Archive for the ‘Biblical Expositions’ Category

I use the term “apocalyptic,” at least as applied to ancient Judaism and early Christianity, to refer to the notion that the hidden realities of the unseen world are being revealed in an imminent and unfolding manner at the “end of the age.” It is not the “end of the world,” but rather a dramatic reversal and transformation of normal life on planet earth. It is good news and bad news, depending on one’s stake in the present and attitude toward the new future, a future to be characterized by the “Kingdom of God,” or God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. My own studies have convinced me that the Jesus movement is utterly and thoroughly apocalyptic to the core. I have tried to situate this particular view of the world and of history within late developments of forms of Judaism in the ancient Greco-Roman Mediterranean world. Years ago I published a popular overview and analysis of these developments. Other than the New Testament texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls are probably our best witnesses to this movement, one that generically should more properly be called “the messianic movement” in late 2nd Temple Jewish Palestine.

Of course apocalyptic thinking remains with us through the ages (see my article on Millennialism), but my own interest has been primarily on the ways in which this kind of thinking forms the matrix for the development and emergence of early Christianity.

We have many sources for understanding “apocalyptic” thinking in the period but I think some of our best evidence comes from the three strata of our earliest materials embedded in the New Testament itself. They are, in chronological order, the early letters of Paul, the Saying Source of Jesus’ core teaching called Q, and the gospel of Mark. Here below is a nice selection of particularly “apocalyptic” passages as that truly catch the atmosphere and flavor of the movement in its earliest days before the post-70 AD disappointments set in.

Apocalyptic Texts in our early sources:

Paul
1Thessalonians 4:15-17: For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left to the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1Cor. 6:2-3: Or know you not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?

1Cor. 7:26, 29-31: I think therefore that this is good by reason of the impending distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. But this I say, brethren, the appointed time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not; and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the form of this world is passing away.

Q Sayings of Jesus
3:7-9: He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him, You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say to you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And even now the axe also lies at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

16:16:The Torah and the Prophets were until John: from that time the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man enters forcefully into it.

10:8-12: And into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: and heal the sick that are therein, and say to them, The kingdom of God is come near to you. But into whatsoever city youshall enter, and they receive you not, go out into the streets thereof and say, Even the dust from your city, that cleaves to our feet, we wipe off against you: nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God is near. I say to you, it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

11:2: And he said to them, When you pray, say, Father, let your name be holy. May your kingdom come!

11:20: But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

22:28-30: But you are they that have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint to you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mark
1:14-15: Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the good news of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the good news.

3:14: And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.

9:1:And he said to them, Truly I say to you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.

11:9-10: And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord: Blessed is the kingdom that comes, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.

13:30 Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished.

14:25 Truly I say to you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

14:58:We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.

I am convinced that the gospel of Mark is our earliest, and in some ways, our most “historical” surviving gospel. But that is not to say that Mark by any means is mainly an historical account, lacking theological interpretation. Indeed, most critical scholars have concluded that Mark is deeply theological in his orientation and that he shapes his story in ways to fit his view of things. In other words, we do not get in Mark “history as it really happened,” but theological interpretation and faith proclamation. There is a very famous and worthwhile study by James Robinson, the great scholar of early Christianity at Claremont, titled The Problem of History in Mark (1957). I think it is long ago out of print but various editions are still listed on Amazon so it is available if one searches a bit.

However, given the nature of Mark as a theologically based “faith” presentation of the “gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God” (Mark 1:1), historians must approach it with a certain caution. Indeed, for years I have been thoroughly convinced that the essential “Christology” of Mark, and that of Paul is very close. In Mark, as in Paul, Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, who as the Suffering Servant gives his life as a ransom for many. One of Mark’s key emphases is that service, suffering, and humility are the true marks of greatness and lead to exaltation and glory. Although thoroughly apocalyptic (Mark 13), much like Paul, Mark still fundamentally interprets the Kingdom of God as a present reality realized within the faith of the community as it exhibits spiritual insights and understanding (Mark 12:28-34). He contrasts standard forms of Torah observance with the inner spiritual understanding of those who know the “secret” of the Kingdom (Mark 2:27-28; Mark 7:1-23). He supports the gospel being preached to all the nations/Gentiles (Mark 13:10), which is the Pauline mission. His understanding of the Eucharist matches that of Paul precisely. One often hears that Mark presents a more human Jesus and has a less developed, even “primitive” Christology, yet in Mark we encounter a Jesus who has authority on earth to forgive sins, calm storms, and raise the dead.

And yet, regardless of Mark’s faith based theological agenda, and its parallels to Paul’s view of the heavenly and exalted “Christ,” as Son of God and Savior, there is a strange irony at work here. I am convinced that Mark nonetheless offers us a narrative framework that in its essentials is as close to the historical Jesus as we are likely ever going to get. What most convinces me of this are the many many times, such as the examples I mentioned in my previous post, that Matthew and Luke, in rewriting/editing Mark and using him as a source, recast his basic presentation in directions that belong to later stages of their own theological developments. I find that time and time again Mark has a less elaborated and more primitive version of the story. He is the earliest of our records, and thus closer to the traditions that were being passed on within the Jesus movement. I could mention countless examples, but a few will illustrate my point here.

Mark has no birth story of Jesus and he never mentions Joseph as his father. Indeed, he calls Jesus the “son of Mary,” and mentions the four brothers by name, including the nickname “Jose.” He knows about the house of Simon at Capernaum, near the synagogue, and even mentions “Simon’s mother-in-law.” He knows that Levi (aka Matthew) is the “son of Alphaeus.” He is aware of Jesus’ reach to the region of Tyre and Sidon and records Jesus’ clandestine visit to Tyre and his secret overnight stay in a “house” there. He gives our most primitive listing of the Twelve, including “James son of Alphaeus,” and Judas whom he knows by his affectionate nickname Thaddaeus (bosom-child). He records the details of the death of John the Baptizer, and gives us good geographical indications of the last months of Jesus’ life, including the Banias scene, the “high mountain” of the “transfiguration,” and the place “beyond the Jordan.” His narrative of Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem is exceptionally packed with details that I don’t think are created for his own theological purposes. And his narrative of the discovery of the empty tomb and the recovery of “faith” in Galilee are precious alternatives to what Luke, John, and Paul present in this regard.

I have addressed the “picking and choosing” issue in other posts on this Blog but it is the case that critical scholars do carefully sift through and evaluate their sources, seeking to separate the historical from the theologically elaborated. It is not a perfect “science,” but it is a process guided by a sense of judgment and argument, open to dispute and discussion. This is in contrast to those who say, Mark is God’s Word and I believe every word of it–as well as Matthew, Luke, and John. It seems that “picking and choosing,” if done with sense and judgment, is really the only responsible way to read these or any other texts for that matter.

More to come…

Most scholars of early Christianity are convinced that Mark is our earliest surviving gospel, perhaps written as early as 65 AD, which would be 35 years after the death of Jesus in 30 AD. Matthew comes along a decade or so later and makes use of Mark as his core narrative, but adds a birth narrative (chapters 1-2) and a series of blocks of Jesus’ teachings that he inherited in the collection scholars know as Q. If you compare Mark and Matthew side by side in parallel columns it is quite easy to see how Matthew makes use of his basic narrative source Mark. He often shortens and summarizes, but just as often he explains, amplifies, and interprets. For example, where Mark cryptically refers to a prophecy about the defiling of the Jewish temple (Mark 13:14), Matthew lets his readers know that the prophecy was “spoken by the prophet Daniel” (Matt 24:15). Or when Jesus in Mark tells his disciples to “beware of the yeast of the Pharisees,” (Mark 8:15), Matthew explains that this symbol refers to their “teaching” (Matt 15:12). On the whole Matthew is relatively conservative with his source Mark. He is willing to make changes but by and large he tends to follow the story as it is told in Mark. Indeed, 90% of Mark appears in Matthew. That is why readers of the New Testament who begin with Matthew, its first book, often in coming to Mark have the distinct impression they have “read it all before.” They have–but in the revised version of Matthew who relies on Mark so heavily as a source.

Luke is quite different in that regard. Although he too uses Mark as a source, and Q as well, he very freely removes important sections of Mark, and recasts or heavily edits core stories and lines in Mark to suit his own purposes. Luke drops the listing of the names of Jesus’ brothers (Mark 6:3), the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-29), the time when Jesus rebukes Peter and calls him “Satan” (Mark 8:33), Jesus’ secret trip to Tyre (Mark 7:24), the disciples failures in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-50). Jesus’ cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), just to name a very few random examples. Luke is a composite two volume work that includes the Acts of the Apostles (properly called Luke-Acts) and he is a great champion of the apostle Paul. He is also keen to exonerate the Romans as enemies of the Christians and to present a less politically revolutionary version of Jesus’ Kingdom of God message. For Luke, like Paul, Jesus is the risen Christ, ascended to heaven, in whose name repentance and forgiveness of sins is now preached to all the nations of the world.

The priority of Mark has many important implications. One of the most striking is the way in which he narrates the discovery of the empty tomb into which Jesus’ dead body was hastily and temporary placed the late evening on the day he was crucified. Mark’s short account is as follows:

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun was risen. And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back: for it was exceeding great. And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he saith to them, Be not amazed: you seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he has been raised; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! But go, tell his disciples and Peter, he goes before you into Galilee: there shall you see him, as he said unto you. And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid (Mark 16:1-8).

It is difficult to really grasp the rather shocking impact of this stark and bare ending to Mark’s story given the extravagant and elaborated versions we get in subsequent gospel accounts. These verses end the book in our oldest and most reliable copies of Mark. In fact, this ending was considered so “inadequate” that no less than three bogus endings were composed by later scribes and editors in a desperate attempt to bring Mark more in line with a triumphant Christian faith.

Just about everything that people assume, celebrate, and remember about Easter morning is missing from Mark! There is no dramatic earthquake, no soldiers struck dumb, no epiphanies of angels, no appearances to Mary Magdalene, Peter, and the Twelve.

Mark knows of no specific appearances of the resurrected Jesus at all. What he does know is a tradition that he had reported earlier, that Jesus had told his disciples that he would “go before them to Galilee” after he was stuck but raised up (Mark 14:28). Even the word “raised” is not the ordinary word for “resurrection” in Greek, but the common verb that means lifted up, or even carried away. It is the same verb Jesus uses when he tells the paralyzed man to “take up his bed and walk” (Mark 2:9).

I do not mean to imply here that Mark thought that Jesus survived the cross and that he was carried up to Galilee by his followers. That I do not believe. For Mark, Jesus is indeed killed, and after three days he is raised up (Mark 8:31), but the nature of that resurrection Mark seems to leave open. He records no appearances of Jesus at all, though he knows the tradition that the disciples went to Galilee based on the instructions given to them and there they “saw” him, as he had told them.

The implications of this earliest tradition of Jesus’ burial and the empty tomb are enormous. Paul, in the 50s AD, reports the tradition that Jesus, after being raised from the dead on the third day, appeared to Peter, then the Twelve, then to a group of five hundred brothers at once, then to James, then to all the apostles, and finally, but much later, to him–Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Both Luke and John report similar appearances of the risen Jesus to various individuals and groups on several occasions. Indeed, these sightings or appearances are considered by milliions the absolute bedrock of the Christian faith.

So how could it be that Mark knows nothing of any of this? And even Matthew, who does report that Jesus met the women who fled from the tomb, nonetheless knows of none of these specific appearances that Paul, Luke and John record taking place in Jerusalem. He tells us the disciples went to Galilee as they had been instructed and there the Eleven apostles “saw” Jesus on a mountain–but some doubted. It is clear that Matthew has little of substance to add to his basic source Mark, and that what he knows of the “resurrection” is what he expands from Mark, which makes Mark’s account even more noteworthy in terms of its fundamental significance.
The clear implication of Mark’s account of the discovery of the empty tomb and the renewed faith of the disciples in Galilee is that there is a non-Pauline version of the resurrection faith circulating within the Jesus movement that was not built upon the kinds of traditions, tales, and stories we get in Paul, Luke-Acts, and John. Indeed, even though Paul is usually dated ten or fifteen years earlier than Mark, the tradition that Mark reflects could very likely predate Paul. In other words, it is unlikely that Mark could write what he writes for a believing Christian community unless the way he report things is already grounded in the circles within which he moves. It is highly unlikely that Mark was created in a day. On the contrary, one should assume he is passing on and reflecting a way of thinking about the risen Jesus that he finds normative and common, and that Matthew, writing some years later, also passing on with very little expansion or modification. Neither of them know of any tales of appearances of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem in the days following his death. There is no indication that Mark is even aware of any alternative views or traditions. Had he known of such, and agreed with them, he surely would have passed them on. In this case I think we can say that Mark’s silence is “deafening.”

This earliest account of the Jesus story offers us resources to rethink and consider alternative possibilities when it comes to evaluating the significance of Jesus’ death and the nature of the resurrection faith among his earliest followers. Mark offers us a clear indication that Paul’s version of things was not an exclusive way of understanding Jesus and his role as a messianic suffering servant figure and crucified son of God.

For over 40 years, since the publication of the best-selling book The Passover Plot by Hugh Schonfield in 1965, I have been avidly reading “Jesus books,” i.e., books that attempt to offer an historical analysis of the central question–what do we really know about Jesus and how do we know it? Over the decades I have collected most of them and I often found myself with a new book in hand, flipping through it, and reading the final chapters first, anxious to see how the author would deal with what I found to be one of the most fascinating questions regarding the historical Jesus–the empty tomb.

Schonfield’s book really centered on that issue. He argued that Jesus “plotted” his crucifixion and his subsequent survival, and with the help of several loyal supporters was taken away to recover from his wounds, thus accounting for the tomb being empty. I well rememer the absolute stir of controversy Schonfield’s book caused. It was recently issued in a 40th anniversary edition and if any of you have never read it I would highly recommend it. I am not at all persuaded by his theory of the “Passover plot,” but the book is a thrill to read and contains much good history and lots of provocative ideas. Schonfield was a bit of a maverick scholar, but he was a trained academic and one always full of provocative ideas and new and creative interpretations of data. I corresponded with him over a period of a few years until his death in 1988. I might mention that although The Passover Plot was by far his most successful book, of the 40 or so works that he published, the one I would most highly recommend for its enduring value is the sequel titled Those Incredible Christians.

I should add here that Schonfield was a great admirer of Jesus and considered him a hero for representing and forwarding the advancement of Israel’s Messianic hopes and dreams. In fact, late in life, Schonfield was instrumental in forming a society, now called The World Trust Service, dedicated to a recovery of a “Messianic vision,” of a “Servant nation,” that would lead the world toward peace and justice. It is still in operation today.

I mention The Passover Plot because for me it was a kind of “coming of age.” It was an introduction, on a popular level, to some of the alternative approaches to the historical Jesus and Christian Origins to the rather fundamentalist version of things I had been exposed to as a child growing up, and through my undergraduate years in college.

But back to the empty tomb. What I appreciated about Schonfield is that he believed historians had to take seriously the “empty tomb.” By far most critical scholars have taken the position that the story in our earliest gospel, in Mark 16 (which forms the core upon which Matthew, Luke, and John are based), where women come to Jesus’ tomb early Sunday morning and find it empty of his body, has no historical basis and was concocted long after the events in order to bolster the preaching of Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Thus to seriously discuss “how the tomb became empty” would be a worthless enterprise–since the whole thing was made up. Some have even argued that Jesus was not buried at all, but that his body was left on the cross to decay as a final shame inflicted by the Romans upon a potential rebel.

I have never found such arguments convincing. It seems to me that the fundamental core story of the early Sunday morning visit by the women followers of Jesus to his tomb has a ring of authenticity. I believe that Jesus was really dead, and that he was hastily put into that garden tomb nearby just as the sun was setting and Passover drew near. I am further convinced that the women who visited the tomb on Sunday morning, with the intention of completing the rites of Jewish burial and putting Jesus in a permanent resting place, were shocked to find the tomb empty. What I question are the stories of the extensive “appearances” of Jesus that day in Jerusalem to Peter, John, and the rest of his Disciples, and over the next few days, as reported by Luke and John.

Mark has the tomb empty, but no appearances or sightings of Jesus at all (the original ending is at 16:8). He does believe that Jesus is raised from the dead, but in his story the women are explicitly told that the Disciples will meet Jesus in Galilee. Matthew also lacks these stories of appearances in Jerusalem that day and over the next weeks. Instead he records a mountain top experience in Galilee, one that sounds very similar to the visionary experience of the Transfiguration, where some of the Eleven disciples were convinced, and others doubted–that they had really seen Jesus (Matthew 28:16).

What this tells me is that the earliest traditions about the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus had nothing about these Jerusalem appearances to Peter, John, James, and the Twelve. Instead their focus was on “seeing Jesus in Galilee.” These Jerusalem stories seem to come to us from Paul, who records them in 1 Corinthians 15. They are then expanded into narrative forms in Luke and John. I find it very hard to believe that Mark and Matthew knew such stories and simply left them out. They do not include them, if they have even heard them, because they do not consider them a part of the early and most authentic tradition. It is Luke, the great advocate of Paul and his mission and message, who first fleshes out for us a whole set of narratives about appearances to Peter, various other disciples, and the Twelve, in Jerusalem.

For that reason, it seems to me, our focus should really be on Galilee, since both Mark and Matthew, our earliest non-Pauline witnesses, know nothing other than this tradition. John also knows of this Galilee tradition, and yet it is only in his “appended” chapter 21–after he has basically closed out his story in 20:30-31, with its Jerusalem stories, that he mentions it. I think this is very important and most telling–particularly since that final chapter 21 of John has the disciples returning to their fishing businesses in Galilee, which makes no sense at all if they have been eating and hanging out with the risen Jesus in Jerusalem for weeks following the crucifixion. What we have in John is a precious bit of independent tradition, that goes well with Mark and Matthew, regarding the recovery of “faith” in Galilee.

But back to the empty tomb. I think the essential key to understanding why the tomb was empty is to realize that there is no evidence whatsoever that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. It is amazing to me how strongly traditions can be built on a thread. Mark, our earliest Gospel does not mention this as Joseph’s tomb, though he has Joseph burying Jesus, nor does Luke or John! If Joseph was the owner it is inconcievable that they would leave this out. Only Matthew tries to make this connection, and it is clearly an addition of his to his Markan source. His interest is in showing prophecy fulfilled, namely that Joseph was a “rich man,” so that if Jesus is put in his tomb it would be a fulfillment of Isaiah 53 where the Suffering Servant is buried with a rich man. What John adds to the tradition sheds even further light on this matter. John is very good on geography, place, and location. He knows details that the Markan/Synoptic tradition simply lacks. John says that the tomb in which Jesus was hastily buried just before the Passover began was “in a garden, near the place of crucifixion.” In other words he makes clear that this was a burial of necessity, of opportunity. To imagine Joseph of Arimathea just “happening” to have a family tomb nearby is incredulous, and since we can clearly see how and why Matthew alone makes this connection, there is no reason to give it any veracity.

So what we are left with is quite interesting. What this means is that we would expect the tomb to be empty! Jesus was hastily put in this tomb with no time for carrying out full and proper burial rites just to hold things until after the Sabbath. It was not a tomb that belonged to anyone in the movement or the group. The core followers, after all, were from Galilee, not Jerusalem. They could hardly carry a corpse to a home or guesthouse, nor could they just leave it in the open. Since an unfinished tomb was nearby it makes good sense that Jesus’ body was put there and a stone was moved to block the entrance, keeping the corpse safe from jackels and other predators. So, the point is, this tomb was never intended to be a final resting place for Jesus, so we would expect his body to be moved in a relatively short period of time–as soon as arrangement could be made for permanent burial.

Whether Jesus was subsequently and permanently buried in the Jerusalem area, or as I think might be more likely, in the Galilee, where he was from, we will perhaps never know. What we can know, however, is that the entire Jerusalem tradition is likely late and based on Paul, and written by Luke and John in the last decades of the 1st century, when all those involved were dead. Mark, in contrast, can be dated around 65 AD, before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That he knows nothing of these Jerusalem appearances to the apostles is most telling.

I realize that many of my critics, coming from an evangelical Christian persuasion, have asked–what about all the appearances, what about the sealing of the tomb, what about the earthquake, and the testimony of all those eyewitness? How can you simply reject that out of hand? The answer is a simple one–Mark, our earliest gospel, knows nothing of such things! They only come to us as late embellishments of the tradition, written in the 80s and 90s AD, when Christianity has begun to solidify into its Pauline contours. And further, the Galilee tradition is early and grounded in Mark, Matthew, and the addition to John. We should give it priority. We will never know what actually happened in Galilee but what we can be sure of is that the little discouraged and disheartened group, having returned to their homes and business, found a renewal of their faith in Jesus and his cause living on–despite his death. To insist that that faith depended upon the corpse of Jesus walking out of the tomb and making all sorts of appearances in Jerusalem, and then rising off the Mt. of Olives into the clouds and disappearing the the heavens–well that is clearly the stuff of legend and mythology.

When the group returned to Jerusalem for Shavuot or Pentecost, approximately seven weeks after the crucifixion, they apparently have reconstituted themselves, with James at their head, and a strong commitment to carry on the work of their beloved Teacher Jesus, whose spirit they surely felt as if he were still with them. I am convinced that this is the most credible historical explanation of the empty tomb, and it does the best job of accounting for the ways in which the movement survived, went on, and maintained its vitality. And because it is credible, in the end, for rational people, it can be more inspiring than stories of revived corpses and bodies ascending the heaven.