Jesus May Be the Answer, But What Is The Question?
If you want to trace Jesus of Nazareth’s slow transformation from a universally relevant social, political, and religious activist/reformer to a historically and culturally relative and somewhat irrelevant Sunday “god,” look in the New Testament itself.
Here’s the evolution, in chronological order (by authorial date of book):
Earliest Origins: Romans 1.1-4: Jesus was declared the ‘Son of God’ by the Spirit of Holiness by/at his resurrection (Romans 1:1-6).
Evolutionary Step #1: The Gospels of Mark and Matthew: Jesus was declared the ‘Son of God’ at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11, Matthew 3:13-17).
Evolutionary Step #2: The Gospels of Luke: Jesus was declared the ‘Son of God’ in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:26-33).
Evolutionary Step #3: The Gospel of John: Jesus was declared the ‘Son of God’ even before the beginning of time itself (John 1.1).
If the the author of Romans had a finished compilation of the New Testament in his possession, would he be surprised at just how far Jesus of Nazareth had evolved? Perhaps. In fact, Paul might even be considered a heretic by Orthodox Christianity’s Christological standard (see Paul’s clear statements in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 about the son becoming eternally subordinate to the father). The question of whether the idea of “Jesus as Son of God” has evolved into something quite different than what is found in Romans is an intriguing one – and do remember that the Letter to the Romans existed before the canonical gospels were written.
All of this, however, doesn’t mean Jesus of Nazareth was not important! His refusal to compromise his dedication to human rights and equal dignity in the face of insurmountable social, political, and religious odds is not only socially, religiously, and politically inspiring, but it also birthed a universal template capable of transcending both time and culture. We call this universal transcendence the “Kingdom of God.” This “Kingdom” is something the evolved orthodox product cannot and will not produce … that product only divides us, and bitterly so, along transient cultural and social party lines.
So turn to the Letter to the Romans and do the evolution yourself. Remember, the order in which these New Testament books and letters were written is as follows: 1) Romans 2) Mark 3) Matthew 4) Luke 5) John. If you follow this list order closely, you can observe the myth attached to Jesus of Nazareth growing proportionately. A critical reader will thus be forced to ask him or herself if the evolved product is really better than its origins. Is what was lost in the process more valuable than what we have gained? Maybe. It’s up to readers to decide.
Related posts:
Shawn:
There are several logical inconsistencies in your post. Yes, it is true that many scholars accept Markan priority but that is not an assured result, nor is it the case that the Fourth Gospel is to be dated so late (as J.A.T. Robsinson has argued).
Perhaps more important is the use of the term ‘evolution’ with regard to Christology; this hearkens back to the Religionsgeschichtliche School of Bousset and Bultmann. C.F.D. Mould (The Origin of Christology) among many others (Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, etc) have instead shown that a high christology is already to be found in the earliest traditions (or sub strata) of the early church.
The so-called ‘mything’ of Jesus by the early church is far more a product of Enlightenment rationalism than the early church.
While both of us can cite scholars on both sides of this equation I am more curious as to why you feel the need (desire?) to argue for such a christological approach. I have followed your work this past year at IMG and have noticed an increasing reliance in your thinking on speculative (as opposed to critical) thinkers. This is not a criticism of you for many of these authors sell a lot of books (Dom Crossan e.g.,) and I know many of them personally (Walter Wink e.g.,). I guess I am uncomfortable with the (as I experience it) ‘harsh’ approach you take toward the Christian tradition.
I guess what I am saying is that I don’t sense a thought out balanced approach to your work, it feels more hit and miss, especially this post. Nothing wrong with humanizing Jesus (as I sense you wish to do); but like the writer of the Fourth Gospel I think it is also important to allow our christology to affect our theology and so humanize God.
Michael, you wrote: “There are several logical inconsistencies in your post. Yes, it is true that many scholars accept Markan priority but that is not an assured result, nor is it the case that the Fourth Gospel is to be dated so late (as J.A.T. Robsinson has argued).”
Would you point out these several logical inconsistencies? I mean, you start your comment by saying there are several, then never mention one. Your comment concerning the Markan priority debate has nothing to do with logical inconsistencies. It instead has to do with the divergent opinions on the date of Mark. How is that a logical inconsistency, and where are the several others? If you point them out, I’ll do my best to clarify myself.
You also wrote: “Perhaps more important is the use of the term ‘evolution’ with regard to Christology; this hearkens back to the Religionsgeschichtliche School of Bousset and Bultmann. C.F.D. Mould (The Origin of Christology) among many others (Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, etc) have instead shown that a high Christology is already to be found in the earliest traditions (or sub strata) of the early church. The so-called ‘mything’ of Jesus by the early church is far more a product of Enlightenment rationalism than the early church.”
Is this high Christology only found in the earliest tradition of the early church, or can you see it in the writings we have too? I can’t see the early church, or visit it. All we have our the writings. It’s also hard for me to imagine the earliest Jesus followers comfortably worshiping in the synagogues while celebrating this high Christology that you are citing. Furthermore, it’s hard for me to comprehend the fact that Constantine had to coerce believers living in Rome to accept the creeds when they were basically made law. If these believers would have already believed such things, why the need for state coercion? But beyond these peripheral but important issues, I think the most difficult obstacle for this high Christology you are citing are the Synoptic Gospels themselves. Jesus is always pointing to something other than himself in the Synoptics. To me, that doesn’t make Jesus, or the Kingdom of God, or the Spirit, or God any less potent or important, but it does seriously challenge our focus in a very serious way.
This post of mine has less to do with the Bultmann demythologizing of Jesus and/or the humanizing of Jesus, as you say, and more to do with demythologizing of the story-telling and the humanization of our devotion. Therein exists a sharp difference in approach. There is a very real and often ignored human process involved in the telling and re-telling of the story itself. We call this process “The Bible”. I am focusing more on the Bible and the way it – the finished product we can both hold in our hands – came to be more than I am on the demythologizing of Jesus of Nazareth.
I am sure that you are quite aware of the fact that we do not have a historical record for the life of Jesus. A historical record doesn’t exist. What does exist is expression. We have several expressions of Jesus that are immutably rooted in the communities that expressed them. The suggestion that these divergent communities and their divergent images and reflections aren’t represented in these expressions is naive. Consider, if you will, how Eschatology developed and was expressed and then re-expressed according to divergent communities. A trip through Mathew and Luke will reveal much to this end. In addition to Eschatology evolution, there are the evolving Birth and Resurrection stories with which we must wrestle. Mark’s stories are vividly different from Luke and John’s, for example. How are they different? The legend grows as the books are written. Paul never mentions any of these stories! In fact, the closest thing we have to Paul mentioning Jesus’ birth is in Roman 1 wherein he says that “Jesus was born according to the flesh,” which is not a terribly helpful statement for the sort of high Christology you are suggesting. So then, if something as important as Eschatology, and the Birth Narratives, and the Resurrection Narratives are subject to communal expression, then what else is subject to it? I say, almost everything.
All that to say: This post is more about communal expression than it is about Bultmann demythologization. It seems to me that you may be more trapped in Enlightenment thinking than you might think! :)
What I’m trying to do is deconstruction. I just saw this definition of deconstruction somewhere during my Internet travels (I can’t recall where I got it, but it is a good one): “To ‘deconstruct’ is to show how a concept, belief, or practice is a human construction, often by telling the history of its development, or by showing its constituent parts, or by showing inherent tensions among those parts (ed.).”
That’s what I’m attempting. So, I, with all due respect, reject the charge of Bultmann demythologization (though I think he did an important work) and Enlightenment rationalism. I’m simply looking at the communal expressions before me, which are historically and culturally relative, of course, and trying to find the human development that I know lives there.
You also wrote: “While both of us can cite scholars on both sides of this equation I am more curious as to why you feel the need (desire?) to argue for such a christological approach. I have followed your work this past year at IMG and have noticed an increasing reliance in your thinking on speculative (as opposed to critical) thinkers. This is not a criticism of you for many of these authors sell a lot of books (Dom Crossan e.g.,) and I know many of them personally (Walter Wink e.g.,). I guess I am uncomfortable with the (as I experience it) ‘harsh’ approach you take toward the Christian tradition.”
All we have are our experiences, Michael. You may be uncomfortable with that, but it’s all we have, like it or not. To suggest otherwise is vanity.
Also, I want you to know that I am neither anti-Christian, nor am I “harsh,” as you say on the Christian tradition. I’ll try to explain.
I am anti-any religion that seeks to claim superiority, or prop itself up as an exhaustive absolute at the expense of humility, relationship, compassion, understanding and/or universality. That last word is an important one because I think all of the words preceding it depends upon it. Any exegete of our times will surely see that what humanity needs now is universality. Universality doesn’t mean that we all will have to agree on everything, or adopt one cultural expression of divinity, or use the same vocabulary, or celebrate the same rituals. Universality doesn’t mean that at all. Universality does mean that we all have to have the sensibility and humility to admit that our expressions aren’t exhaustive. We are all travelers.
I am not harsh on the Christian tradition because there is no such thing as “The Christian tradition,” Michael. There are many tradition and expressions that are huddled under something that we can vaguely refer to as some sort of Christian umbrella, but there is not “one Christian tradition.” Good lord, look at the number of denominations that are crowded under that umbrella! That said, I do take issue with some of the more absolutist groups that are huddled under that umbrella, and they take issue with me, I’m sure, but that’s only because I lived under the umbrella at one time too. I write about Christianity because I know Christianity. this fact, however, does not mean that I am comfortable with other religious groups that take an absolutist approach to faith and spirituality. I do take issue with them too. I just write less about them because I need to learn more about them. When I do learn more, I’ll spread the love around and hopefully a bigger view of my dedication is offered to all.
So, I guess I’ll end this long comment with two requests: 1.) Would you kindly point out the logical inconsistencies in my post so that I may try to clarify? 2. Please express your own views as regards the seeming evolution of things like Eschatology, Birth Narratives, Resurrection Narratives, and tell me where exactly you get your ideas. All we both have are the communal expressions that we call Bible; I’m just wondering where it’s all at in there, Michael.
Thanks for the good conversation, Michael. It is appreciated.
“nor is it the case that the Fourth Gospel is to be dated so late (as J.A.T. Robsinson has argued)”
Not that this holds much bearing on what your saying, but I was also under the impression that John preceded the other gospels by a good 20 or 40 years.
Thanks so much for your writings. I really do appreciate and enjoy them.
@Tim – I know of no one on either side of the dating debate who would date John 20 – 40 years before the other Gospels. I have never heard of anyone dating it THAT early. Personally, I hold to a very late date for John, and for good reasons.
Shawn:
I don’t normally spend much time commenting on blog posts as I don’t have the time. But, as mentioned earlier, I have followed your journey with some interest. It is my understanding that you came out of a conservative Evangelical backgroud and then studied at LTS. These are quite extreme. I followed your sermons on the parables and your sermon series on hermeneutics and was quite sad that the BIC chose not to retain your services.
As for logical inconsistencies you state: “Here’s the evolution, in chronological order (by authorial date of book).” First the authors do not date the books. Second, there is no assured date for any of the literature in the New Testament except to say that the gospels came later than Paul’s letters. Third, the inter-textual relations between the Synoptic gospels is more complex than the two-source theory recognizes.
More important is the use of the term evolution with regard to Christology. I admire those who seek the [so-called] historical Jesus, and have done so myself for over thirty years. Yet in 2009, it seems to me that the assumptions of the first two quests have been ‘outed’ (as it were). You wrote: “It’s also hard for me to imagine the earliest Jesus followers comfortably worshiping in the synagogues while celebrating this high Christology that you are citing.” Yet the revaluation of what scholars think Jews of the first century may have believed has also changed significantly, and recent work suggests that the so-called high christology of the Synoptics would not be foreign to certain Judaisms.
I would concur with you that modern Christianity in America is primarily docetic, particuarly Evangelical Christianity. But the Jesus of progressive Christianity is no alternative as far as I am concerned.
The question for me is this: is there a congruence between what Jesus may have thought of himself and how he is portrayed in the gospels. My own search leads me to conclude that such is the case. I have been helped here by the authors mentioned in the previous post as well as the work of Ben Witherington III (The Christology of Jesus), Joachim Jeremias (New Testament Theology), Richard Bauckham (God Crucified), Dale Allison Jr (The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus), Bruce Chilton (A Galilean Rabbi and hia Bible & Rabbi Jesus), Tom Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God) among others.
I have not been convinced that the Jesus of Robert Funk or Dom Crossan existed. Like Funk and Crossan you ask “A critical reader will thus be forced to ask him or herself if the evolved product is really better than its origins. Is what was lost in the process more valuable than what we have gained?” My question is, “what is wrong with the [so-called] evolved product?”
Ultimately the question boils down to whether or not there is a congruence between the ‘historical Jesus’ and the gospel narratives. For me there is. A conversation like this would require a whole lot more time, perhaps a cup of coffee can be shared some time in Lancaster City.
I too enjoy your musings and watch with interest where they take you.
Peace,
Michael
Shawn,
I guess I don’t understand why you draw the conclusion that each rendering is an evolution of the previous. What is there to suggest that is it not simply more detail, or a both/and situation. I don’t doubt that you have good insight into this. It just wasn’t clear.
Michael, you wrote: “As for logical inconsistencies you state: “Here’s the evolution, in chronological order (by authorial date of book).” First the authors do not date the books. Second, there is no assured date for any of the literature in the New Testament except to say that the gospels came later than Paul’s letters. Third, the inter-textual relations between the Synoptic gospels is more complex than the two-source theory recognizes.”
Once again, we are back to where we started as regards Markan priority and the dates of the Gospels. You left a comment on my Facebook wall charging me with “a dependence on a certain theory of gospel formation.” I wholeheartedly agreed with you and in reply said that you too depend on a certain theory of Gospel formation. The key word here is theory. Theory is key because, as I stated earlier, we have no historical record of the life of Jesus. We only have communal expressions about the life of Jesus. These communal expressions are divergent and very much informed by the setting into which each community was immersed. I think that’s important to note as we both theorize because a close investigation of these divergent expressions about Jesus will reveal just how much the divergent communal realities and experiences affected the ongoing expression. I pointed to the evolving Eschatology of the Matthean and Lucan communities as one example of this change (See, only two examples, the following posts: Roaming Immediate and Future Soteriology in Luke and Luke’s Pragmatic Attribution of the Term Savior). Things like this are happening all through our gospels, Michael. Clearly, there are some evolving expressions unfolding within the story and – even more importantly – within the communities that are expressing it.
I also think that the different causes of these changes are linked to events that can in fact be used to date the writings themselves. For example, Luke’s eschatology shifted away from Matthew’s as a result of the destruction of the temple by Rome. When Luke’s eschatology shifted, so did his Christology. If the Christology of the early community of which Luke was a part of was in fact “high,” then I’d say their definition of “high Christology” was no where as close to the high Christology of our day because Luke, for example, was comfortable with altering it to meet his community’s circumstances. As concerns the dating of the Gospels: I think it’s pretty safe to say that Luke was written after the temple was destroyed. I think it’s safe to say that event happened in 70AD. So, a date for Luke after that would be more than dependable. You see, I think events like these not only show an evolution of expression, as they must, because of community realities, but they also reveal dependable dates for the writings themselves. We can do this sort of thing all day to all four canonical gospels. When the dust settles on that project, I think a Markan priority is pretty dependable, Michael.
That’s why I hold to Markan priority. My stance concerning Markan priority and your claim that none of the Gospel can be dated at all is the number one issue in this conversation. Is it a logical inconsistency? I think not. I think it’s simply two people who hold to two different approaches to gospel interpretation. That’s OK. I just think mine is better. Ha ha! :) I joke … a little.
Jonathan,
Hey, man. Hope all is well! See the comment directly above that I left for Michael. In it, I point to a few examples of how things evolved, in my opinion. I think the whole story was evolving on a number of different levels (Birth Narratives, Resurrection Narratives, Christology, Eschatology, and even in writing style (John’s Jesus speaks much differently that Mark’s, for example, which is a fact that we all learn in NT101, I know, but it is still an important little fact.). if the dates of the Gospels are dependable, and I think that they are, then we have a chronological order, and as one works though the chronology the legends around all of these issues evolve and shift along communal lines of expression. You know what it’s like? It’s like the rumor game we all played in youth group. You line everyone up and start a story with the first person and by the time it reaches the end of the line the last person has tells a story that is based on the original but has grown.
So, all I can say that is when i start with Romans 1:1-6 and end at John’s Gospel, I see an evolved story.
What biblical scholars might you call in to justify your claims of an evolution of Christology from Romans to Luke?
Michael – I also wanted to thank you for your interest in what we were doing in Lancaster City. Actually, the community is still working on what things will look like from this point forward. So, keep it all in your thoughts and prayers.
Nothing but peace and love to you and yours, Michael.
I wouldn’t call any of them in … It’s me and my desk and books and lamps. It’s what I’m searching for and discovering. I think that’s OK, don’t you?
That said, I have read ALOT and I am trying to piece together a bunch of different things from a bunch of different people. The disciplines engaged range from anthropology to sociology … philosophy and postmodernism. It’s all glued together by a reliance upon basic common sense.
Doing your own work is a plus in my book! I also affirm the multi-disciplinary approach.
One thing to consider: like you, I have ‘left behind’ the metaphysical approach to Christology. However, it seems to me that the good work that has been done on agency in Judaism might help you resolve some of your quandries. Then terms like ’son of God’ no longer make more sense.
Now that’s intriguing, Michael. I’d love to investigate that … Thanks for the suggestion.
That said, I’ll ask you if you have done much research into the idea/concept of Messiahship during the time right around the Maccabean Rebellion? It seems to me that the whole concept took a turn away from the idea of a “great nationalistic king ala David” during this time because some people started whispering that one – or several – of the Maccabean brothers might be the Messiah because of their leadership and victory in battle against Antiochus. I recall, from my study, that the religious leaders exaggerated the idea/concept of Messiahship so as to discredit and make ineligible the Maccabean brothers from receiving the title. Of course, if the above is true, then one has to wonder how the idea/concept was twisted back around when Jesus actually showed up on the scene. It is curious.
At any rate, this time period is crucial to understanding the setting into which Jesus of Nazareth stepped. I would very much be interested in searching out more about it and other relevant ideas like agency.
Thanks, Michael! :)
Yes I have done a fair amount of work here. The Hasmonean family was the first to unite two key annointed firgures in Simon, King and High Priest. Since the Maccabees were a non-Zadokite family that would have irked those who thought that the High Priesthood was corrupted by them. See though Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 for a proto-Pharisaic view of Messiah as Son of David (written post 167 B.C.E.).
You might also consult the development of messianic ideas in the Qumran Scrolls written shortly after this time, particularly in the way they separated what the Maccabees had put together thus arguing for two messianic figures, one priestly and the other kingly.
Please note this, everyone: I appreciate a good conversation. I appreciate a good conversation with those with whom I disagree. Anyone who knows me knows that I welcome people who disagree with me. I honestly do welcome such conversations.
That said, I will not publish any comments that distract from an otherwise constructive discussion. I did not approve a fairly lengthy comment that was posted to this discussion because all of it’s content has already been discussed in the above comments. So rather than promoting convolution in an otherwise constructive conversation, I deleted it. Believe me, I did not delete it for any other reason.
That said, I kindly ask everyone who wants to participate in the conversation that follows my posts to actually read the comments published and do your best to help make it a good discussion.
Thanks, everyone.