Scriptural literacy

[Piggy]

Ok, since some people appear interested....

What I'll do is just post some commentaries on Bible passages which are confusing to, or easily misinterpreted by, modern readers, in cases where Biblical scholarship can shed some light on significant and interesting aspects of ancient peoples and cultures.

First up...

Why did Jesus call himself the "Son of Man"?

This always seemed odd to me as a kid, and no one ever bothered to explain it.

The reference is to a vision of Daniel in Daniel 7:13-14:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

Now the book of Daniel was only about a century old at the time of the writing of the first extant gospel, and it was written in Aramaic -- the common spoken language of the day -- with some passages in Hebrew, and was probably distributed in codex form if I remember correctly.

It is in large part an apocalyptic book, and was widely distributed and accepted by many Jewish communities as scriptural, so it would have been accessible to the Jesus movement, well known, and in line with much of their theology.

The term "son of man" is equivalent to "man" or "boy" (male human being) -- see its use in Ezekiel, for example -- but when Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man" he is echoing Daniel.

By declaring Jesus to be the Son of Man of Daniel's vision, the Jesus movement is actually doing something even more radical -- in terms of Jewish scripture -- than declaring him the son of God.

As I mentioned before, the "son of God" was a term used to describe the earthly king all the way back to David ("I shall be a father to him and he shall be a son to me", "You are my son; today I have begotten you"). And it was used by other sects to declare their leaders to be the true inheritor of righteousness.

So when Mark describes Jesus being baptised by John, and Jesus sees a vision of the Spirit descending like a dove and hears the voice of God saying "You are my son, the Beloved", this indicates that he is the true successor to David, the spiritual leader chosen by God to lead the righteous of Israel.

But when he is described as the Son of Man, this makes him not just any annointed religious leader of Israel, but the one who is to lead Israel when the Day of Wrath comes and the unrighteous are wiped out and Israel rules all nations of the earth.

After Jesus' death, tales of his resurrection and ascention circulated, and of course his assumption of the role of, well, king of the world was deferred to a later date when he would return to, in a sense, oversee the removal and judgment of the wicked and the establishment of the promised kingdom of Zion.

The earliest Xians would have been expecting the return of Jesus during their lives.

Perhaps next time I'll discuss the confrontation story of the question of marriage in the afterlife, and its implications for resurrection theology in the time of Jesus.

ETA: Other bits from this particular vision of Daniel are echoed in Matthew, Luke, and Revelation

 

[Hokulele]

Is the phrase "Ancient of Days" common? I can't recall hearing that one before. Do you know what exactly it references?

I have noticed DOC arguing that god is outside of time, but this epithet seems to lock it pretty much into a standard time reference frame.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, that's what I said. Some of it is iron age. The Song of Deborah, for instance.

My (obviously poorly) implied question was, "which bits are old enough to fall outside that range?" Are there any that are from the bronze age, as SilentKnight suggested? The oldest dates I've seen claimed are 1300-1600 BC, but those were questionable.

 

[Piggy]

Wouldn't it have been the bronze age at its earliest? Judges 1:19 mentions iron chariots and how they gave God so much trouble (though this is quickly resolved in 4:3). So that would make the bible "just a bunch of bronze / iron age myths."

Of course, just because something is mythology doesn't mean it's not worth studying, since mythology encompasses a wide scope of topics, including a little bit of historical context. Greco-Roman mythology, for example, has a lot to teach us about the culture that wrote it, even if the gods didn't exist and the supernatural events never happened.

Agreed. Iron-age myths can be fascinating!

As for when this stuff was written, the earliest of the books as we have them now were problably redacted -- that is, put into their current form as collections of previous written and oral source material -- sometime after 600 BCE.

But some of these myths are definitely iron-age, as they parallel very ancient Ugaritic and Egyptian mythologic and religious themes, tropes, characters, and events.

 

[Piggy]

My (obviously poorly) implied question was, "which bits are old enough to fall outside that range?" Are there any that are from the bronze age, as SilentKnight suggested? The oldest dates I've seen claimed are 1300-1600 BC, but those were questionable.

I'll have to dig up my notes from Ted Lewis's lectures and get back to you, but the following come to mind: the Song of Deborah, the Song of Miriam, the references to the Nephilim, the Tower of Babel, the serpent in the garden, the story of Cain and Abel, the story of Abraham and Isaac, the oldest of the altar commandments, requirements for child sacrifice before redemption practices, and probably the tale of Esau selling his birthright to Jacob.

Keep in mind that much (perhaps all) of this material is not likely in its original form, but would have been altered somewhat over the years to conform to changing standards and environments.

ETA: The verse passages are probably the most true to their ancient (relative to the time of redaction) form.

 

[Piggy]

Is the phrase "Ancient of Days" common? I can't recall hearing that one before. Do you know what exactly it references?

I have noticed DOC arguing that god is outside of time, but this epithet seems to lock it pretty much into a standard time reference frame.

It's an Aramaic stock phrase that simply means the Ancient One.

Now this part of the vision is related to some passages just prior which describe the heavenly throne room where the Ancient One sits in judgment with the host of heaven.

I think it's pretty safe to interpret this as equivalent to "the everlasting one" since it echoes the vision of Yahweh which Micaiah reports in 1 Kings 22, Isaiah's vision of God in Isaiah 6, and Ezekiel's vision of "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh" (by that time, you don't want to have even appeared to have claimed to have actually seen Yahweh) in Ezekiel 1:26-28.

ETA: Very few books of the Bible were composed in Aramaic, so it's not surprising that the term "Ancient of Days" appears only in Daniel.

 

[Hokulele]

It's an Aramaic stock phrase that simply means the Ancient One.

Now this part of the vision is related to some passages just prior which describe the heavenly throne room where the Ancient One sits in judgment with the host of heaven.

Makes sense to me.

I think it's pretty safe to interpret this as equivalent to "the everlasting one" since it echoes the vision of Yahweh which Micaiah reports in 1 Kings 22, Isaiah's vision of God in Isaiah 6, and Ezekiel's vision of "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh" (by that time, you don't want to have even appeared to have claimed to have actually seen Yahweh) in Ezekiel 1:26-28.

Yeah, I remember all of the literary devices used to avoid direct reference to any aspect of Yahweh (sight, sound, even the name itself).

ETA: Very few books of the Bible were composed in Aramaic, so it's not surprising that the term "Ancient of Days" appears only in Daniel.

Ah, so it is limited to Daniel? No wonder I don't recall it. I wasn't so careful in my reading of the various prophecies. Maybe I should take up your challenge, order the annotated edition myself, and go through those first.

 

[Piggy]

Ah, so it is limited to Daniel? No wonder I don't recall it. I wasn't so careful in my reading of the various prophecies.

Y'know, I was supposed to study Daniel under Ted Lewis, but we ran out of time at the end of the semester, so we never got to it, and I've always regretted not being able to hear his lectures on that book!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why did Jesus call himself the "Son of Man?...

So "sons of God" were a dime a dozen but "the Son of Man" was a fulfillment of prophecy. Cool.

The earliest Xians would have been expecting the return of Jesus during their lives.

Quite a few of the latest Christians too, at least in my neck of the woods.

 

[Greediguts]

Ok, since some people appear interested....

What I'll do is just post some commentaries on Bible passages which are confusing to, or easily misinterpreted by, modern readers, in cases where Biblical scholarship can shed some light on significant and interesting aspects of ancient peoples and cultures.

First up...

Why did Jesus call himself the "Son of Man"?

This always seemed odd to me as a kid, and no one ever bothered to explain it.

The reference is to a vision of Daniel in Daniel 7:13-14:



Now the book of Daniel was only about a century old at the time of the writing of the first extant gospel, and it was written in Aramaic -- the common spoken language of the day -- with some passages in Hebrew, and was probably distributed in codex form if I remember correctly.

It is in large part an apocalyptic book, and was widely distributed and accepted by many Jewish communities as scriptural, so it would have been accessible to the Jesus movement, well known, and in line with much of their theology.

The term "son of man" is equivalent to "man" or "boy" (male human being) -- see its use in Ezekiel, for example -- but when Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man" he is echoing Daniel.

By declaring Jesus to be the Son of Man of Daniel's vision, the Jesus movement is actually doing something even more radical -- in terms of Jewish scripture -- than declaring him the son of God.

As I mentioned before, the "son of God" was a term used to describe the earthly king all the way back to David ("I shall be a father to him and he shall be a son to me", "You are my son; today I have begotten you"). And it was used by other sects to declare their leaders to be the true inheritor of righteousness.

So when Mark describes Jesus being baptised by John, and Jesus sees a vision of the Spirit descending like a dove and hears the voice of God saying "You are my son, the Beloved", this indicates that he is the true successor to David, the spiritual leader chosen by God to lead the righteous of Israel.

But when he is described as the Son of Man, this makes him not just any annointed religious leader of Israel, but the one who is to lead Israel when the Day of Wrath comes and the unrighteous are wiped out and Israel rules all nations of the earth.

After Jesus' death, tales of his resurrection and ascention circulated, and of course his assumption of the role of, well, king of the world was deferred to a later date when he would return to, in a sense, oversee the removal and judgment of the wicked and the establishment of the promised kingdom of Zion.

The earliest Xians would have been expecting the return of Jesus during their lives.

Perhaps next time I'll discuss the confrontation story of the question of marriage in the afterlife, and its implications for resurrection theology in the time of Jesus.

ETA: Other bits from this particular vision of Daniel are echoed in Matthew, Luke, and Revelation

Begging your pardon Piggy, but isn't there still a fairly intense debate about the usage of "Son of Man"? From what I've been reading it appears in 2 different senses in the Gospels (a possible 3rd as some have suggested "Son of Man" is in reference to his humanity).

1. As an apocalyptic figure of the future and the passages make it sound like Jesus is talking about someone else....or talking like Keith Richards (Keith to interviewer:"Yeah, Keith is a nice bloke...I shave him now and again.").
(examples-Mark 8:38; Matthew 16:27; Luke 9:26)

2. To refer to his suffering, dying, and rising.
(examples - Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; Matthew 20:18; Luke 18:31)

Some state the problems would appear to be because of early Christians not understanding the idiomatic meanings of the Hebrew and Aramaic in use in Galilee (especially if they were coming across the early Greek translations), so they created entirely new meanings based upon the presumed example of Daniel which, as you noted, was a widely distributed text at the time.

Here's a link that covers many different arguments regarding the usage of "Son of Man".

------
I stopped by the library today and now have several books on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish Literacy by Rabbi Telushkin, one book on the history of the Book of Revelation and its impact on history, The Oxford Bible Commentary from 2001, and Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman.

 

[Piggy]

Begging your pardon Piggy, but isn't there still a fairly intense debate about the usage of "Son of Man"? From what I've been reading it appears in 2 different senses in the Gospels (a possible 3rd as some have suggested "Son of Man" is in reference to his humanity).

1. As an apocalyptic figure of the future and the passages make it sound like Jesus is talking about someone else....or talking like Keith Richards (Keith to interviewer:"Yeah, Keith is a nice bloke...I shave him now and again.").
(examples-Mark 8:38; Matthew 16:27; Luke 9:26)

2. To refer to his suffering, dying, and rising.
(examples - Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22; Matthew 20:18; Luke 18:31)

Some state the problems would appear to be because of early Christians not understanding the idiomatic meanings of the Hebrew and Aramaic in use in Galilee (especially if they were coming across the early Greek translations), so they created entirely new meanings based upon the presumed example of Daniel which, as you noted, was a widely distributed text at the time.

Here's a link that covers many different arguments regarding the usage of "Son of Man".

------
I stopped by the library today and now have several books on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish Literacy by Rabbi Telushkin, one book on the history of the Book of Revelation and its impact on history, The Oxford Bible Commentary from 2001, and Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of the Jesus Seminar.

And I'm not ready to assume that the rabbi Jesus (that is, the historical Jesus) used that term at all.

The question I ask is "Why did the authors use the term?" The answer might be, "Because Jesus did", but of course there's no evidence that this is so.

And when looking for an answer, the thing is, we don't actually have to choose. "Son of Man" is one of those wonderful ambiguities. Jesus declares himself "a man" (no harm in that) but also aligns himself clearly with the vision of Daniel.

Given what we know about Daniel, and given the other direct allusions to other lines in that section of Daniel elsewhere in the gospels, we can safely conclude that the gospel writers were aware of exactly what they were doing by using the phrase.

Regarding your scriptural references....

Mark 8:38, Matthew 16:27, and Luke 9:26 are other direct references to that vision of Daniel. They describe Jesus judging all men when he is received in the assembly of the Father and the holy angels. (And yes, he's talking like Keith Richards or Bob Dole here. We know this because he clearly identifies himself as the Son of Man elsewhere, as in Mark 8:31, etc.)

In Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22, Matthew 20:18, and Luke 18:31, Jesus refers to himself in the 3rd person as the Son of Man when prophecying his own rejection by Israel. In doing so, he confounds the disciples ("But they undersood nothing about all these things; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said", Luke 18:34) thereby prophecying to them but keeping them from becoming either scared or rebellious.

At the same time, he alludes to Daniel and also to the Call of Ezekiel ("everything that is written about the Son of Man will be accomplished", Luke 18:31).

In the Call of Ezekiel -- another visionary text -- God speaks to Ezekiel as " O son of man" (in other words, "O mortal") and tells him that he is being sent to prophecy to a stubborn nation, to Israel itself and not to other nations, that he will speak to them in their own language, and they will not listen, and will be like scorpions around him and will set briers and thorns in his path.

In all these cases, Jesus is identified by "Son of Man" as the annointed of God, as the true prophet of God sent to call Israel to redemption, as the fulfillment of prophecy, and -- in the passages that use imagery from Daniel -- as the judge of souls at the Day of Wrath and the eventual ruler of all the kingdoms of the world.

Btw, Misquoting Jesus is a great little book!

ETA: Btw, it's worth noting that Ezekiel is confused, frightened, even struck dumb by his visions and the calling of God. Jesus is not.

 

[Piggy]

Next up:

What did Jesus teach?

When this question comes up, it's most likely that you'll get a debate centering on modern theology, or the the issue of whether Jesus was a peace and love kind of guy or a fire and brimstone preacher.

But the former isn't really relevant to the scriptures or to Jesus' day, and the latter is mostly a reflection of the ancient authors' purposes.

So I'd like to take up the question of the issues which likely were most significant to Jesus' teaching in his day.

There's necessarily going to be a lot of speculation here, but the standard I'll use will be consistent treatment in the gospels, especially the synoptics, (Paul was more concerned with salvation through belief in the resurrection than the actual teachings of the rabbi Jesus) and consistency with circumstantial evidence.

I'll give an overview in this post and folks can ask questions if they want a drill-down.

I think the most important points of Jesus' teaching can be summed up as:

• Peace with Rome
• Resurrection
• Apocalypse
• Corruption of the Temple
• Anti-legalism

The last item can be subdivided into:

• Sabbath observation
• Opposition to animal sacrifice

Taking the points in order:

Peace with Rome, or revolution, was perhaps the most pressing issue of Jesus' day. By associating with tax collectors and recommending the payment of taxes ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's"), Jesus clearly sides against the revolutionaries.

The question of resurrection was a hot-button theological issue. The ancient scrolls held that there was no afterlife -- when your body goes down into the earth, that's it. The most recent scrolls, such as Daniel, held that there would be a bodily resurrection on the day of judgment.

The Saducees held with the ancient scrolls. Some rabbinical schools held that there was a resurrection of souls. The Pharisees held with bodily resurrection, and Jesus seems to have agreed with them.

If there is one point that can be held up as the keystone of Jesus' teaching, it is the imminent coming of the Day of the Lord, the judgment of souls, and the Kindgom of God. The Jesus movement was undeniably apocalyptic.

Jesus, like many prophets of old, condemned the leadership in the Temple as hopelessly corrupt. In this he agreed with other rabbinical cults, but not with the Pharisees, who, like the Saducees, were associated with the scribes.

Jesus opposed the rigid legalism of his day. A primary example of this is his opinon that "the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath". This sets him against certain other apocalyptic cults, such as the Essenes, who attempted to prove their status as the true remnant by adhering rigidly to the Law, even to the point of forbidding "fornication" with one's spouse.

The question of whether Jesus opposed animal sacrifice is not settled by any means. From my point of view, it is the only conclusion which fits all the evidence. Jesus perfoms healings without the performance of sacrifice, forgives sins without demanding sacrifice of atonement, echoes prophets of the First Temple period who opposed animal sacrifice, emphasizes table fellowship at Passover and is said to drive out the men selling sacrificial animals for Passover, and is baptised -- perhaps the most telling point, since the practice of baptism for atonement obviates the need for animal sacrifice.

And he's from Gallilee, a region remote from Jerusalem Temple where sacrifices had to be performed, and is consistently shown as in opposition to the scribes, who adhered most stringently to the Law and represented the old dispensation which required mediation by the Temple and atonement through sacrifice.

So that's it in a nutshell. Questions and comments appreciated.

 

[Piggy]

Some state the problems would appear to be because of early Christians not understanding the idiomatic meanings of the Hebrew and Aramaic in use in Galilee (especially if they were coming across the early Greek translations), so they created entirely new meanings based upon the presumed example of Daniel which, as you noted, was a widely distributed text at the time.

Indeed, they created new meanings.

But it was certainly not because they misunderstood the idiomatic meanings of Galilean Aramaic or Biblical Hebrew.

Keep in mind that the gospels were apologetics to explain the doctrine of the early Xians... who were Aramaic speakers in Galilee. And the most literate were trained in Biblical Hebrew.

Yes, you can say that the gospels constitute a "crank" reading of Daniel. But you have to understand that this kind of twisting of previous scripture is common, to say the least, at the time.

Back then, there was no notion of textual scholarship like we have today.

This is apologetics. They intentionally mined the Hebrew scripture for support.

To judge their actions by our standards of scholarship is a serious mistake.

 

[Greediguts]

Well, I'm not a huge fan of the Jesus Seminar.

And I'm not ready to assume that the rabbi Jesus (that is, the historical Jesus) used that term at all.

The question I ask is "Why did the authors use the term?" The answer might be, "Because Jesus did", but of course there's no evidence that this is so.

And when looking for an answer, the thing is, we don't actually have to choose. "Son of Man" is one of those wonderful ambiguities. Jesus declares himself "a man" (no harm in that) but also aligns himself clearly with the vision of Daniel.

Given what we know about Daniel, and given the other direct allusions to other lines in that section of Daniel elsewhere in the gospels, we can safely conclude that the gospel writers were aware of exactly what they were doing by using the phrase.

I think I'm going to stick with the Book of Daniel for awhile...I'm jumping all over and not grasping the whole picture. Probably best that I start building a strong foundation in the older texts before I jump back into the NT.

My first impressions of Daniel after reading all the chapters and then looking at the recorded history is that the author (well, the author of the visions, as this book seems to have several tales by different authors put together) knew future events better than present day events of his time. Putting Daniel's succession of Babylonian kings against the historical record show he was not accurate past Nebuchadnezzar, which you would think he would be if he lived at that time. If you look at Nebuchadnezzar's "dream" in reference to the history we know, then it shows, historically, how the Chaldean empire of Nebuchadnezzar was replaced by Persians then Medes, and then by the Greeks which was ended by the Maccabbeean uprising that liberated the Jews.

Now it starts to become clearer to me of how reading the Book of Daniel symbolically, within its historical context, instead of literally helps to give more meaning and a clearer understanding of the text. I know, most of you are saying, "Well, duh..." but I think I've gotten so used to talking (or arguing) with fundamentalist Christians that I actually have started viewing the Bible in a literal sense more often than not.

If the "visions" are placed around the time of Antiochus, who was forbidding (on pain of death) the worshipping of Yaweh and all Jewish rites, then something as small as having Daniel refuse to drink the wine and eat the food offered to him (Daniel 1:8) becomes much more significant. It would be telling Jews of the time to not give into the Hellenistic seductions and don't break the kashrut (dietary laws)! The golden idol erected by Nebuchadnezzar becomes a reference to the idol of Zeus that Antiochus had erected in the Temple at Jerusalem, reminding the Jews how Antiochus defiled the Holy of Holies.

Wow, do I feel dumb.....


Also, now having the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls in front of me, I can see how the Oxford Commentary speculates chapter 4 of Daniel has origins in the Prayer of Nabonidus. For those interested, here's the text of the Dea Sea Scroll:

Words of the prayer, said by Nabonidus, king of Babylonia, the great king, when afflicted with an ulcer on command of the most high God in Temâ:
'I, Nabonidus, was afflicted with an evil ulcer for seven years, and far from men I was driven, until I prayed to the most high God. And an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the children of the exile of Judah, and said: "Recount this in writing to glorify and exalt the name of the most high God." Then I wrote this: "When I was afflicted for seven years by the most high God with an evil ulcer during my stay at Temâ, I prayed to the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood, stone and lime, because I thought and considered them gods..."'
(the end is missing)

The KJV version of Daniel 4 can be read here.

 

[Piggy]

If the "visions" are placed around the time of Antiochus, who was forbidding (on pain of death) the worshipping of Yaweh and all Jewish rites, then something as small as having Daniel refuse to drink the wine and eat the food offered to him (Daniel 1:8) becomes much more significant. It would be telling Jews of the time to not give into the Hellenistic seductions and don't break the kashrut (dietary laws)! The golden idol erected by Nebuchadnezzar becomes a reference to the idol of Zeus that Antiochus had erected in the Temple at Jerusalem, reminding the Jews how Antiochus defiled the Holy of Holies.

Yes, and if "2nd Daniel" (that is, the visionary part of the book) dates from that era -- and btw, I misdated it above, should have said a couple of centuries before the writing of the gospels rather than a century -- there would have been strong echoes during Jesus' day and in the time of the early Jesus movement, just a few years prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE.

You would have seen all of those same conflicts going on in Jewish society, from those who sought a close relationship with the Romans, to those who wanted autonomy but not rebellion, to those who wanted independence, to those who wanted independence and to purge the Jewish state of all foreigners (through deportation and death) and institute stringent adherence to the Law.

Daniel would have spoken to the times.

(And btw, you can see the similar kind of thing in America today, where some Christian denominations blame problems and disasters on God's wrath and call for adherence to their selective interpretation of scripture -- e.g. anti-gay -- and warn against changing new-fangled observances of God -- e.g., having students recite an oath of national loyalty "under God" every day and printing "In God we trust" on money -- in order to keep or regain God's favor to prevent destruction of the nation and in order to help bring on the apocalypse and the subsequent paradise on earth. Others call for a split from the "old time religion", so to speak, and a modernized worship and interpretation of scripture. You've got cloistered end-time cults like the Branch Davidians. And everything in between.)

Jesus' school would have been considered rather liberal. By all appearances, they supported cooperation with Rome, did not call for ousting foreigners, and advocated some modernization of Jewish practices -- such as easing of dietary and sabbath restriction and replacing sacrifice with baptism -- rather than a call to more rigid legalism.

Unlike the Essenes, who believed that God would spare the remnant who adhered most strictly to the Law, the Jesus cult seemed to advocate the position that God would spare the remnant who loved God and who practiced mercy and justice.

Of course, they did not want to throw out all Jewish religious practices, not by a long shot, but they would have been considered reformers.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Questions and comments appreciated.

Comment.

This is a terrific discussion. Please keep 'em comin'.

 

[joobz]

When this question comes up, it's most likely that you'll get a debate centering on modern theology, or the the issue of whether Jesus was a peace and love kind of guy or a fire and brimstone preacher.

But the former isn't really relevant to the scriptures or to Jesus' day, and the latter is mostly a reflection of the ancient authors' purposes.

I'd like a little more clarification on this point.
I do not see how we can say part of the Jesus story isn't the peace and love thing. Doesn't the beatitudes suggest as such?

 

[Piggy]

I'd like a little more clarification on this point.
I do not see how we can say part of the Jesus story isn't the peace and love thing. Doesn't the beatitudes suggest as such?

Well, I was referring more to how the question is posed as a dichotomy between that and hellfire and brimstone. For Jesus, the 2 are not necessarily opposed.

I'd be happy to dig a little deeper into the "peace and love" thing, tho.

Can't at the moment, but next installment....

Essentially, tho, it's not a matter of preaching style or personal character, or even the core message -- which was the coming of the Kingdom of God -- but rather a matter of how Jesus answered the question "What is righteousness?"

 

[Piggy]

Ok, more detail on the question: Did Jesus teach peace and love, or fire and brimstone.

A: Both.

The core of Jesus' teaching, by all accounts, was the coming of the Kingdom of God; that is, the Day of Wrath in which all people would be judged -- both the living and the dead, because the dead would be bodily resurrected -- and the wicked punished, and the righteous spared, and the reign of Heaven on Earth established.

Other apocalyptic cults also preached the coming of the Kingdom of God, but they differed on the question of who would be considered righteous.

Remnant theology was prevalent among these cults -- that is, that the true righteous remnant of Israel would survive. The Essenes considered themselves the true remnant because they alone -- so they thought -- followed the Law, and the Law was the path to righteousness.

The Jesus movement, however, was anti-legalistic, and held that the Law could not save you. They held that love and mercy were the marks of those who obey the will of the Father. So peace and love, so to speak, were the means to survive the coming fire and brimstone.

In this they were not original, but followed a certain prophetic strain such as that of Micah (ca. 700 BCE) another anti-Jerusalem, populist prophet from a rural area:

"My people, remember now
What Balak king of Moab counseled
And what Balaam son of Beor answered him,
And from Shittim to Gilgal,
So that you might know the righteous acts of the LORD."
With what shall I come to the LORD
And bow myself before the God on high?
Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings,
With yearling calves?
Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams,
In ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?

Here you see a condemnation of animal sacrifice, and a call for personal (not national) redemption through acts of justice, kindness, and humility.

(Btw, Balak called Balaam to curse the Israelites who had surrounded him. God told Balaam not to go, so he said he wouldn't go if they gave him all the king's silver and gold. Balak sent higher level emissaries, and this time God said "Go, but only say what I tell you to say". So Balaam went and Balak built altars and made sacrifices and then... Balaam blessed the Israelites. Balak was furious, but Balaam said, "I told you, I can only say what God tells me to say." Balak built more altars and performed more sacrifices, but the Israelites got another blessing.)

Matthew's Jesus echoes this when he tells the Pharisees "Go learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'".

Ok, a bit of context here....

Israel (the Jewish people) were under Roman protection, not threatened by their neighbors, but still there was violence and unrest.

There were claims that association with Romans was an abomination. There were attempts at insurrection. There were claims that the mere presence of non-Jews among Jews was an impurity, and some, like the Zealots, called for their expulsion and some even murdered non-Jews in an attempt to drive the others out.

The scribes' outrage at Jesus eating at the home of a toll collector in the border town of Capernaum was probably not due to his employment by Rome -- they were associated with the pro-Rome Temple -- but rather due to his contact with "unclean" persons.

Jesus did not condemn Rome, and did not condemn the foreigners. In the parable of the good Samaritan, he says that one's "neighbor" is anyone you live with, or come in contact with. (Samaritans would have been outside the Law to the rigidly legalistic because of their practices.)

And in the lead-up to that parable, he says that all of the Law and the Prophets is summed up in loving God and loving your neighbor.

So Jesus seems to be of the opinion that all the violence and unrest is the fault of the Jews themselves, and the Jews can stop it if they take up Micah's call to love justice and mercy and walk humbly with their God.

Keep in mind that in that day there is no separation of politics and religion.

So it is not inconsistent for Jesus to drive the vendors of sacrificial animals from the Temple with a whip -- they are turning God's house into a pirates' den -- or to call the priests and rabbis "whitewashed tombs", and to warn of the coming judgment on the unrighteous, yet to preach that we must forgive our enemies.

He does not say that we turn the other cheek to the enemies of God or of righteousness, but only to those who are angry at us. And he does not say that God will turn the other cheek to those who have preyed upon their neighbors and committed violence against the innocent.

So again, for Jesus, his core mission was to warn Israel of the coming of the fire and brimstone, while proclaiming that legalism did not offer salvation, but that those who love God and who practice justice and mercy with all others will be saved when the Day of Wrath comes.

 

[Piggy]

Why does Jesus hate fig trees?

The story of the withering of the fig tree is often used as a gotcha question aimed at Bible-believers and Bible literalists.

But it's also a kind of "Do Balrogs have wings?" question in legitimate scholarship -- it seems to continually get knocked around with no conclusive solution.

The story of the withering of the fig tree appears in 2 of the synoptic gospels, with significant differences. Why only 2, and why the differences?

So I'd like to briefly describe it and give one explanation -- naturally, the one I find most convincing.

First, I'll present the versions in Mark and Matthew, then I'll explain the gotcha question, then I'll move on to an academic explanation.

Here's how Mark has it:

On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry.

Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening.

Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple.

And He began to teach and say to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a robbers' den."

The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.

When evening came, they would go out of the city.

As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up.

Being reminded, Peter said to Him, "Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered."

And Jesus answered saying to them, "Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.

"Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.

"But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."

Matthew, however, has Jesus withering the tree the day after he scourges the Temple, and it happens at once:

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a robbers' den."

And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became indignant and said to Him, "Do You hear what these children are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself'?"

And He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.

Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry.

Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered.

Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, "How did the fig tree wither all at once?"

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.

"And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

The usual gotcha questions are "Doesn't this prove that the Bible isn't inerrant?" and "If Jesus knew it wasn't the season for figs, isn't he acting like a spoiled brat to punish the tree for not having figs?" or alternately, "Why didn't he just miracle some figs onto the tree?"

But these questions aren't particularly interesting from a scholarly point of view.

The much more interesting question is: If Matthew and Luke both had a copy of Mark in front of them -- as most scholars agree they did -- why does Matthew change the story, and why does Luke omit it altogether?

I should mention, Luke does have a fig tree story, but it's a parable, and it's not interpolated or coterminous with the scourging of the Temple:

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.

And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?

"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?

"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

And He began telling this parable: "A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any.

"And he said to the vineyard-keeper, 'Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?'

"And he answered and said to him, 'Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.'"

Here, Jesus rejects the notion that bad things happen to people because they are sinful -- if you're injured by another person or by an act of nature, it's not God's judgment on you for being bad. (In other words, Jesus disagrees with Pat Robertson!)

However, when the Day of the Lord comes, on that day you WILL be punished for your sins. God is justified in uprooting the tree at any time, but the Son of Man intercedes and says "Let me fertilize the tree (preach the coming of the Kingdom of God) and if it still does not produce fruit (repent and obey God) then uproot it."

So... why the differences?

Well, If Luke and Matthew are both looking at Mark, and Matthew simplifies his story and Luke omits it, the most logical conclusion is that they thought Mark got it wrong.

Most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke each had a copy of Mark -- though perhaps not identical copies -- as well as copies of a now-lost book of the sayings of Jesus (dubbed "Q"), and that both Matthew and Luke had other sources in front of them which the other was not looking at, such as tales of the miracles of Jesus, accounts of the parables of Jesus, genealogies, biographies, etc.

It is highly likely, given their treatment of this story, that both Matthew and Luke found discrepancies between Mark's account of the fig tree story and their other sources, and concluded that Mark's account was not trustworthy.

Given that, it is very likely that Mark took liberties with the story for dramatic and didactic effect.

And indeed, Mark makes it much more dramatic.

In Matthew's account -- probably based on other sources that he has but which Luke does not -- it's a simple teaching device about the power of faith, with the double purpose of alluding to the spiritual barrenness of Israel.

Mark takes it and plays it up, to great effect. I mean, really, it's quite deft and beautiful.

In Mark's version, Jesus approaches a fig tree in the season when no one would expect figs, and then curses the tree for not having figs! But he does this within earshot of his disciples. Mark is careful to include those details.

The disciples -- as well as the audience of the gospel -- would have found this very odd, but it's certainly not the only thing that Jesus said or did which confounded the disciples at first, until they came to understand Jesus' purposes (e.g., the "Son of Man" prophecy I described in an earlier post).

So then Jesus returns to Jerusalem and commits the act that essentially signs his death warrant.

At this point, the disciples would have been very afraid, and possibly doubtful. Because, seriously, that kind of thing could get you sentenced to death.

On the way back to Bethany, they pass by the tree again, and a disciple says, "Look, rabbi, the fig tree you cursed is dead".

You see, it's a little seed that Mark's Jesus has planted, because he knew that the teaching moment would be necessary just then. This shows not only Jesus' power to perform miracles, but also his power to foresee the future, and underscores the fact that there is a purpose to all that he does, even the acts that lead to his crucifixion.

At that moment, he tells his disciples that they have the power to perform miracles, a power they will need when he is gone. So Mark's Jesus reassures his disciples in their time of fear and doubt, and the audience is also reassured of Jesus' power and reminded that his crucifixion is not a sign that he failed but rather a sign that his plans are being carried out.

It's an uncharacteristic embellishment for Mark, but from a literary point of view, it's a brilliant one, and personally I prefer it to Matthew's version, even if Matthew does adhere more closely to the accepted tradition of his day.

ETA: Note how Mark also adds the bit about forgiveness, another key point in instructing his disciples how to react to his forthcoming crucifixion.