2014-04-02

The One-Liner Jesus

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Richard Horsley has produced a couple of books I have found far more enlightening than his earlier work on bandits and prophets in first-century Judea. One of these is Scribes, Visionaries and the Politics of Second Temple Judea from 2007; the other, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 2012. One of several points that has hit me already from these two works is a deeper appreciation of the literary way the Gospels convey the sayings of Jesus.

Take the Sermon on the Mount. I think we all know that Jesus could not really have stood up and pronounced a long list of aphorisms the way Matthew depicts. So we hear the more learned ones explaining to us that Matthew was recording a summary of the sorts of things Jesus often said.

But stop and think for a minute. Aren’t the evangelists (authors of the gospels) supposed to be writing something akin to a history or biography? And weren’t ancient historians known for the way they would construct speeches they believed were “true to life” or “appropriate” or “realistic” in the mouth of certain historical characters? But that’s not what we read in the gospels when it comes to the speeches of Jesus. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain are anything but reconstructed “speeches”.

Rather, they read like a chapter or so from the Book of Proverbs. Not like speeches. Jesus is not “preaching” about forgiveness and an appropriate speech is not constructed for any such message. Jesus simply delivers a proverb or saying or edict, brief enough to be remembered and recorded in a list of one-liners. It’s not unlike the way he is portrayed as speaking in the Gospel of Thomas when he drops line after line of mystery saying.

The evangelists — at least the Synoptic ones (Matthew, Mark and Luke) — are not even trying to reconstruct speeches of Jesus.

They are writing a set of one-liner sayings.

Okay, but what is the problem with this? Horsley puts his finger on it exactly:

Focus on individual sayings . . . tends to reify them as statements or principles or precious nuggets of wisdom abstracted from the contingencies of historical life. Tellingly, standard study of the historical Jesus is specially concerned about the transmission of particular sayings, as if they were precious objects being “handed (down)” from one person to another. The resulting picture of Jesus is as a revealer who, unengaged with concrete historical life, utters one-liners. To have become a historically significant figure, Jesus must have communicated with people, particularly his followers. But it is difficult to imagine that anyone could communicate merely in individual sayings. (p.2, Kindle version, my bolding)

Here it is again, this time perhaps more direct:

Jesus (or anyone else), however, could not have communicated by means of individual “sayings,” which are later abstractions from speeches or “pronouncement” stories, etc., and hence cannot be the sources for the historical Jesus.(p. 153)

It is really beyond anyone’s ability to uncover actual words spoken by Jesus.

What this leaves us with is a requirement to appreciate the gospels as literary wholes. I think if we read a list of sayings as in the Sermon on the Mount what we are reading is a literary presentation of Jesus as a teacher of wisdom (like Solomon) or edicts (like Moses).

Even if we read a one-liner isolated from other sayings, as when Jesus blesses those who leave all their goods to follow him (Mark 10:29-31) we are still reading a proverb-mouthpiece in a narrative context. We are hardly reading the words of someone who was able to eloquently persuade people to leave all and follow him.

Who knows if such sayings are indeed summaries of various ideas expressed by such a Jesus? I’m not suggesting that an appreciation for the implications of the one-liner Jesus we read of in the gospels means these sorts of things were not said by the real Jesus. But as Horsley says, no-one could engage with people or command a dedicated following by talking like that. And if he did not talk like that, then it is pointless to ask if such gospels sayings were really spoken by Jesus.

The sources of the sayings put into Jesus’ mouth are another question.

IMG_3188-1

 

11 Comments

  • Sam in WV
    2014-04-02 20:29:35 UTC - 20:29 | Permalink

    Check out a picture of the statue of Geo. Washington by Horatio Greenough.

    In my teenage years, this would be the image I would conjure when reading about the “proclamation” Jesus of the gospel narratives ~~ anything but the warm intimate individual with whom evangelicals advise the newly faithful should cultivate a personal relationship. Jesus seldom even converses to His disciples. He “proclaims” to(at) them.

    Thanks for a great post, revealing true literary import.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2014-04-02 20:47:46 UTC - 20:47 | Permalink

      Perfect illustration for the post. Thanks. Have added it now.

  • Mark Erickson
    2014-04-02 21:14:18 UTC - 21:14 | Permalink

    So many problems appear when you take the Sunday School blinders off. McGrath, and many others, just can’t seem to do that. See this post and his response to my question at the bottom of the thread. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/03/the-path-to-discerning-gods-will.html#comment-1311655262

    Btw, Frank Schafer (Francis’ son) has a great interview at the Point of Inquiry podcast (CFI).

    • Neil Godfrey
      2014-04-03 10:36:30 UTC - 10:36 | Permalink

      Can you give us a link to the podcast? (We non-Americans don’t know who the Schafers are, either, sorry. Happy to learn, though.)

      From another perspective — I had a look at McG’s post and was most shocked by the way several commentators thought it was so insightful — Sheesh, I thought it was quotidian. I couldn’t resist leaving the thought that the only reason the parable of the Good Samaritan has any so-called “wow” factor is because it tells the religiously minded to let go of their religion for a moment and just relate to fellow humanity like the social creatures we are by nature. I expect they’ll just think I’m a Satanist or something.

  • John
    2014-04-02 21:19:33 UTC - 21:19 | Permalink

    I’ve been giving some more consideration lately to Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew (in Howard’s book from 1995). This gospel is discussed in Nehemia Gordon’s book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Matthew, where he shows that this Hebrew Matthew (regardless of its transmission history) makes more sense in certain cases than the Greek, and exhibits interesting wordplays and puns that are absent in the Greek.

    I’m aware of the uncertainties regarding Hebrew versions of Matthew (and the ancient witnesses to such), and thus have viewed them with reserve over the years. But the more I think about the details in Gordon’s little book, the more I’m starting to wonder if there could be something historically useful about Shem Tov’s version after all. Not that I’m thinking that this is likely, just that it may be worth a little more thought.

    Have you read Howard’s book or looked into the issue of the Hebrew Matthew?

    • Neil Godfrey
      2014-04-03 10:31:50 UTC - 10:31 | Permalink

      No, I haven’t read any of these. Something I’ve since added to my already long list.

  • 2014-04-03 16:33:32 UTC - 16:33 | Permalink

    Niel, have you heard of Raphael Lataster? He’s a PhD student in religious studies and wrote his Masters thesis on Jesus Mythicism. I’m reading his book, There Was No Jesus, There Is No God which seems to sum up both his MA work and his current PhD work.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2014-04-03 21:30:56 UTC - 21:30 | Permalink

      Yes, indeed. Raphael does know of this blog, too. I have corresponded with him a couple of times and we have met virtually face to face on a program recently arranged by Phil Robinson of Nuskeptix. He’s another academic who does publish in peer-review literature on Bayes and mythicism, if I recall correctly.

  • Tim Widowfield
    2014-04-08 02:14:51 UTC - 02:14 | Permalink

    Sam brought up Washington, so I’ll bring up Abe Lincoln who said (with reference to the 1864 election), “I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.” It’s one of my favorite Lincoln quotes — too bad he never said it.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

    Powered by sweet Captcha