “Messianism” in this regard is opposite the message of the sect of Jews that later became known as Christians.

I also do not believe you will find much support for your hypothesis that “Messianism was rampant.” Despite the inflated numbers in both Philo and Josephus on the population of Jews living in the Diaspora, the fact was that they did outnumber the Jews living in the homeland, and many preferred to be in the Diaspora. There may have been upwards into the hundreds of thousands of Jews living all over the known world, functioning quite happily in Greek poleis, in Syrian communities, in Roman ghettos or in Egyptian city-states. The majority of Jews seemed to have quite enjoyed their lot. Assuming that the documentation is accurate concerning the amount of so-called Messiah’s in antiquity, which does not even make them a rough percent of the population of Jews. Just because the Bar Kokhba rebellion and the Maccabean revolts got more press coverage does not mean that they represented the majority of Jews. Even saying “majority of Jews” is a bit tongue-in-cheek, as there was no “majority” perspective among Jews at the time. Josephus and Philo, for example, were enjoying the world of the Greeks and Romans while the Sibylline Oracles spoke of the wrath of the chosen messiah and how Rome would be destroyed by Gods hand. The brother of Philo, Alexander earned the rank of Alabarch, a position of high honor (possibly having control over housing districts in Alexandria) and Philo’s nephew– Tiberius Julius Alexander—launched an attack against his own Jewish kin in Egypt by using Roman troops under the direction of Romans as the Roman procurator of Judaea. The diversity of perspectives is obvious.

But for the sake of argument, let’s just ignore this for a moment. Let’s pretend you actually have a point to make here with evidence that supports your conclusions (I know it’s a stretch, but bear with me). If Jesus had been a temple revolutionary out to start a rebellion, this would be a much different story. We would have documentation that supported this conclusion and as with Bar Kokhba, taking the figure of Jesus out of history would completely disrupt the course of events. You just couldn’t have a history of Palestine in the Roman period without a historical Jesus. However, this is not what we have. Instead we have quite the opposite. No work exists from the period which paints him as this sort of figure to launch a revolution and nothing remains in either the archaeological evidence or the literary evidence to suggest this was the case, despite what Crossan and Borg want to suggest (they’re wrong). Instead, taking the historical Jesus out of Palestine does nothing. Cults can derive without a historical patriarchal figure, so the claim that Christianity had to arise with a historical figure is moot. There is nothing at all that would change in Palestine.

What does that leave us? Who is Jesus then? The Jesus of the Gospels and of Paul’s epistles is a patriarchal figure and a prophet in line with Moses and Elijah. Jesus is like these characters specifically because they were used as models for his development. Not only is this evident upon examining Mark’s intertextuality, but it is so evident in fact that both Matthew and Luke, when using Mark, expand on his models. What does this mean? It means they not only knew Mark was drawing from the traditions of Moses and Elijah, they recognized where he was pulling specific scenes and tropes from so well they used the same locations in scripture to expand on a scene in Mark.

Messianism wasn’t the only activity Jews were skilled at and running around playing messiah or starting rebellions was not the only job options the Jews in antiquity had open to them. Perhaps you are not aware, but as I have explained countless times on my blog (a cursory look would provide you details) Jews were able to (and many did) receive Greek education at Greek gymnasiums.  Those who studied at these schools were not just trained in Greek. Many were multi-lingual (in fact, this is why you see so many Romans writing in koine and so many Greeks picking up Latin, and why Jews who were trained at these schools could write in Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and Hebrew).  Although one might learn these languages through home-schooling or tutors, the primary method utilized by both the Greeks and the Romans was formal education (whether at small schools  like those found in Pompeii and Herculaneum or at actual Gymnasiums). The availability of so many worldly manuscripts made the Hellenistic and Roman period a lavish playground for fiction authors. Dr. Erich Gruen has written extensively on this practice, specifically on how Jews rewrote traditions in the form and genre of fiction.

The fact of the matter is fiction writing was also “rampant” in this period, especially among Diaspora Jews but also among Jews in Judaea (there had been a gymnasium there as well). They wrote using models as guides to flush out narrative. The Gospel s, even Paul’s epistles, are nothing but well rhetoricized narrative tradition. This isn’t just with Paul either. Seneca’s epistles and Pliny’s letters are also representations of the same sort of rhetoricized correspondence, which incorporated model use to develop themes for them. Examples can be given upon request.

It doesn’t take too much to see this was the dominant view in the New Testament for who Jesus was.

It doesn’t take too much to see that this “dominant” view is pervasive throughout the literature the ancient Near East, particularly in the Hebrew Bible. Before you go on about “because this is dominant it must be true,” the concept of an apocalyptical messiah comes from first the notion of exile and particularly when it concerns exile from God. This is a theme so pervasive in the Hebrew bible that it shows up everywhere, and whole books are dedicated to explaining it. But, be careful not to confuse dominant apocalyptic literature with messianism. Some Jews, like those who followed Loukuas, may have been looking for a messiah to route the occupation of their community, but a great many others like the Essenes and the Theraputae had other perspectives on the matter – they expected somebody from the past to come back—they were waiting for Elijah, the prophet. They were not looking for Loukuas the revolutionary. They searched the scriptures for the answer, for when this Son of Man would come, according to Malachi and Isaiah, they would no longer be exiled from God. Many a great story had been written concerning how it would happen; some even suggested that it had already happened.

The concept of a “messianism” like this, where one starts to make all sorts of exaggerations on the state of the Jewish concept of the messiah, is not only harmful but ignorant of the vast amounts of perspectives that not only existed in the text but also the diversity within specific communities of Jews throughout the ancient world. When you fail to take this into account, you limit the data and ignore vast amounts of evidence. This is why so many historical Jesus scholars take for granted so many conclusions—it is precisely because they limit themselves that they end up creating more problems than solutions.

It makes sense given the era itself. So unless you can dispute THAT I think a good case can be made for such a prophet to be the originator of the Jesus cult.

There is nothing to dispute. I don’t think you’ve made a case. Simply supplying me with an opinion of a friend rather than an actual argument is not useful. If you want to match wits with quotes of opinions, it’s a fun game to play, but irrelevant. And that is really all you have done here. You posited only one minutiae of Jewish religious life in antiquity, particularly in second temple period Judaism, and left out so much more (whether intentionally or otherwise). You may be unaware of the vast amount of religious diversity which existed in Judaism at the time, and it may be that you may not understand how authors utilized models and literature to recreate traditions, but that is not an excuse to side with only a percentage of the socio-cultural world and call that a “good case.” I’m sorry, but you’re just not looking at the bigger picture.

It doesn’t demand accepting everything we read in the New Testament since obviously that can’t be. So tell me, how did the Jesus cult originate?

How do you think the Jewish religion itself originated? What of the Orphites and Dionysiacs? Who knows and who can say how these traditions started with any precision? I will not be the one here who is making grand, exaggerated statements of knowledge. I cannot say for sure how Christianity originated specifically. I do know, just from looking at the evidence of other ancient cults and mystery traditions, that traditions are adapted and evolve over time; following this adaptation, somewhere along the way people look back and realize they have diverged from the old traditions and people set about to *create* their origins, how they diverged, and often times incredible edifications emerge with it. That may be one possibility. Just looking at Jewish traditions, the Hebrew Bible is filled to the brim with examples of completely fictional patriarchs doing seemingly historical things. But clearly no historical Moses or Abraham existed; even David and Solomon are the center of controversy and debate now over whether they are historical or eponymous. There is no reason for you to suggest as you do that the “Jesus cult” (as you put it) originated with a historical figure. I would ask you to reread my critique of your position, above, because I have already handled the functionality of traditions, wholly invented or reinvented, and I’m not a fan of repeating myself.

Sans the fact that I do not know with any certainty how Christianity originated, I do have a hypothesis on how it might have happened, based on the evidence. I feel it initiated through a process of assimilation and divergence, where in some cases the Jews were culturally becoming more endearing towards the Greek and Roman culture (especially third-fourth generation Jews living in the Diaspora) and also through the divergence of how certain Jews interpreted Jewish scripture. In a book I plan to write sometime in the near future (after the two books I am currently working on at the moment are completed), I will explain how this assimilation and divergence happened, as I interpret the data, in great detail. For now, I feel that the “Jesus cult” is really a sect of Jews which had been around for decades before 33 CE. I find that the fact that Paul seems to connect with Jews everywhere in every city is interesting. It seems as if Paul converted into an already established tradition. A sect that is only a few decades old, at this time, would not have been so well established. The fact that it had been leads me to believe that Paul converted into a well-known Jewish sect, I think perhaps an offshoot of the Essenes (if not the Essenes themselves–and I do not mean the Qumran sect) which later became known as Christians. How did that cult arise? The same way that Orphites and Dionysiacs came to be. Not through one historical man, but through many men coming together to understand the world, through a common idea of the world and how it works, and through a common understanding of scripture and law.

Tell me also how the Lord’s Supper originated?

It comes right from scripture. I could write a whole blog entry on it, but t the moment I am already working on an article I am contributing to a collection of essays that deals precisely with how Paul used scripture to create his visions and develop his narrative and identity of Jesus. Paul even says he is interpreting a vision, but really what he is doing is interpreting scripture. The Gospel author of Mark used Paul’s account to create the Last Supper scene. The fact that Mark used Paul as a model is not new to scholarship.

And who were the people Paul was persecuting if they were not members of the Jesus cult? Provide the details.

They were Jews. Obviously they were part of the same sect Paul converted into. The question is not who they were but what they believed. Clearly Paul does not suggest Jesus was a *human* and he never puts Jesus on earth, nor does he attribute human-like behavior to Jesus. It is always in this formalistic, spiritual manner that Paul talks about his savior. The fact that some of his brethren mistake Paul for “the Christ” is evidence that this sect did not associate Jesus with a historical tradition in the same way that Irenaeus and Tertullian would generations later. Once more I don’t think you’re following your thoughts through to their conclusions.

Why I Respectfully Disagree with John W. Loftus, Part 1

By Thomas Verenna

A Very Quick Introduction

I want to first thank John for allowing me the opportunity to respond to his two-part blog article called I Believe Jesus Was a Historical Person. I want it to be known that I have talked with a lot of historical Jesus scholars; aside from only a handful (many being members of the Guild of Biblical Minimalists), many have hardened hearts towards the idea of ahistoricity (falsely labeled “Mythicism“). John’s agnosticism on this subject—his ability to keep an open mind about being wrong—is one of the reasons I am so excited to respond to him. Partly, I feel that being agnostic on this issue is the most honest position to take. I would consider myself agnostic over the historicity of the figure of Jesus, although clearly I feel there is more reason to doubt such a person existed than to not. But, as my colleague and friend Thomas Thompson keeps telling me, let the arguments speak for themselves. So, I will. Because there is so much to go over in both parts of John’s article, I have found that it would be best if I replied in two parts, respectively.

Tradition vs. History

John is very astute when he writes that “(e)ven a tradition is based on something.” He is wrong, however, to assume that a tradition must be based on something historical. Moses’ birth is a tradition, found in several pieces of literature outside of the Hebrew Bible. Josephus and Pliny both include birth accounts of Moses (although they differ some). This birth tradition is also elaborated on by these two first century Jews. Does this tradition have to be based on a historical event? I do not think that John would find much scholarly support for a ‘yes’ answer. Perhaps because this tradition—that is, being born under the rule of a vengeful tyrant who, upon looking for this child, the protagonist baby is put into a basket and sped away down a river—is found in much earlier ancient Near Eastern texts. The epic of Sargon comes to mind, predating the Moses saga by perhaps as much as 1,500 years. This tradition is also known, apparently, to Livy, who uses it to fashion the birth stories of Romulus and Remus in his History of Rome. I’m certain that John would not suggest that a historical Romulus and Remus were both put into a basket and sent down a river to escape death at the hands of a tyrant! Of course not since that is not reasonable. Certainly this tradition is based on something, but what it is based on is other traditions—not the vagaries of historical memory.

In the same manner, to claim as John does—that because we have witnesses to a tradition, that tradition must have some measure of historicity—is a little naïve. Traditions can (and have been shown to) be based entirely on earlier traditions. And just so we can avoid the infinite regress; yes, traditions can be wholly invented. There are cases of wholly-invented traditions even in our modern culture. Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan are certainly fictional characters with fictional traditions. Yet, believe it or not, there are people who believe them to have been real historical figures. There are people in Iceland who believe in Elves who inhabit volcanic deposits around the country. Are these traditions based on historical events or beings? Clearly not. Yet by claiming, as John does, that all traditions have a historical “something” behind them, we would have to assume that a group of small, indigenous humans inhabited holes in cool lava fields and in mountain regions (or rock). Or, conversely, we can admit that traditions can evolve from the imaginations of one or many individuals. (Ancient examples given upon request)

John tries to make his case when he writes:

I’ve read the relevant passages in Tacitus (64 AD), Pliny (112 AD), Suetonious (49 AD), Rabbi Eliezer (post 70 AD), the Benediction Twelve (post 70 AD), Josephus (post 70 AD). I’ve read the Christian inscription in Pompeii, too (79 AD). I understand the debates about them. But consider the majority scholarly consensus about the two-source theory of synoptic gospel tradition (Q and Mark) that predate the Gospels, and that we have early creeds inside Paul’s writings (I Cor. 8:6; 12:3; 15:3-4; Galatians 4:4-5; I Tim. 3:16) that predate his letters. Consider also the close connection between the New Testament era with the early church fathers like John the elder, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and others. We have to date these texts, no doubt, and many of them are indeed late, and some were forgeries. But they still offer some kind of early testimony to the historicity of a man called Jesus.

Do they “offer…early testimony to the historicity of a man called Jesus?” I disagree. In point of fact, these offer testimony to a tradition which dates back much earlier than Polycarp, Irenaeus, and even the epistle author Paul. They represent a literary tradition that dates back to the time before the many exiles, before Omri, before Judah…although certainly these are traditions as well based almost exclusively on imaginations of temple scribes. The works of these early “Christians” (or were they Jews?) represent a testament to literacy and imagination, not to a historical person. And what exactly is “the New Testament era?” First, we would have to determine the length of this era – are we talking about its composition, its development, or the period in which the New Testament books are set in? If it is the composition period, the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem are extensive; some one hundred years (conservatively) could be proposed and indeed has been. If we’re talking about the development of the New Testament, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent where it was really, finally, canonized (after perhaps hundreds of years of internal disputes, some even continuing into today). Are we talking about the literary scenes in which the character Jesus is portrayed to have lived in? Are we going to suggest that because the Hebrew Bible mentions chariots of Iron that it was composed in the Iron Age? The story of Tobit takes place during a pre-Persian period; are we to assume then that it was composed prior to the Hellenistic period? I don’t think many scholars would agree with this logic. Second, we would have to evaluate the genre of the literature of the New Testament (more on this below). Third, how we read the New Testament will not only determine its value but also its importance in the “era” being discussed. We cannot just assume a historical era of history based purely on the New Testament and I really hope that is not what John is implying.

John then questions why we, as scholars, should not believe “anything at all in the New Testament unless there is independent confirmation from outside sources.” But I find this to be a question of ridiculous proportions; it would depend on entirely too much speculation to answer affirmatively (even at all). One would have to assume, for example, that the Gospels are indeed written as histories. Such is an assumption grounded in much debate. (See recent critiques of the “biography genre” assumption by Mary Ann Tolbert, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Michael Vines, to start) Clearly one does not read Charles Dickens and ask “why must we require independent confirmation of Oliver Twist’s existence from outside sources?” It’s silly, because we know what we are reading was not intended to be read as a history—why do we so eagerly assume the Gospels were? Clearly the local first century baker was not going to read Mark—he probably couldn’t even read the receipts he was getting from local authorities in Greek (See Harris’ book on ancient literacy)…he certainly wasn’t literate enough to handle Mark’s complex story. Only those trained at Greek Gymnasiums were able to read Mark (and from what I recall, later Second Century Roman elites were not too thrilled with Christianity).

And claiming that Jesus is most likely historical because “what Jesus may have did and said seems to correspond to the Jewishness of that era as best as we can tell” is odd as an argument. The Jewishness of a character does not entail its historicity! If it did, Abraham and Isaac might as well be assumed historical! No, an author who is Jewish would have no trouble adding “Jewishness” to his character in the same way Charles Dickens had no trouble making his characters “British.” To make his case, John uses E.P. Sanders, who is not what I would call a realistic source for this either, as he has remarked elsewhere of the historicity of the Passion Narrative (see Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 1), which is clearly fictive and possibly a later development of Pauline kerygma. This argument is weak at best and at worst it is downright petty.

John finds his argument in a far worse state when one considers the broad range at which historical Jesus scholars accept historical vs. nonhistorical sayings and events. Albert Schweitzer remarked on the first quests findings, and how they seemed remarkably similar to the religious positions of the scholars investigating them. Bornkamm, during the second quest, was smart enough to see this as well, and remarked that scholars were looking into the well of historical Jesus scholarship, seeing their reflections, and calling it “the historical Jesus.” Clearly the same can be said for the third quest (see my article here). The fact is there is not solid method for determining “what Jesus may have did and said,” and as often as scholars try to propose a segment of text that they think reflects historical cores, just as often an alternative, equally-likely position can be supplied that disputes historicity (the reader can check up on the discussions between James McGrath and I for further details).

Where the problem comes from is the ability of some historians to construe a literary concept so much that it obscures it, to the point where they define it as “odd” or “embarrassing” and therefore “historical.” Thomas L. Thompson calls this confirming text with text. Or rather, it is when literature is historicized by other pieces of literature. An example is when somebody tries to use Paul to prove the historicity of the Gospels, when clearly the former came before the latter and the latter used the former to create narrative! Another example would be trying to use the Merneptah Stele to prove the existence of a historical Israel. A hymn using an eponymic title does not a state of Israel prove. Nor does a Gospel or an epistle prove the historicity of the eponymic character Jesus.

Further, John’s statement that “passionate cult-like religious groups are always started by a cult figure, not an author, and not a committee” is not a fact. I would ask John if he thinks Abraham was real. Clearly Judaism could have, at one time, been classified as a cult. I would like to amend his statement. Passionate, cult-like, religious groups evolve from other passionate, cult-like, religious groups, which often follow from authors. (L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, anybody?) There is no cult that has ever come about ex nihilo, that includes Christianity. Dionysiacs didn’t follow a historical guy named Dionysus who loved wine and Orphites did not follow a historical muse named Orpheus who sailed on a small, raggedy little ship known as the Argo with a bunch of pirates in search of treasure. In antiquity, the boundaries of history and legend were transparent. No, John, there does not have to be a historical “cult figure” at the head of every religion. And if John really wants to propose that there was one, I recommend he go with a safer bet: Paul. At least we have a name to go with the literature (the Gospels are not so lucky, pseudonymous as they are).

Additionally, using Acts as a source for early Christianity could be hazardous to your presuppositions! (See Joe Tyson’s excellent book on this, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle) Paul does talk about converting into a religion, but he never calls them Christians and he refers to them as if they were Jews. This is precisely why he often uses the books of the future Hebrew Bible as models for his theology—he’s talking to Jews. Paul does not suggest Jesus was a prophet, nor does he ever refer to Jesus “preaching” anywhere. Paul does all the preaching, reciting visions of Jesus and the Old Testament, but clearly not in the manner Acts describes (it is quite the opposite, actually). And if we’re going to use Paul, perhaps more than cursory knowledge would be useful. Paul never places Jesus on earth and blames archons (heavenly bodies) for the death of Jesus—not the Romans or Jews (not even Judas!). John would be hard pressed to locate anything in Paul’s seven authentic epistles (assuming the Dutch Radicals were wrong, of course) which vindicate a historical knowledge of a historical person (see article here).

Do we have here, as John would suggest, a historical Jesus from the “convergence” of evidence? Or do we have unclear answers leading to even more unclear questions? I think the latter is true. I must respectfully disagree with John here, on all accounts, and I fear that I disagree because I have thought these perspectives through to their logical conclusions. But as I have said, I will let the arguments speak for themselves. I still have one more part to write about. That will have to come another night this week. As for his first article, I do not find his reasons compelling; rather I find them to be wrapped up in poor logic, which is shocking from such a brilliant individual. I don’t blame John for this. I do, however, blame the state of historical Jesus scholarship which, in its quest to continually publish book after tome after book based entirely on speculative research (often done by religious, evangelical scholars with a strong bias—yes, Ben Witherington, I am looking at you), has so choked the life out of critical analysis in New Testament studies, the neoAlbrightians like Dever and Rendsburg look like minimalists compared to them (and that is truly an insult to injury)! Thankfully, some scholars out there are not afraid to take an agnostic position, or even lean liberally in this area (like Thomas L. Thompson, Bob Price, Richard Carrier, Philip Davies, Emanuel Pfoh, and even—perhaps—James Crossley…I’m hopeful). So, despite my disagreement with John Loftus here, I am thankful for his middle position. I hope that he is not angered at this critique, as it is done in hopes that others (perhaps even he) will stop assuming the historical Jesus consensus is always right and perhaps, just once, question the verisimilitude of it all.

Of Divorce and Faithfulness to Wife and God: Mark’s Reading of Malachi and 1 Corinthians

By Thomas Verenna

James has continued his “What Jesus Said and Did” series of blog posts with his second installment, which above other things concerns Jesus’ teachings on Divorce in Mark 10. First, I would like to point out that I enjoy the fact that James likes to try to analyze his own conclusions by offering alternative possibilities in his series. In this instance he brings to light the prohibitions of divorce in the Dead Sea Scrolls from the beginning. It is good to see somebody second guessing themselves, but I do not think that James follows his own thoughts to conclusion when it comes to this subject. Why do I say that? Because his argument for reliability is less than thoroughly explained and when read seems to rely on a foundation that is, to put it bluntly, weak. His argument rests in the assumption of embarrassment, once again.

One ought to consider, however, the indication that Jesus’ disciples were less than thrilled about this teaching attributed to him, which might provide an argument against it having been invented.

The assumption here is that because the narrator, Mark, suggests that his disciples were unhappy with the conclusions of Jesus’ teachings, this would imply a historical core (See my Finding Oneself on the Mount of Olives for details on James’ use of embarrassment). At its heart the historical core is not necessarily concerning the article of divorce, but rather would shift to how the disciples viewed Jesus’ teachings. Let’s face it: Jesus’ disciples often were annoyed at or oblivious to Jesus’ lessons. If James is going to use this literary trope inappropriately, it should be the first thing to dissect. Does Mark’s comment about the disciples discontent about this teaching “provide an argument against it having been invented?” Yes, it does, but not in the way that James thinks. Once more, James is arguing against an ad hoc. My position is not that these stories were invented whole cloth, as I have stated elsewhere (see here and here) but are rewritten from previous traditions, through model use and trope use, which are common not only in the Hebrew Bible but in all ancient literature of every genre.

The oblivious disciple(s) in Mark have a history that goes back for thousands of years, and predates Christianity by hundreds. I’ll use Dennis MacDonald’s words and call this, for the sake of understanding, the Trope of the Foolish Companions. Dennis argues (The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 20-23), and I think convincingly, that the reason why Jesus’ followers seem inconsiderate, treacherous, forgetful, incompetent, and ignorant of the scriptures is two-fold: (1) It makes Jesus appear more wise and learned and (2) Mark writes them this way as a means to express the state of the Israel (i.e. the twelve disciples represent the state of the twelve tribes—that they are inconsiderate, treacherous, forgetful, etc…). Both are literary (not historical) reasons for Mark’s plot. The disciples are tools. They hold the most secure place in Jesus’ company, learning the mysteries of the Kingdom, but happen to be the least coherent lot in all Judaea, much in the same manner that Israel holds a special place in God’s company, as the chosen people, yet often stray from the straight and narrow path. Mark highlights this fact by showing that the “dogs” of the world (gentiles) can be more Godlike and respectable than those in the highest Jewish positions. This is why the scene with the Syrophoenician woman is so important to Mark’s story line and theology. Although she is labeled a “dog” she is more likely to receive God’s blessings because of her faith which is more than those in Jesus’ company.

This trope is seen elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It is seen with Moses, who is constantly tested by those closest to him to provide a sign for the future ‘people of the book.’ It is there with Elijah who is reluctant to perform miracles of God. These themes are not new, just reused in new ways. In Mark’s Gospel, the ignorance of his companions is not evidence of a historical lot of incompetents but rather it is evidence for the literary plot that Mark is toying with to create his narrative. It is evidence of Mark’s use of Jewish scripture as a model for his good news.

This brings us back around to Mark’s figure of Jesus, also based on scripture. This is none-more clear than right here, in Mark 10; the same chapter that James wants to suggest has historical cores to it is precisely the chapter that utilizes scripture as a model, including the teachings on divorce and faithlessness. And no more obvious is the scholar’s ineptitude to understand context than it is here as well. As James forgets to read beyond his fragmenting of the narrative once again, he misses the intent behind the words of Mark.

As a reminder, it is Paul who first brings to light the words of Malachi:

Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel” (Mal. 2:13-16)

As Paul writes:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

James is right to inquire about this passage, but his interpretation (that Lord means Jesus) is not accurate. The Lord, through Malachi, hates divorce. And Paul rightly shows that it is the Lord who makes this degree.Is Paul “indicating his awareness that he was here passing on teaching attributed to Jesus that he had had passed on to him” as James suggests? No. Once more James’ realistic explanation is not thought through to its conclusions. The fact is Paul is reciting directly from Malachi (which is why Paul goes on about marrying unbelievers, as Malachi makes note). Paul’s remarks concerning the betrothed are not mentioned in Malachi, forcing Paul to recite his own theories on this, which he does quite extensively. This is not a manner of guilt at his ploy, nor is he filling in a blank splotch in his teachings, but rather he is elaborating on Malachi’s words, from the Lord, and explaining what is left unexplained. Paul does so smashingly.

The teachings of Jesus in Mark 10 are found in the Hebrew Bible and stem from teachings of Paul, who is also getting them from the Hebrew Bible. The Lord hates divorce and thus Jesus, his son, does too. His disciples, as Mark makes them, must question this, as they represent an Israel who has fallen from the path and must right themselves. They must be incompetent because Jesus has the law of the Lord behind him and must be seen as superior. This is how Mark writes, and as with the other instances where I have shown Mark is doing this, Mark cues the reader to this practice.

Mark’s idea of having the Pharisees—the temple cult—challenge Jesus is a cue to Malachi 2, which says:

“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the LORD Almighty. “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law. (Mal. 2:7-8; cf. Mal. 2:1)

The fact that the Pharisee’s bring up the law in Deut. 24:1-4 is to illustrate to the reader how the Pharisees, the priests, have abused the law and have “caused many to stumble.” Jesus sets them right by humiliating the Pharisees time and time again before crowds of people. The Pharisees have shown partiality in matters of the law; they revere one teaching over another and Jesus must show them their error and why they are not to be trusted. Mark does a fantastic job with this scene and makes it more than implicit that he is doing this.

Once more, James shows that he may fall into the category of the apprehensive disciple, where his understanding of the teachings mark is imparting is limited by his hardened heart, if you will. Limiting the Gospels to individual segments of so-called “historical cores” does nothing but limit one’s ability to see the forest between the trees. I will have to spend some time writing a blog article on how ancient authors utilized models to build plot, as it is clear that James refuses to comprehend my own lessons on this time and time again. This may be something for next week. In any event, the matters of divorce in Mark, spoken by Jesus, originated in Mark’s models: Paul and the Jewish scriptures. They did not originate from a historical Jesus.