The St. Peter book brings up the miracles in historical accounts issue. That is, how do we deal with that sort of thing? Just worry about the mind-set behind them and their influence on history or worry about what actually happened? Bart Ehrman in his books, e.g., appears to mostly do the former. Miracles are subjective faith experiences that a historian cannot objectively determine akin to "natural" facts.
Michael Grant does this mostly, noting that the reader can not believe the miracles or visions happened, of course, that they were delusions or something. But, I recall someone else noting that for many, the "supernatural" is also the "natural." In fact, they can follow certain set rules. Sort of like the rules of horror movies in Scary Movie or something. And, historians do not always look past what "really happened" when mysterious events of a non-religious (or even religion different from one of the main ones) happens in other contexts. So, seems sort of cheating.
To be fair, Grant does somewhat focus on what might have happened here, including that people of the time expected miraculous things to happen. And, often miraculous language was not to be taken literally. And, he offers some suggestions, e.g., how the "empty tomb" might be explained. There is so much that must have seen mysterious to the age in question that use of supernatural explanations would seem almost logical to many people. We should be upfront about this, since it helps understand the works in question. But, and this sort of explains various things, many don't really think things through that much.
A major example is all this demon talk, including them actually talking (in one case, asking Jesus to send them into some swine!). A major aspect of the historical Jesus was likely his supported exorcist skills, so this is no trivial matter. Still, including many who are otherwise believing Christians, it is not really something we like to think about. Exorcism seems um fairy tale, horror movie stuff. It is not like healing leprosy or something. Another thing that is often not known is that Jesus is not truly unique here though from the source material we have it might be the case that he was particularly famous and/or skilled at doing such things. That is, there were others who were believed to have done miracles.
This underlines my sentiments that it would be a good idea to determine what "really" might have been happening. It's a balance of probability, but it is how we deal with other historical events. The psychosomatic possibilities of demon possession is fairly easy to contemplate. Healing some ailments too. Immediate healing, at times using such tricks like putting mud on the eyes? Less so. I take there were some studies on this subject, so why not be address it? Like the recent biography by what's his name of Jesus did not -- is it in bad form, something only for Sam Harris/Hitchens types to do to talk about? Like ruining a magician's tricks?
Now, mind you, some might have done so, particularly in one of the less well known scholarly works. Still, I have read a decent number of books about Jesus and the like, and it seems not to be a thing. In fact, would like to find a good article that in depth covers the topic. Since, again, miracles are not only something Jesus "did." There is also an easier time of it when it happened a long time back in some degree of dimness of time and place. Peter, e.g., is a major figure in Christianity, but we really know very little about the guy. The book, e.g., basically once mentioned his wife and that he was by some accounts said to have a daughter. It determined it happened, but even his martyrdom in Rome is not 100% assured. "Quo vadis?" indeed! People are much less able handle something like the creation stories of the Church of Latter Day Saints. 1820s New York ... "burnt over" district or not, not quite as easy to believe mysterious happenings there.
One more thing for now. I noted yesterday that the Gospel of Matthew, listening it, seems too long. After a good beginning and the Sermon on the Mount (Luke has it on a plain!), it gets pretty tedious. This includes long discourses after you thought the climax was here -- that is, after they reach Jerusalem. But, it does end quickly -- the Passover meal etc. moves almost as fast as things in Mark. The ending also is not much more than the original Markian ending. It also is pretty interesting, especially as you compare the four gospels. The endings clearly developed thusly: Mark-Matthew-Luke-John (Thomas is a sayings gospel, so is a special case; the fraction of the Gospel of Peter is an interesting case -- one can read and decide). It is striking when you look at them closely.
Mark appears to end with the women finding an empty tomb and being told by a man in white to tell the apostles that Jesus is going to meet them in Galilee. Michael Grant notes that it appears that the apostles actually did go back there, thinking Jesus' death was the end of the line. John has them fishing again and then Jesus appears -- there seems to be various "endings" to that gospel, the final version combining them ala the two creation myths in Genesis. Then, when is unclear, Peter et. al. (the earliest account we have is Paul, who "saw" Jesus too, a vision of some sort) believed that they saw the risen Jesus, that he didn't just die -- and so it began.
Mark, written c. 70, ends with the women being told to have the apostles go to Galilee -- so they went back not because were crestfallen that their leader was executed before the kingdom of God came, but because they were told. Problem is that Mark has the women afraid and not telling anyone ... and then it ends! Another ending is tacked on later, but what gives here? Was the original ending lost? Was the ending a sort of hint that you were supposed to now refer back to the beginning (Galilee) where Jesus' true purpose is cited (including at the baptism?). It's something of a mystery.
Matthew slightly alters this. We are talking like half a chapter, part of it to insert the story of the bribing of the guards. Now, the women actually do go to tell the apostles, but soon meet Jesus on the way. He greets them, tells them to go to the apostles, who will "see" him. And, there is a very brief account of this, without even that little note of a clearly physical Jesus (i.e., the women "clasped his feet"). This involved a brief commission to them "to go and make disciples of all nations," a vaguely universalist message for a gospel that is particularly Jewish in character (e.g., a lot of "as it was written" ... every other thing apparently was prophesied in the Jewish scriptures). No ascension to heaven ala Luke. And, even there, some "doubted" it was him. The commission is a nice touch, but very brief.
Luke provides us with more, including the road to Emmaus (about seven miles from Jerusalem) account and specific emphasis that this was not a true flesh and blood person (he even ate a piece of bread). This was no mere vision that could have been a delusion! But, perhaps more importantly, Luke is the first one to have Peter himself going to the tomb.* This is basically how many picture it. He also has the apostles stay in Jerusalem until the ascension to heaven. John adds details, but it is generally similar. These are Jerusalem accounts though John ends with a chapter generally thought to be tacked on involving the Sea of Galilee.
No more "appearances" ala Paul, but clear physical events are occurring. This in a fashion brings us back to the beginning -- one reason for such accounts appears to be that there was a felt need for a more "objective" statement of events. Not mere visions, though Jesus in the gospels is reported to have taught that we lose our corporal form in heaven -- e.g., when asked what husband a woman married multiple times (husbands kept on dying on her!) would take in heaven. Other reasons too, partially having to do with beliefs of the nature of resurrection of the dead. Plus, the Galilee to Jerusalem shift of the community of believers. And, probably other things. Close readings yet again provide interesting insights.
---
* Update: Bart Ehrman in his book on Peter/Paul/Mary (Magdalene) states that Peter going to the tomb was not in early copies of Luke. Basically, early accounts have women (not trusted at the time to testify) seeing an empty tomb and somewhat curious "appearances," while later ones made them more physical (eating etc.) in nature. If we are trying to do the best we can, imperfectly, to figure out what we have here, that's interesting.
Michael Grant does this mostly, noting that the reader can not believe the miracles or visions happened, of course, that they were delusions or something. But, I recall someone else noting that for many, the "supernatural" is also the "natural." In fact, they can follow certain set rules. Sort of like the rules of horror movies in Scary Movie or something. And, historians do not always look past what "really happened" when mysterious events of a non-religious (or even religion different from one of the main ones) happens in other contexts. So, seems sort of cheating.
To be fair, Grant does somewhat focus on what might have happened here, including that people of the time expected miraculous things to happen. And, often miraculous language was not to be taken literally. And, he offers some suggestions, e.g., how the "empty tomb" might be explained. There is so much that must have seen mysterious to the age in question that use of supernatural explanations would seem almost logical to many people. We should be upfront about this, since it helps understand the works in question. But, and this sort of explains various things, many don't really think things through that much.
A major example is all this demon talk, including them actually talking (in one case, asking Jesus to send them into some swine!). A major aspect of the historical Jesus was likely his supported exorcist skills, so this is no trivial matter. Still, including many who are otherwise believing Christians, it is not really something we like to think about. Exorcism seems um fairy tale, horror movie stuff. It is not like healing leprosy or something. Another thing that is often not known is that Jesus is not truly unique here though from the source material we have it might be the case that he was particularly famous and/or skilled at doing such things. That is, there were others who were believed to have done miracles.
This underlines my sentiments that it would be a good idea to determine what "really" might have been happening. It's a balance of probability, but it is how we deal with other historical events. The psychosomatic possibilities of demon possession is fairly easy to contemplate. Healing some ailments too. Immediate healing, at times using such tricks like putting mud on the eyes? Less so. I take there were some studies on this subject, so why not be address it? Like the recent biography by what's his name of Jesus did not -- is it in bad form, something only for Sam Harris/Hitchens types to do to talk about? Like ruining a magician's tricks?
Now, mind you, some might have done so, particularly in one of the less well known scholarly works. Still, I have read a decent number of books about Jesus and the like, and it seems not to be a thing. In fact, would like to find a good article that in depth covers the topic. Since, again, miracles are not only something Jesus "did." There is also an easier time of it when it happened a long time back in some degree of dimness of time and place. Peter, e.g., is a major figure in Christianity, but we really know very little about the guy. The book, e.g., basically once mentioned his wife and that he was by some accounts said to have a daughter. It determined it happened, but even his martyrdom in Rome is not 100% assured. "Quo vadis?" indeed! People are much less able handle something like the creation stories of the Church of Latter Day Saints. 1820s New York ... "burnt over" district or not, not quite as easy to believe mysterious happenings there.
One more thing for now. I noted yesterday that the Gospel of Matthew, listening it, seems too long. After a good beginning and the Sermon on the Mount (Luke has it on a plain!), it gets pretty tedious. This includes long discourses after you thought the climax was here -- that is, after they reach Jerusalem. But, it does end quickly -- the Passover meal etc. moves almost as fast as things in Mark. The ending also is not much more than the original Markian ending. It also is pretty interesting, especially as you compare the four gospels. The endings clearly developed thusly: Mark-Matthew-Luke-John (Thomas is a sayings gospel, so is a special case; the fraction of the Gospel of Peter is an interesting case -- one can read and decide). It is striking when you look at them closely.
Mark appears to end with the women finding an empty tomb and being told by a man in white to tell the apostles that Jesus is going to meet them in Galilee. Michael Grant notes that it appears that the apostles actually did go back there, thinking Jesus' death was the end of the line. John has them fishing again and then Jesus appears -- there seems to be various "endings" to that gospel, the final version combining them ala the two creation myths in Genesis. Then, when is unclear, Peter et. al. (the earliest account we have is Paul, who "saw" Jesus too, a vision of some sort) believed that they saw the risen Jesus, that he didn't just die -- and so it began.
Mark, written c. 70, ends with the women being told to have the apostles go to Galilee -- so they went back not because were crestfallen that their leader was executed before the kingdom of God came, but because they were told. Problem is that Mark has the women afraid and not telling anyone ... and then it ends! Another ending is tacked on later, but what gives here? Was the original ending lost? Was the ending a sort of hint that you were supposed to now refer back to the beginning (Galilee) where Jesus' true purpose is cited (including at the baptism?). It's something of a mystery.
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.
Matthew slightly alters this. We are talking like half a chapter, part of it to insert the story of the bribing of the guards. Now, the women actually do go to tell the apostles, but soon meet Jesus on the way. He greets them, tells them to go to the apostles, who will "see" him. And, there is a very brief account of this, without even that little note of a clearly physical Jesus (i.e., the women "clasped his feet"). This involved a brief commission to them "to go and make disciples of all nations," a vaguely universalist message for a gospel that is particularly Jewish in character (e.g., a lot of "as it was written" ... every other thing apparently was prophesied in the Jewish scriptures). No ascension to heaven ala Luke. And, even there, some "doubted" it was him. The commission is a nice touch, but very brief.
Luke provides us with more, including the road to Emmaus (about seven miles from Jerusalem) account and specific emphasis that this was not a true flesh and blood person (he even ate a piece of bread). This was no mere vision that could have been a delusion! But, perhaps more importantly, Luke is the first one to have Peter himself going to the tomb.* This is basically how many picture it. He also has the apostles stay in Jerusalem until the ascension to heaven. John adds details, but it is generally similar. These are Jerusalem accounts though John ends with a chapter generally thought to be tacked on involving the Sea of Galilee.
No more "appearances" ala Paul, but clear physical events are occurring. This in a fashion brings us back to the beginning -- one reason for such accounts appears to be that there was a felt need for a more "objective" statement of events. Not mere visions, though Jesus in the gospels is reported to have taught that we lose our corporal form in heaven -- e.g., when asked what husband a woman married multiple times (husbands kept on dying on her!) would take in heaven. Other reasons too, partially having to do with beliefs of the nature of resurrection of the dead. Plus, the Galilee to Jerusalem shift of the community of believers. And, probably other things. Close readings yet again provide interesting insights.
---
* Update: Bart Ehrman in his book on Peter/Paul/Mary (Magdalene) states that Peter going to the tomb was not in early copies of Luke. Basically, early accounts have women (not trusted at the time to testify) seeing an empty tomb and somewhat curious "appearances," while later ones made them more physical (eating etc.) in nature. If we are trying to do the best we can, imperfectly, to figure out what we have here, that's interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!