I finished the middle portion of the book, which covers Jesus' ministry. Again, we are reminded that many of the events portrayed should not be found to be historical fact, such as Pilate's concerns for his "innocence." Somewhat strangely, Judas Iscariot is left to brief reference in the notes section, though there is an implication that general agreement by the gospels suggest he had an actual historical role in Jesus' arrest.
Also, the gospels' message is not given too in depth of an analysis while various possible interesting matters (such as his involvement with women) is lightly touched upon. Mary Magdalene gets only a passing mention (Bart Ehrman's book is an interesting analysis.) The book does comment on the somewhat strange paucity of references to Joseph, including a quite notable reference of Jesus as the "son of Mary," a very rare example of matrilineal notation. It also is noted that it is strange that Jesus was not married while also not being part of an isolated community (like the Essenes) or in the wilderness (like John the Baptist).
The book argues (again a bit too firmly at times) that Jesus somehow decided to be baptized by John the Baptist, who spoke of the end of days being near, not a rare event. Aslan also reminds us just how unstable things were, including great social unrest, economic upheaval and major violence in recent memory, particularly in Galilee. This would all influence Jesus' beliefs as would his lowly origins and the anti-clerical sentiments of his area overall. Jesus become a discipline of John and eventually went back home to start on his own, particularly filling in a void later after John was arrested. Jesus particularly became (in)famous when he started to perform miracles, which did not make him unique, though his reasons (as a sign of what was to come) and not doing it for money were more so.
The book says that it is not really important to determine what 'really happened' here as much as what people believed. And, people believed he committed miracles, including casting out demons, something many today simply aren't comfortable about -- healing the sick? fine. The Exorcist? No. Well, I do wonder what actually happened there -- it also is relevant to understand the historical Jesus. To know just what he did and how the people understood his actions. Still, again, it is notable that -- and this is not something many would know -- he was not somehow uniquely doing these things. Others did miracles. Maybe, the scope of what he did was different -- who knows -- but that is quite a different matter than him being fully unique.
Jesus was "zealous" -- sort of like an evangelical firmly believing in following the true path, not corrupted by priests or government. He believed the ends of days would come soon, which included the upheaval of the wrongful occupiers of the land promised to the Jews. The third part of the book will discuss how this "historical" Jesus would eventually be replaced by "Christianity." The famous question when he is asked about the legitimacy of Rome taxing the Jews is given an interesting spin -- it is sort of a trick answer that in effect says the Roman coins should be given back to Caesar, but that is all he deserves. The land is for the Jews. This in part involves the phrasing of the language used though we get it in Greek, not the Aramaic he used. Anyway, not sure if -- like the parables -- some Roman would get what he was saying, even if that is what he meant.
I think the overall idea of the book as to his message sounds reasonable enough though it puts forth a somewhat darker view of things, Jesus in effect somewhat toned down after the Jewish Wars to a more establishment figure, so to speak. It also leads one to think that the end was expected. It didn't take much of a prophet to determine that talking about the "ends of days" and temples being destroyed and denouncing the high priests will get you in trouble at this time. People were killed for a lot less by Pilate and company. Thus, the end is briefly discussed, though it takes a lot of space in the gospels. The book also argues that Jesus saw himself as a "Son of Man," a rather obscure term at that time that seems to suggest an agent of God to lead the Jews into the Kingdom of God.* A treasonous concept.
To be continued ...
---
* It is interestingly noted that other Jewish writings somewhat of the same era as the later gospels spoke of such a concept [Jesus himself apparently influenced by its usage in Daniel, a book that was written in the Second Century BCE.] and gave it a more deistic quality. Jesus himself, however, would not see himself as divine, but a divine agent.
Also, the gospels' message is not given too in depth of an analysis while various possible interesting matters (such as his involvement with women) is lightly touched upon. Mary Magdalene gets only a passing mention (Bart Ehrman's book is an interesting analysis.) The book does comment on the somewhat strange paucity of references to Joseph, including a quite notable reference of Jesus as the "son of Mary," a very rare example of matrilineal notation. It also is noted that it is strange that Jesus was not married while also not being part of an isolated community (like the Essenes) or in the wilderness (like John the Baptist).
The book argues (again a bit too firmly at times) that Jesus somehow decided to be baptized by John the Baptist, who spoke of the end of days being near, not a rare event. Aslan also reminds us just how unstable things were, including great social unrest, economic upheaval and major violence in recent memory, particularly in Galilee. This would all influence Jesus' beliefs as would his lowly origins and the anti-clerical sentiments of his area overall. Jesus become a discipline of John and eventually went back home to start on his own, particularly filling in a void later after John was arrested. Jesus particularly became (in)famous when he started to perform miracles, which did not make him unique, though his reasons (as a sign of what was to come) and not doing it for money were more so.
The book says that it is not really important to determine what 'really happened' here as much as what people believed. And, people believed he committed miracles, including casting out demons, something many today simply aren't comfortable about -- healing the sick? fine. The Exorcist? No. Well, I do wonder what actually happened there -- it also is relevant to understand the historical Jesus. To know just what he did and how the people understood his actions. Still, again, it is notable that -- and this is not something many would know -- he was not somehow uniquely doing these things. Others did miracles. Maybe, the scope of what he did was different -- who knows -- but that is quite a different matter than him being fully unique.
Jesus was "zealous" -- sort of like an evangelical firmly believing in following the true path, not corrupted by priests or government. He believed the ends of days would come soon, which included the upheaval of the wrongful occupiers of the land promised to the Jews. The third part of the book will discuss how this "historical" Jesus would eventually be replaced by "Christianity." The famous question when he is asked about the legitimacy of Rome taxing the Jews is given an interesting spin -- it is sort of a trick answer that in effect says the Roman coins should be given back to Caesar, but that is all he deserves. The land is for the Jews. This in part involves the phrasing of the language used though we get it in Greek, not the Aramaic he used. Anyway, not sure if -- like the parables -- some Roman would get what he was saying, even if that is what he meant.
I think the overall idea of the book as to his message sounds reasonable enough though it puts forth a somewhat darker view of things, Jesus in effect somewhat toned down after the Jewish Wars to a more establishment figure, so to speak. It also leads one to think that the end was expected. It didn't take much of a prophet to determine that talking about the "ends of days" and temples being destroyed and denouncing the high priests will get you in trouble at this time. People were killed for a lot less by Pilate and company. Thus, the end is briefly discussed, though it takes a lot of space in the gospels. The book also argues that Jesus saw himself as a "Son of Man," a rather obscure term at that time that seems to suggest an agent of God to lead the Jews into the Kingdom of God.* A treasonous concept.
To be continued ...
---
* It is interestingly noted that other Jewish writings somewhat of the same era as the later gospels spoke of such a concept [Jesus himself apparently influenced by its usage in Daniel, a book that was written in the Second Century BCE.] and gave it a more deistic quality. Jesus himself, however, would not see himself as divine, but a divine agent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!