Problems with the Apocalypticist reading of jesus:

Transcription

1 Problems with the Apocalypticist reading of jesus: Prof. Beresford s rough notes: (1) We think that we have found several close connections between the sayings of Jesus and Stoicism, a Hellenistic (philosophical) version of monotheism. These connections include both detailed verbal echoes and shared general themes: Detailed verbal echoes (note, references here are not detailed. You will have to take my word for it in cases that you are not familiar with.) On the left are references to sayings or parables in Jesus; the brackets give some Stoic source that contains a verbally and philosophically close parallel. 1. a lamp is for giving light, and the lamp = wisdom/ righteousness [Marcus Aurelius] 2. useless things [e.g., unsalty salt] are to be thrown on dung-hill [Epictetus] 3. parables of banquets, where the host is God [Epictetus] 4. seed, sower, growing seed, seed as wisdom/righteousness [Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius]. This is an especially good parallel: Epictetus almost has the parable of the sower in full. 5. Even little birds are cared for; God must be looking after us too [Musonius Rufus]

2 6. Do you look for figs out of season? [Epictetus] Note: my theory is that Jesus said: Does a man look for figs when it is not the season and then curse the tree? 7. God offers protection against thieves (at least two such sayings in the corpus) [Epictetus: there are thieves on the road ahead, and there are no thieves of one s moral choices ] 8. God (or his power) offers us protection against storms [Epictetus] 9. Even the hair on your head is counted by God [Chrysippus] 10. seek and you will find [twice in Epictetus, refers to figuring out God s plan]: a unique and striking match. 11.foxes and birds [we placed this saying within Hellenistic debates over divine providence; it seems to be closely matched in Plutarch, less closely in Epictetus] The following are the thematic parallels between the sayings of jesus and Stoicism: 1. Central interest in the argument from design [passim in both sources]; faith in God s providence. 2. Invulnerability offered by a certain way of seeing the world, connected with both wisdom and righteousness [passim] 3. You have to renounce/give up/disregard worldly things [money, power, things exposed to luck] [passim] 4. You can t try to maintain both interests (ethical and worldly) at the same time. You have to choose.

3 5. Body versus soul [passim] 6. Act well, choose the right kind of life, before your time is up, before it is too late. 7. Be discreet and modest about your righteousness. 8. Wives and children don t matter. 9. Choice matters more than action. 10.Extend limitless forgiveness to others and extreme love of others [Note: this is found only in later Stoicism, i.e., from Stoicism just before and after Jesus; oddly earlier Stoics believed you should never forgive anyone for anything however minor. The fact that Jesus views correspond exactly with the Stoicism of his time is itself an important piece of evidence.] 11.Cosmopolitanism [human beings all equal in the eyes of God], passim 12.Use your own judgment; don;t just follow your textual authorities without using your own mind [this idea can sit comfortably both within the Jewish tradition, where the textual authorities are biblical, and the Hellenistic tradition, where the authorities are prestigious earlier philosophers.] On the apocalyptic view, all these connections are a result of chance. Is that plausible?

4 Further problems with the Apocalypticist thesis: 1. Apocalyptic beliefs often cannot explain the details of the parables nearly as well as the philosophical reading (or at all) E.g., the mustard seed (the kingdom is small? grows? produces goods?) 3. How do we interpret the image of the growing seed? (Why is the apocalyptic kingdom [a.k.] a seed? Why does it grow? Why is it unseen? Why does it produce fruit?) 4. Is a.k. already here or not? It might grow if Jesus ministry is the proto-apocalyptic-kingdom. But elsewhere Ehrman claims that sayings that present the kingdom as here now are later additions. So, it here or not? 5. Treasure, pearl, big fish: (in what sense do we find the a.k? Look for the a.k.? Value, treasure the a.k? What exactly are we then valuing? The a.k. itself, or the promise of it?) 6. The a.k. does not in any clear give reason for the specific ethical beliefs of Jesus. Apocalyptic beliefs can be made to justify, or made compatible with, just about any ethical beliefs. 7. Why forgiveness? Why not refuse to forgive if you believe in the a.k? 8. Why give up money? Why shouldn t the a.k. punish the poor? 9. Why not have the fussy religious requirements? Why shouldn t the a.k. punish those who fail to meet those requirements?

5 10.Why is the a.k. always and so closely tied to righteousness? (Note: This is not mysterious at all if the kingdom in fact IS righteousness) 11.Why love our enemies? Why will people love each other in the a.k.? 12. Can we love our enemies and and gloat over their future punishment (as Matthew clearly does)? 13.Power, wealth does Jesus value these or not? Aren t apocalytpicists celebrating their future power and wealth? Matthew appears to be power-obsessed. 14.The little birds argument, and the good father argument: these are NOT apocalyptic; they imply that God governs the world benevolently (now) and cares for us now. They are reasons for not valuing wealth that imply that it has no intrinsic value (if it did, then a benevolent God would not have made it so hard to get and so easy to lose.) Also, the don t complain tone of several of these arguments [e.g., you are the slave God is the master; don t expect him to make you dinner ] imply that we may assume that God has good reasons, now, for making life tough. 15.The two masters saying implies inner, psychological conflict; why would this conflict arise, on the a.k. view? Can t you be devoted to wealth and simply unaware of the a.k., and hence not subject to any inner conflict at all? The conflict is evidently between greed and ethical concerns. They really do cause an inner conflict. 16. Store your treasure where thieves cannot take it. Take what exactly, if this refers to believing in the a.k.? Your ticket to the

6 a.k.? So, is your treasure (the kind that thieves cannot steal) the a.k. itself, or your ticket to it? Or is it the spiritual, ethical wealth that will get you in to it? But if it is spiritual wealth, then why think that Jesus is talking about anything else at all? 17.To illustrate the last point. Imagine someone said: I believe it is important to treat one s friends generously and thoughtfully because that way they will be more loyal. Conceivably, he might mean this: It s important to be thoughtful and generous, so that they will be loyal and so that you can be rewarded by my friend Sam next week when he is passing out sweets. By why on earth would you understand the claim in that way? Likewise, if Jesus says (as he appears to say) that Your goodness of character is something that nobody, and no misfortune, can take away from you, why on earth would you think he meant this: Your goodness of character cannot be taken away from you and will provide you with a ticket to the glorious kingdom that is about to be set up on earth by the son of man when he arrives on clouds. This looks like massive over-interpretation of the saying. 18. Anyway, thieves can take your ticket to the kingdom: it takes a lot of luck to get into an apocalyptic kingdom. What if nobody ever tells you about it? What if someone subsequently persuades you that the whole idea of the a.k. is bogus (NOTE: this is clearly much easier than it is to persuade someone to give up their ethical beliefs, which is arguably impossible.) This problem undermines all the parables that imply that the kingdom makes you invulnerable. You re not really invulnerable if it takes luck to get in and if you can lose your ticket any time. 19.With the apocalyptic reading, parables can be made to fit the reading whatever their content: The a.k. is like a mustard seed

7 [i.e., it starts very small, grows, and become big]; OR the kingdom is NOT like a mustard seed [because it arrives suddenly and is HUGE from the start]; it s like a frog [elusive, hard to see, but gives signs of its presence]; a bus [arrives noisily and everyone gets on, except the bad people]; like a small snail [arrives steadily, but eventually arrives]; like a toaster [you don t think it s coming and then suddenly pop! it arrives]. It s like anything you want. The real problem here is that since we know nothing about it, the sayings can make any claim they want and any parable at all will fit the hypothesis. 20.In fact, ethical beliefs must precede apocalyptic ones. 21.How can there even be parables (metaphorical explanations) about something of which we have absolutely no knowledge? If someone asked you what you had for breakfast, or what the capital of Brazil is (because they have no idea) would you answer with a parable? An apocalyptic kingdom needs to be announced clearly: it is information about a completely unexpected event. Metaphors seem to be a spectacularly inappropriate way of discussing it. 22.To be an apocalypticist, Jesus would have to be a biblical literalist of some kind. Does he seem to be? Or he would have to be deluded if he is devising all the details completely out of his own head. Should we rush to make that assumption? 23. Son of man problem. Ehrman never mentions this. Is Son of Man an apocalyptic title OR an Aramaic expression meaning person. It can t be both, can it? 24.Textual problems: Several apocalyptic sayings look fabricated, on close textual grounds: Matthew s burning weeds; Matthew s

8 banquet; Matthew s fishnet; the thief-and-house saying (embedded in odd contexts); the apocalytpic jumbles in Q; Mark, matthew and Luke all seem confused about the meaning and provenance of much of this material that then crops up in apocalyptic passages. This is highly suspicious. 25.The lost (or ignored) kingdom sayings: Thomas s leaky jar, big fish, and prudent soldier all look genuine, but cannot be apocalyptic. Finally, an overview of the kingdom sayings, if we take the kingdom to refer to: God s power, or sovereignty, acting over a man s soul God s righteousness, or simply righteousness wisdom that comes from God Note that in this case the use of metaphors seems both appropriate and explicable. The metaphors really do help Jesus explain his meaning. it grows; like a mustard seed that grows from something small into something large and productive it grows; like the way wheat in a field grows, steadily and unseen, and produces good fruit. A man doesn t even notice it happening, and then before he knows it it he is reaping the benefits. it s hidden, but powerful; like yeast in the dough, which you can t see but makes the dough rise into bread

9 you have to search for it; and once you find it, you give up every other concern that conflicts with it; it s like finding a treasure in field, and casting away everything else for that treasure; it s like finding one fabulous pearl, and selling everything to get that pearl. it s like finding one fine large fish in a net full of small fish: you throw away all the small fry, and choose the big fish. Look for God s sovereignty, and his righteousness. [Matthew 6.32] Look for it, and you ll find it. It makes your life steady; wisdom is like a rock: like building a house on solid rock, rather than sand, making you able to withstand any storm that life throws at you. It protects you; it puts you treasures beyond the reach of any thief; nothing can ever steal your righteousness, they way life can rob you of your worldly possessions. It makes you strong, and ready. Ready for God s call. Once developed, it s like a light, that shows you the way; and cannot be ignored; it becomes the lamp of your soul, and you don t place a lamp under a bucket. It is like answering a call; God has invited you, and you answer. BUT

10 Some people don t answer; when God invites them, they re too busy, too distracted. Not ready. In some people, the seed of God s power, righteous wisdom, does not grow; it is snatched away, or choked out by the cares of the world, or develops too quickly and weakly and produces no grain. For some, their house is built on sand. They love the world; riches; power; comfort; and those things are easily swept away. They are like a house is divided against itself. They are like people serving two masters; they ride two horses. They try to be righteous and serve God and they care about money and power; but that is impossible. A rich man trying to be righteous is like a camel trying to get thought the eye of a needle. For some, God s power seeps away; like a woman carrying jar of grain with a hole in it, and not noticing that the grains are falling out one by one, until the jar is empty. [Thomas 97]