Jesus: An Uncommon Journey: Studies on the Historical Jesus 3161505042, 9783161505041

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

288

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

Jesus: An Uncommon Journey Studies on the Historical Jesus

Mohr Siebeck

Armand Puig i Tàrrech, born 1953; 1984 PhD in Biblical Studies (Rome); 1982–1993 Coordinator of the Catalan Ecumenical Bible (BCI); 1997 Co-Director of the Corpus Biblicum Catalanicum; 1999 Ordinary Professor of New Testament in the Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya (Barcelona); 2006 President-Dean of the Faculty; 2010 PresidentElect of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (SNTS).

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151631-3 ISBN 978-3-16-150504-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

À la mémoire du P. Jacques Dupont (1915 – 1998), moine et bibliste, disciple de Jésus

Preface The nine studies on the historical Jesus that appear in this book are a reflection of the research that I have carried out on the topic over the past ten years. This research also led to the publication of a book destined for a popular readership, which seeks to present an overall picture of Jesus of Nazareth: Jesús. Un perfil biogràfic (Perfils 50; Barcelona, 2004). The book is now in its sixth Catalan printing and there have been four translations of it into Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. Editions in German and French are in preparation. Eight of the studies in this present book have previously appeared in print or are in the process of being published, as follows: Chapter 1, “The Search for the Historical Jesus” – “La recherche du Jésus historique”, Bib. 81 (2000), pp. 179-201 Chaper 2, “The Birth of Jesus” – “El naixement de Jesús”, Revista Catalana de Teologia 30 (2005), pp. 289-329 Chapter 3, “The Family of Jesus ‘according to the Flesh’” – “La família de Jesús ‘segons la carn’”, Revista Catalana de Teologia 31 (2006), pp. 297-335 Chapter 4, “Why Was Jesus Baptized by John?” – “Pourquoi Jésus a-t-il reçu le baptême de Jean?”, NTS 54 (2008), pp. 355-374 Chapter 5, “Jesus and the Commandment Not to Steal” – “Jesús i el manament de no robar”, in El matrimoni i l’ús dels béns en la Bíblia (A. PUIG I TÀRRECH [ed.]; Scripta Biblica 8; Barcelona 2008), pp. 185-201 Chapter 6, “Violence and Jesus of Nazareth” – “La violència i Jesús de Natzaret”, in La violència en la Bíblia (A. PUIG I TÀRRECH [ed.]; Scripta Biblica 9; Barcelona 2009), pp. 151-192 Chapter 7, “Jesus: Prophecy and Wisdom” – “Jesús: profecia i saviesa”, Revista Catalana de Teologia 33 (2008), pp. 477-502 Chapter 8, “Was Jesus a Mystic?” – “Era Jesús un místic?”, to be published in La Bíblia i la mística (A. PUIG I TÀRRECH [ed.]; Scripta Biblica 11; Barcelona 2010). I would like to express here my gratitude to the teaching staff and students of the Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya (Barcelona), whose observations have helped me to clarify key points of my research. It is well known that reconstructing the historical Jesus is a subject as fascinating as it is openended. The possibilities of interpretation are numerous and reaching agreement is something that can be achieved only gradually, and by means of careful rigour and academic exchange. Indeed, the rabbi of Nazareth, more than any other historical figure, seems to resist a definitive understanding of

VIII

Preface

his identity. And yet, since the very beginning of Christian history, the question of this identity has demanded an answer; it is a question that led to the creation of the New Testament, which is in itself a collection of answers and the clearest example of the immeasurable richness of both a person and a message that changed dramatically the history of humankind. It is, therefore, no wonder that each new generation seeks to understand, and to contemplate, an event firmly situated in time but also limitless in its density and timeless in its relevance. Indeed, successive generations of scholars, drawing on earlier research, take up the same basic questions about Jesus and formulate them afresh within the framework of an ever-changing social, cultural and religious context. In the case of this book, that context is a Mediterranean, Latin one, and the heuristic framework to which it belongs is the so-called Third Quest for the Historical Jesus. In bringing this work to publication, I am indebted to the skilful and sensitive contribution of Dr Jenny Read-Heimerdinger who has undertaken the English translation and copy-editing of the articles included in the book; to her I express my deepest gratitude. Able assistance with the indices was provided by Mrs Penny Newton, to whom I express my thanks. I am also grateful to Cambridge University Press and to the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome for permission to reproduce articles previously published in New Testament Studies and Biblica respectively. Finally, I extend my thanks to Professor Jörg Frey and the other editors of the WUNT II series, and to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, editorial director of Mohr Siebeck, for accepting to include this work in their prestigious list of publications. Barcelona – la Selva del Camp 30th November, 2009, Feast of St Andrew the Apostle, the First-Called

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................... VII Table of Contents ........................................................................................ IX

Introduction ..............................................................................................

1

1. Oral Tradition and Paul........................................................................... 2. Oral Tradition as Remembrance and Memory ........................................ 3. The Jesus Tradition as Impact and Stimulus ........................................... 4. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Pre-Easter Period ......................... 5. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Early Community......................... 6. Elements of Oral Tradition with a High Degree of Certainty ................. 6.1. A disciple or follower is characterized by the fact of remembering and repeating the teachings of his master ........................................ 6.2. Faithfulness to the material received includes its active reception........................................................................................... 6.3. The path of the transmission of oral tradition lies between strict memorization and simple reminiscence........................................... 6.4. Oral tradition did not operate in the same way in the two types of material in which it is found: narrative and sayings........................ 6.5. In the course of the oral and written transmission of the Jesus tradition, there was a series of operations that modified it, but not substantially ..................................................................................... 7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty .................. 7.1. The Jesus tradition was originally in Aramaic and retains a certain Aramaic background, but the transfer into Greek was made at a very early stage.............................................................................. 7.2. In the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition, thematic grouping of material was made ....................................................................... 7.3. In the Jesus tradition, the modifications have a claim to legitimacy and appear as changes that do not harm the tradition ...................... 7.4. The transmission of the Jesus tradition is explained by the combination of two categories: ‘witnesses’ and ‘communities’...... 7.5. The fact of the variability of the Jesus tradition does not mean that there was no ‘original’ for many of the units of the material that gave shape to it.......................................................................... 8. Conclusion...............................................................................................

1 2 6 13 18 19 19 20 21 22

25 26

26 28 29 31

37 40

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus ............................... 44 1. The Historical Method ............................................................................ 1.1. The sources....................................................................................... 1.2. The criteria of historicity.................................................................. 1.3. The criterion of historical plausibility.............................................. 2. The Connection between History and Faith............................................

45 45 49 53 57

Chapter 2: The Birth of Jesus .............................................................. 63 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

The Differences between Matthew and Luke ......................................... 64 The Similarities between Matthew and Luke.......................................... 68 A Roman Census Decreed by Augustus?................................................ 70 A More Judaico Census Decreed by Herod............................................ 74 4.1. Herod’s taxation system................................................................... 74 4.2. The frequency and characteristics of Herod’s censuses................... 78 4.3. Jewish customs in Herod’s censuses................................................ 83 The Decree of Herod’s Census in the Time of Augustus........................ 89 The Reasons for Joseph’s and Mary’s Journey to Bethlehem ................ 94 The Stay of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem after the Birth of Jesus ...... 99 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 103

Chapter 3: The Family of Jesus “according to the Flesh” ............ 105 1. His Parents, Joseph and Mary ................................................................. 2. Jesus, a Child in an Unusual Situation .................................................... 3. The Davidic Line of Jesus ....................................................................... 4. The “Brothers” and “Sisters” of Jesus .................................................... 4.1. The family of Jesus during his ministry........................................... 4.2. James the Just, the older brother of Jesus ........................................ 4.3. Other members of Jesus’ family ...................................................... 5. Interpretation of the Expression “the Brothers of Jesus” ........................ 5.1. The early minority position: full consanguinity between Jesus and his brothers....................................................................................... 5.2. The position of Jerome: the brothers were cousins.......................... 5.3. The early majority position (spread by Epiphanius): the brothers were the children of Joseph.......................................... 5.4. The view of Helvidius (and Tertullian): the brothers were the sons of Mary and Joseph .......................................................................... 6. The Period after the Birth of Jesus in the Canonical Gospels................. 7. Towards a Solution ................................................................................. 8. Conclusions .............................................................................................

105 107 109 113 113 117 120 121 124 125 127 132 136 138 141

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 4: Why Was Jesus Baptized by John? ............................... 143 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 2. The Baptism of John ............................................................................... 2.1. The Christian sources and Josephus................................................. 2.2. Forgiveness of sins and conversion ................................................. 3. Jesus, Baptized by John........................................................................... 3.1. The sign of John as the beginning of the kairos .............................. 3.2. Did Jesus commit sin?...................................................................... 4. Conclusion...............................................................................................

143 146 146 148 153 154 156 162

Chapter 5: Jesus and the Commandment Not to Steal .................. 163 1. The Absence of Attention to “You Shall Not Steal” in the Words of Jesus ............................................................................................... 2. A Possible Counterpoint: Jesus’ Position with Regard to Wealth .......... 2.1. Wealth as a difficulty ....................................................................... 2.2. Two scenes involving donating one’s own possessions .................. 2.3. Between detachment and generosity................................................ 3. Conclusions .............................................................................................

163 165 165 168 173 176

Chapter 6: Violence and Jesus of Nazareth ..................................... 178 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 2. A World Full of Violence ....................................................................... 3. The Rejection of Violence as Behaviour ................................................ 3.1. Violence against foreigners.............................................................. 3.2. Violence against the conquered and the conquerors........................ 3.3. Violence as a means and power as an end ....................................... 3.3.1. The discussion about the sword at the last supper................. 3.3.2. The meal of bread and fish, a sign of fellowship................... 3.3.3. The driving out of the traders from the Temple: a messianic sign ..................................................................... 4. The Rejection of Violence as the Teaching of Jesus............................... 4.1. Vengeance........................................................................................ 4.2. Hating one’s enemies ....................................................................... 4.3. Homicide.......................................................................................... 5. Conclusion...............................................................................................

178 179 183 183 184 186 188 190 192 204 205 209 213 216

Chapter 7: Jesus: Prophecy and Wisdom ......................................... 219 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 219 2. The Arrival of the Rule of God ............................................................... 221 2.1. Prophecy concerning the kingdom................................................... 221

XII

Table of Contents

2.2. Present and future, revealed and hidden .......................................... 2.3. Why this unpretentious beginning?.................................................. 2.4. Future and present judgement .......................................................... 2.5. A statement on which all others rest ................................................ 3. The Signs of the Reign that Had Begun.................................................. 3.1. A cosmic struggle............................................................................. 3.2. Prophecy addressed to the poor........................................................ 4. Ethics as a Response to the Present Kingdom of God ............................ 4.1. The elements of the problem............................................................ 4.2. Creation and the kingdom ................................................................ 4.3. The Torah maintained and surpassed............................................... 5. Jesus and the Kingdom of God................................................................ 6. Conclusion...............................................................................................

223 225 227 230 231 231 233 234 234 235 236 241 244

Chapter 8: Was Jesus a Mystic? ......................................................... 245 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 2. The Humanity of Jesus............................................................................ 3. The Desire for God.................................................................................. 3.1. Times of testing................................................................................ 3.2. A closeness without desire ............................................................... 4. Sin and Guilt............................................................................................ 4.1. Jesus did not demand forgiveness but offered it .............................. 4.2. The understanding of the early community: Jesus was without sin ....................................................................... 4.3. On being a man but not a sinner ...................................................... 4.4. Speaking and acting from God......................................................... 5. Extraordinary Phenomena: Two Visions and a Transfiguration ............. 5.1. The vision of the heavens opening................................................... 5.2. The vision of the fall of Satan.......................................................... 5.3. The transfiguration on the mountain................................................ 6. Conclusions ............................................................................................. Indices

245 246 250 252 256 259 260 263 266 269 273 274 277 280 283

............................................................................................... 287

1. Index of Biblical References ................................................................... 287 2. Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................................ 306

Introduction

The Jesus Tradition 1. Oral Tradition and Paul The title chosen for this collection of articles on the subject of the historical Jesus is an indication of the heuristic perspective that the author seeks to underline. Jesus can only be reached through the witnesses who set in motion a process of transmission that had its origin in the life and preaching of Jesus. Indeed, the person of Jesus, in all his breadth and complexity, was the focus of interest of the first Christian communities, even of Paul, the first known Christian writer. Even though the Pauline writings display a surprising lack of references to the words and deeds of Jesus, the apostle nevertheless drew on the oral – and maybe the written – tradition shaped by the early community. Paul brings together the basic elements of that tradition – the confession of faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15.3-5), the Eucharistic practice derived from the words of Jesus at the last supper (1 Cor. 11.23-25), the return of the Lord in the end times and his remaining for ever (1 Thess. 4.15-17) – but he also includes more specific elements – the refusal of divorce (1 Cor. 7.10-11), the reward of those who proclaim the gospel (1 Cor. 9.14).1 It is, furthermore, clear from the network of implicit allusions that the Pauline kerygma presupposes and is founded upon a wealth of traditions concerning Jesus that were circulating among the Christian communities during the first decades, and that were more interrelated than at first sight appears. Thus, there is a certain number of allusions to the Jesus tradition found in Q, Mark, special Matthew and special Luke, as much concerning the teachings as 1

There are four occasions on which Paul explicitly quotes Jesus: three in 1 Cor. (7.10: the charge of the Lord; 9.14: “the Lord commanded”; 11.23: “I received from the Lord”) and one in 1 Thess. (4.15: “the word of the Lord”), to which could perhaps be added Rom. 14.14 (“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus”), a text where it is affirmed that nothing is unclean. As for 1 Thess. 4.15, it is not clear if the “word” of the Lord means the fact that the living will not precede those who have already died when Jesus returns or the fact of his coming again and that those who are alive and the resurrected will meet him and be with him for ever – the latter option is to be preferred. The argument of the authority of Jesus thus constitutes the background to Paul’s quotations. However, the source that conveys this authority is tradition, which is presented as having been received through the community (1 Cor. 15.3: “I delivered to you … what I also received”).

2

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

concerning the life of the Lord.2 However, the underlying reason for which Paul probably did not refer more to the Jesus tradition is that he was not a direct witness (“eyewitness”) of the deeds and words of the Lord and therefore he did not feel authorized to place himself within the chain of oral transmission that was set up by the Twelve and by the others who had known the earthly Jesus. Paul knew the Jesus of glory, dead and resurrected, whom God chose to reveal to him (Gal. 1.16) and whom he was to announce to the Gentiles; that is why he was considered to be an apostle. He says, though, that he was an apostle “untimely born” (1 Cor. 15.8:     ), that is, not in the time when Jesus lived and died. Paul sought only to testify to what he had received directly from God: the revelation of his Son. So the kerygma of Paul was what had been transmitted to him by means of a revelation and what had been transmitted by the instruction of the community (traditum): he, in turn, would transmit all aspects through his apostolic proclamation (tradendum). In this way, tradition functioned as a basic category with a dual register: the direct one (the Son of God preached to all peoples, the object of the personal revelation Paul received) and the indirect one (Jesus Christ who died and was resurrected, the core of the tradition and confession of faith of the community who passed it on to him, see Rom. 10.9). Of course, the two levels are combined and operate in association with one another in such a way that the Pauline proclamation in no way excludes the earthly or historical Jesus: he is an integral component of the confession of the Christ.3

2. Oral Tradition as Remembrance and Memory The example of Paul illustrates the central character of the tradition as one attempts to understand the paths opened up by the words and deeds attributed to Jesus, paths to which access is achieved through the written materials that 2 See a list of quotations and allusions in F. SIEGERT, “Jésus et Paul: une relation contestée”, in D. MARGUERAT – E. NORELLI – J.-M. POFFET (eds), Jésus de Nazareth. Nouvelles approches d’une énigme (Le Monde de la Bible 38; Geneva, 1998), pp. 439-457. A shorter list, with some differences is found in J.D.G. DUNN, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, 2003), p. 182, n. 48. Note that Paul’s quotations or allusions to the words or deeds of “the Lord” refer to material already gathered in the synoptic tradition: 1 Cor. 7.10-11 (Mk 10.6-9.11-12 and par.); 1 Cor. 9.14 (Mt. 10.10 par. Lk. 10.7); 1 Cor. 11.23-25 (Lk. 22.19-20); Rom. 14.14 (Mk 7.15.20). The only relatively new theme is found in 1 Thess. 4.15(-17) (cf., though, Mt. 24.30-31). 3 It should be noted in this connection that the object of the confession of faith is Jesus who “died” (earthly and historical) and who was resurrected (heavenly and glorious). The continuity between the two is indicated by the use of the same kerygmatic formula. A similar thing happens in the statement “Jesus is the Lord”, where the verb “is” functions as a marker of identity and, as such, of continuity.

2. Oral Tradition as Remembrance and Memory

3

have come down to us. These paths are notoriously complex. The Jesus tradition was not handed down in a linear fashion nor was it strictly controlled. Jesus, in whom the tradition originated, showed no particular interest in establishing the memory of himself by fixing, for example, what could have been sure channels of transmission: neither familiar channels (explicitly ordering his disciples, always present around the Master, to remember his teaching), nor channels less familiar in the Palestinian context (making sure that the disciples set down in writing what he said and did). Apart from a few exceptions, the most important of which is the sending out of the Twelve (Mk 6.7-13 and par.), Jesus did not show a formal concern to ensure an ‘authorized’ transmission of his words or even of his actions. There is no trace in the traditions handed down of a formal charge entrusted, for example, to any of his more notable followers – whether literate or illiterate. Nonetheless, there seems to have been a deliberate intention on Jesus’ part not to act alone, always to surround himself with the presence, more or less intimate, of some disciple or other (episodes such as the healing of the deafmute in Mk 7.32-35 should not be seen as an exception). The process of transmission was thus made possible at any given moment in the activity of Jesus.4 It is worthy of note that Jesus gave a special role to three disciples (Peter and the two sons of Zebedee) as witnesses of the critical moments in his life, especially the transfiguration on the mountain and the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. It should also be noted that at those particular times Jesus addressed no specific teaching to his three chosen disciples; he simply asked them to actively participate in a unique event in his life. In addition, there are scattered indications that show that the message of Jesus could not remain hidden or forgotten. In a logion of Q (Mt. 10.27 par. Lk. 12.3), which is also found in the Gospel of Thomas (33.1), Jesus himself (Matthew, Gospel of Thomas) or his followers (Luke) exhorted people to announce to the four winds things that had been heard in the depths of secrecy.5 The reason for the spreading of the message is seen in the previous

4 It could be thought that the Gospels want to present Jesus as accompanied by the disciples in order to make sure that they are the trustworthy transmitters of what happened. In fact, there is no text before the passion that states that Jesus was alone with anyone apart from the disciples (the only exception would be the Samaritan woman, Jn 4.8.27). Another possibility, a preferable one, would be to see in Mk 3.14 (“he appointed twelve, to be with him”) a decision taken by Jesus himself at the point when he offered the Twelve the choice to follow him. 5 The hyperbole poses no problem: there is an absolute contrast between the way things are heard (“in the dark”, “whispered”) and the way things are passed on (“in the light”, “on the housetops”).

4

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

sentence in Q (Mt. 10.26 par. Lk. 12.2), in the form of a proverb: “nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known”.6 The transmission of some events in Jesus’ life are given a temporal setting in some missionary texts, with the idea of legitimizing the divulgation of the event based on the prophetic words of Jesus. This is the case with the universal proclamation of the gospel that is found at the end of the anointing in Bethany (Mk 14.9 par. Mt. 26.13) and in the middle of the eschatological discourse (Mk 13.10; cf. Mt. 24.14). The post-Easter stamp on the theme of the proclamation of the gospel in Mk 14.9 is clear,7 but it is difficult not to see in the beginning of the tradition the use of the category of ‘memory’, reinforced by the insistent formula “in truth I say to you” (     ). To the spectacular and controversial action of the woman in Bethany Jesus attached the memory of what she did as a gesture of anticipation and preparation for his burial. While it is true that in Jn 12.7-8 the explicit reference to the memory of the anointing has disappeared, the temporal link between this anointing and “the day ( ) of my burial” is maintained, and is seen here, just as in Mark and Matthew, as a moment when Jesus ceased to be physically present with his own: “you do not always have me” (

    ! – an identical sentence is found in Mk 14.7 par. Mt. 26.11; Jn 12.8!). As a result, the use of the category of ‘memory’ or ‘remembrance’, which has recurred frequently in the research concerning the historical Jesus in recent years,8 has strong roots in the episode of the anointing at Bethany, where Jesus himself seems to have interpreted the woman’s action in connection with the imminent facts of his death and burial but also in connection with the time that would begin with his absence, the time of the ‘memory’ of the woman’s gesture. The linking of the future as a time of remembrance of the deeds and words of Jesus with the past as the time in which the remembrance has its origin, defines – and to a certain extent justifies – the Gospel texts themselves. The fact of the resurrection turns the texture of the ‘memory of Jesus’ upside 6

In contrast, this proverbial saying appears on its own in Mk 4.22 (cf. Lk. 8.17) and in a slightly re-worked form in GThom 6.5-6 (NHC). In the Coptic version of GThom 5 (NHC), the saying has been turned around and in the Greek version (POxy 654) it has been expanded. This saying has also been reversed in the Greek version of GThom 6 (POxy 654). 7 See J. GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 8.27-16.20) (EKK II/2; Zürich – Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1979), p. 222: “Der hôpou-Satz markinisch ist. Der Rest ist wahrscheinlich vorgegeben, wie besonders des Gedenken nahelegt”. 8 Significantly, the term “remembrance” or “memory” figures in the title of works by J. Schröter (Erinnerung an Jesu Worte. Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas [WMANT 76; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1997) and J.D.G. Dunn (Jesus Remembered). G. Segalla has made it the key category in his work on the theology of the New Testament (Teologia biblica del Nuovo Testamento. Tra memoria escatologica di Gesù e promessa del futuro regno di Dio [Logos 8/2; Turin, 2006]).

2. Oral Tradition as Remembrance and Memory

5

down, in such a way that the first note of this remembrance is no longer the absence of one on his way to his death (“you will not always have me”) but the uninterrupted presence of the resurrected one (“I am with you to the end of the world”, Mt. 28.20). In fact, Matthew’s Gospel closes with the solemn missionary commission that the Kyrios gives to the Eleven when they have gathered together, in which the future universal proclamation is linked to the past of the historical proclamation conceived as a regula vitae for the present (“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”, Mt. 28.20). In contrast, Luke’s Gospel presents the connection with the past from the very opening pages of his text. The soul of the historian is expressed through the authorial first person who addresses a specific person, Theophilus; this contributes to making the link with the past the primary question considered in the document.9 Indeed, the prologue to the Gospel (Lk. 1.1-4) has as its goal to underline for the reader/hearer the merit and the truth of the writing that follows.10 The recipient needs to be reassured that the story of the things that have happened are historically grounded in the accounts of “eyewitnesses” who were faithful transmitters of the facts. Not only that, but the account was written by someone who possessed exhaustive information concerning everything that had taken place. In other words, Luke, the author of Luke – Acts, stresses that the truth of the remembrance of the past is preserved. The transmission will be made with total clarity and with a full knowledge of “everything Jesus did and taught” (Acts 1.1). In the case of John’s Gospel, the desire to give a guarantee to the reader/hearer that the account is highly trustworthy is seen in a clever literary device: the amount of information supplied by the author. In the epilogue to the Gospel (Jn 20.30) and also in the close of the Appendix that follows (21.25), the fact that a great deal of material has been omitted is underlined – the Appendix even says that there is so much that it would make a whole library! The result is obvious: the memory of Jesus that the document conveys is as solid as stone. If there is much that has been left out, the little that remains must be of true value! In summary, the true transmission of the words and deeds of Jesus and, as a result, the memory of him are the principal goal of the prologues, endings and epilogues of the majority of the gospels written before the year 100 CE,

9 On the identity of Theophilus, see the recent work by J. RIUS-CAMPS – J. READHEIMERDINGER, Lluc. Demostració a Teòfil. Evangeli i Fets dels Apòstols segons el Còdex Beza (Barcelona, 2009, pp. 22-23). 10 See L.A. ALEXANDER, Preface to Luke’s Gospel. Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1:1-4 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge, 1993). According to Alexander, parallels with the Lukan prologue are found in scientific, especially medical, works, which are by definition works that make the highest claim to be truthful.

6

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

especially in the case of Luke.11 Mark is the only one not to explicitly mention this common concern, although his text is presented as a “gospel” (Mk 1.1), that is, as a narrative that is a remembrance of the words and deeds of Jesus, which now become the object of proclamation (1.14). So it can be said that the term ‘gospel’ includes everything that is denoted by the category of ‘memory’: the truthful transmission of a meaningful past that determines the present. In this sense, tradition is both remembrance and memory. It is remembrance because the past is brought into the present by means of a process of transmission, whose truth is constantly posited. The past has to be legitimized as true, in such a way that the tradition could not be thought to be an invention nor could it be accused of containing false or incomplete information about the past: tradition has to emerge from the critical judgement of the reader/hearer with its honour intact. In addition, tradition is memory, in so far as the present has to be legitimized as the continuation of a fundamental and foundational past. A present that is not a living memory of the preaching of Jesus, of his deeds and words, of his actions and his teachings, that is, of all that leads to a confession of faith, would be cut off from tradition and would lose its irreplaceable point of reference. In short, the Jesus tradition is believable in so far as the past is legitimized in the present and the present finds its legitimization in the reference to the past.12

3. The Jesus Tradition as Impact and Stimulus If, in the Jesus tradition, the past is of interest in relation to the present, it is clear that the past is not reduced to a fossilized truth, a sort of archaeological remains that has to be dug up, classified and put in a museum. The Gospels are not the debris of a transmission that failed to be properly received and left many important pieces behind. Obviously, it is possible to suppose that only a part of the Jesus tradition, whether great or small, has been preserved, the part that is found in the canonical Gospels or else in the non-canonical writings (known as “apocryphal”) or even in non-Christian materials. It could be imagined that if the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Gospel of Peter or some other “unknown gospel” (like Egerton 2, for example), or else the five books 11 It should be stressed that tradition demands for itself the truth of what it transmits and, in the reader, an absolute confidence in what it transmits. It is a fundamental rule of historiography, which Josephus, for example, makes explicit at the beginning of his work Contra Apionem: “I was so convinced of their truth [of the events related]” (1.50). 12 See W.H. KEBLER, “Der historische Jesus”, in J. SCHRÖTER – R. BRUCKER (eds), Der historische Jesus. Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (BZNW 114; Berlin – New York, 2002), pp. 15-66, here 56.

3. The Jesus Tradition as Impact and Stimulus

7

of Papias of Hierapolis mentioned in his work Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, had been fully preserved, our knowledge of the Jesus tradition would be much more complete. However, the small amount of material in the fragmentary documents listed above that has survived shows that the transmission of the Jesus tradition was reasonably successful and that the most important channel was, and remains, the four common or canonical Gospels together with, to a lesser degree and generally of a dependent nature, the Gospel of Thomas. Apart from the four Gospels (including Q that can only be identified through them), and a few logions from the Gospel of Thomas (between seven and nine) and some scattered agrapha, it is difficult to identify clearly other material that dates from the beginnings of the Jesus tradition.13 However, the question that we wish to deal with in this Introduction is not the matter of the sources – a topic outlined in Chapter 114 – but rather the question of access to Jesus or, better, the tradition that is rooted in him and that consists in what he said and did. It seems clear enough that the activity of Jesus in Jewish Palestine of his time had such an impact that it led to the start of a process of oral transmission concerning his life. This process already started while Jesus was still preaching. There was no need to wait till after his death to see the impact of his words and deeds. Despite the generic and sometimes laudatory character that they take, the references to the ‘success’ of Jesus such as are found in the Synoptic Gospels are sufficiently frequent to imply that his activity made an immediate impact. Rabbi Jesus was unique in the eyes of the people and even of their leaders on account of the authority ( "#$) with which he spoke (Mk 1.22), the claims he made (to be able to forgive sins, something that only God could do, Mk 2.5) and his determined resolution to oppose the kingdom of Satan through his exorcisms (Mk 1.25). It is no surprise, therefore, that Jesus was a character who should have aroused controversy around him. Some people – simple folk from Galilee – exclaimed that they had never seen the like (Mk 2.12) while others – the Teachers of the Law sent from Jerusalem – decreed that he was in collusion with Satan (Mk 3.22). The immediate impact of his activity is undeniable. In no time, he had his supporters and opponents. Luke appropriately qualified Jesus as “a sign that is spoken against” (Lk. 2.34). The impact made by Jesus was founded above all on the singular nature of his activity. Jesus was no conventional rabbi, the disciple of a more or less 13

The contribution of the agrapha, the fragments of unknown gospels (esp. PEger 2, POxy 840, POxy 1224, PBerol 22220, PEstr) and the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews do not alter the picture of Jesus provided by the canonical gospel tradition (or the oldest material of the Gospel of Thomas). On the Gospel of Thomas, see my book Un Jesús desconocido. Las claves del evangelio gnóstico de Tomás (Barcelona, 2008). On the rest of the aforementioned material, see PUIG I TÀRRECH, Els evangelis apòcrifs, vol. I (Barcelona, 2008), pp. 63-179. 14 See pp. 45-57, in Chapter 1 on “The Search for the Historical Jesus”.

8

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

well known master, but rather a freelance rabbi, viewed with some mistrust by the experts of the Law of his time.15 In addition, Jesus did not attract great crowds who followed him, in the way that the claimants to the royal throne who arose after the death of Herod did (as Josephus relates, AJ 17.271-281). Only occasionally, such as at the time of the feeding of the multitude by the Sea of Galilee involving the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, do the numbers in the Gospel sources (“5,000” according to Mk 6.44; Jn 6.10; “4,000” people according to Mk 8.9) resemble the figures given for the Egyptian “sicarius” who led a group of “4,000” men (Acts 21.38; “30,000” according to Josephus in BJ 2.258). So the core of the Jesus tradition has to be looked for among the small groups of disciples, men and women and in particular the Twelve, who moved around him. These are the people who felt the direct impact of his activity on a regular basis and passed on their experience. That does not mean to say that a more extensive impact was not felt in possibly wider circles as, for example, would be the case in the feeding of the 5,000.16 It is significant that the episode in the ministry of Jesus that was witnessed by the greatest number of people (several thousand) is attested the most number of times by the gospel tradition (six passages in all).17 The impact of Jesus was in direct relation to the nature of what he said and did, the meaning he gave and the following of the individuals he attracted. The following of larger groups was much less frequent, happening only occasionally. Jesus’ activity overall was recorded by the memory of the few who could attest to it in a more or less constant fashion. We know by name just a few of the disciples who accompanied Jesus as he travelled around during the time that his activity lasted: the Twelve (presented as his permanent followers),18 Levi, the tax collector (according to Mk 2.13-17 par. Lk. 5.27-32, although Mt. 9.9-13 identifies him with Matthew, one of the Twelve), Joseph

15

The relationship between Jesus and the Decalogue is discussed in two chapters in the present book: “Jesus and the Command Not to Steal” (pp. 163-177) and “Violence and Jesus of Nazareth” (pp. 178-218). The Jewishness of Jesus is particularly stressed in the exegetical work of the Italian scholar Giuseppe Barbaglio, unfortunately no longer with us. See G. BARBAGLIO, Gesù ebreo di Galilea. Indagine storica (Bologna, 2002). 16 Jesus was known in all of Galilee, as can be inferred from such passages as Jn 6.42 among others. 17 In my opinion, there was only one miracle of the loaves and the fishes, the one attested by the four common or canonical gospels (Mt. 14.13-21 par. Mk 6.32-44 par. Lk. 9.10-17; Jn 6.1-13), which is repeated in two of them (Mk 8.1-10 par. Mt. 15.32-39). The feeding of the crowd by the Sea of Galilee becomes the great messianic sign of Jesus. See PUIG I TÀRRECH, Jesús. Un perfil biogràfic (Perfils 50; Barcelona, 52004), pp. 393-396 (German translation forthcoming). 18 Four lists of the Twelve have been preserved: Mt. 10.24; Mk 3.16-19; Lk. 6.14-16; Acts 1.13.

3. The Jesus Tradition as Impact and Stimulus

9

Barsabbas and Matthias (according to Acts 1.21-23).19 In other cases, the memory of Jesus seems to have been selective. This is the case with the five women from Galilee (see Lk. 8.1-3; Mk 15.40-41 and par.): Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee?), Joanna the wife of Cuza and Susannah. Mary Magdalen played a significant role at the time of the crucifixion and burial and in the days following the death of Jesus. The memory of the women connected with Jerusalem, specifically with the neighbouring village of Bethany (Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, see Lk. 10.38-42; Jn 11.1-45; 12.1-8), seems to have been even more restricted. Beyond these, there were a good number of men around Jesus who came from the Jerusalem area and who were close to him but whose encounters with him were punctual. The memory of Jesus in their case is limited to one meeting: people from Jericho (Zaccheus, Bartimeus), Bethany (Lazarus, Simon the Leper), Bethphage (the owner of the donkey which Jesus rode to enter the city), Arimathea (Joseph, who had a house and tomb in Jerusalem) and Jerusalem itself (Nicodemus?; the man blind from birth in Jn 9? Simon who had imigrated from Cyrene and settled in Jerusalem; the owner of the house of the city where Jesus ate the last supper). Oddly, apart from the Twelve, more people who are known to have been close to Jesus were from Judaea than Galilee. The memory of Jesus among members of his family, who appear in passing during the Galilean ministry with a somewhat distant attitude towards him, was also punctual (see Mk 3.20-21; 3.31-35 and par.; 6.1-6 and par.). In contrast, a significant number of his family moved to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover in 30 CE and would have witnessed directly the last days of Jesus and his tragic death (Mk 15.41b; Acts 1.14). Among the female family members there stand out Mary the mother of Jesus, another Mary who was his paternal aunt and the wife of Cleophas, and his maternal aunt, unnamed (see Jn 19.25). The male members were, notably, the four brothers of Jesus (James, Joseph, Judas and Simon, see Mk 6.3 par. Mt. 13.55) – his sisters, at least two in number, are not named – and Cleophas, his paternal uncle (see Lk. 24.18; Jn 19.25).20 In point of fact, in so far as it is possible to speak of the memories of the infancy of Jesus, these would have been passed on by his family in particular (his mother, and his older brothers and sisters).21 As a result, as Chapters 2 and 3 of this book seek to demonstrate, Matthew 1–2 and 19

Lk. 7.36-50 places in Galilee a feast held by Simon the Pharisee to which Jesus was invited. There is no reason, however, to think that this Simon was a disciple or even a sympathiser. 20 Joseph, the spouse of Mary, only plays an active role in the infancy narratives. Everything suggests that by the time Jesus was preaching Joseph was already dead, although his memory was maintained (cf. Lk. 4.22; Jn 1.45; 6.42). 21 See Chapter 3 of this book on “The Family of Jesus ‘according to the Flesh’” (pp. 105142).

10

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

Luke 1–2 cannot be overlooked when asking historical questions about Jesus, which, in the case of his infancy, come up against a set of complex, though not fruitless, issues. The infancy narratives do not exclude historical data, although it must be said that their information has a somewhat tenuous relationship with the text as it stands now. Nevertheless, even though the memory is rather sketchy and noticeably re-worked, it is not inexistent and needs to be taken account of in dealing with the Jesus tradition.22 The preceding list, which includes around 40 names, shows that the activity of Jesus took place before a good number of individual and direct witnesses who, to varying degrees, were eyewitnesses of the events that occurred and, as such, have to be viewed as the first links in a multilateral chain of transmission. There is too much evidence to leave out the role played by the “eyewitnesses” (Lk. 1.2) in the transmission of the deeds and words of Jesus.23 The so-called “first orality” was made possible by the direct and constant witnesses of the preaching of the rabbi from Nazareth, people who felt the impact of his message and began to transmit it. This transmission, however, was prompted by Jesus himself, especially within the context of his activity in Galilee. Indeed, it seems to be an undeniable fact that after a certain length of time spent travelling around Galilee with the Twelve, Jesus decided to send them out to preach.24 22 See Chapter 2 on the subject of “The Birth of Jesus” (pp. 63-104). The themes associated with the birth and childhood of Jesus are particularly uncomfortable ones for the Third Quest. G. Theissen uses the term “Unsicherheit” (“Vom historischen Jesus zum kerygmatischen Gottessohn. Soziologische Rollenanalyse als Beitrag zum Verständnis neutestamentlicher Christologie”, EvTh 68/4 [2008], pp. 285-304, here n. 1). In my opinion, progress could also be made in research into the undoubtedly difficult area of the childhood of Jesus. 23 In this sense, acknowledgement should be made of a growing number of authors who have recently explored the function of the eyewitnesses in the Jesus tradition. Special mention may be made of the outstanding work of S. BYRSKOG (Story as History – History as Story. The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History [WUNT 123; Tübingen, 2000]); M. HENGEL (“Eyewitness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels”, in M. BOCKMUEHL – D. A. HAGNER [eds], The Written Gospel [FS G. N. Stanton; Cambridge, 2005], pp. 70-96) and above all, R. BAUCKHAM (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Grand Rapids – Cambridge, 2006]). For the Bauckham’s own summary of his position, see his contribution, “The Transmission of the Gospel Traditions”, RCatT 38 (2009), pp. 377394. Bauckham interprets the phrase of Jn 15.27 (“from the beginning”) in line with Lk. 1.2 (“from the beginning”) and Acts 1.21-22 (which mentions those who were witnesses “during all the time that he lived among us”; see ibid., pp. 388-390). 24 The fact has been transmitted by Mark and Q. See Mk 6.7-13; Mt. 9.37-10.1, 7-16; Lk. 9.1-6; 10.1-16. It is obvious, as stated by J. Dunn (Jesus Remembered, p. 247), that the texts present a re-working based on the early Christian mission This does not cast doubt, however, on the sending out of the disciples by Jesus but rather confirms it. Indeed, Mk 6.8-9 says that those sent out could carry sticks and wear sandals whereas Mt. 10.10 goes so far as to forbid them (cf. Lk. 9.3; 10.4). The equipment permitted in Mark seems to correspond to a long and difficult mission (such as the early community would have undertaken) while the lack of

3. The Jesus Tradition as Impact and Stimulus

11

The preaching of the Twelve was limited no doubt to a few villages in Galilee by the lake. It was a mission restricted in time and space, probably following itineraries already travelled in the past and therefore maybe involving prior contact with some people. The Twelve were sent out to reproduce what Jesus had been doing and saying. Their task was to heal the sick and the possessed and to announce the same message as Jesus: conversion (according to Mk 6.12) or the arrival of the kingdom of heaven (according to Q: Mt. 10.7 par. Lk. 10.9) – both themes are found together in Mk 1.15. So the disciples, who had listened many times to Jesus, were now ready to proclaim the same message as the Master, to pass it on without variation. Listening to Jesus had prepared them to repeat what they had heard, in accordance with the cultural patterns of an era characterized by the ability to memorize what had been carefully listened to. The Galilean mission of the Twelve, alone and without Jesus, can be explained by the fact that he believed them to be capable of taking an active role in the faithful transmission of his message – and then of reproducing his miraculous deeds (the healings!). As a result, if Jesus took the decision to send the Twelve out on mission, it can be said that he himself initiated the handing on of his own message. By the fact of their having been direct witnesses of the deeds and words of Jesus and of having lived their lives in close association with that of the Master, they were considered suitable channels to pass on his message. The impact of the teaching was accompanied by the stimulus to hand it on: receiving meant transmitting. In other words, it looks as if in this case Jesus sought a formal means to hand on his message (as, in fact, did the rabbis) but in a punctual and unusual, almost prophetic, fashion – which does not mean, as already suggested above, that he ‘obliged’ the Twelve to memorize beforehand his words.25 It would have been more a matter of learning acquired from day to day rather than a formal and explicit order to learn from memory. The Jesus tradition began with Jesus himself. In Mk 5.18-19, in contrast, we do have an example of an explicit order of Jesus, by which the man from Gerasa who had been possessed by demons – not a Jew – was encouraged to return home and explain his healing to his protection required by Q tallies much more with the Galilean mission of Jesus’ disciples, a mission that took place in his lifetime and was limited geographically and temporally. Note, however, that the disciples were allowed to carry money, food and two tunics. The rewording of the instructions for a longer mission (a stick to defend themselves and sandals for crossing difficult ground) does not go against Jesus’ order not to take financial (money) or personal (food and clothing) provisions. The re-working of the tradition is not, therefore, arbitrary nor does it distort the mens Jesu. 25 As claimed by B. Gerhardsson (The Origins of the Gospel Tradition [Philadelphia, 1979], pp. 19-20; 72-73). In this respect, it is worth saying that Jesus was an atypical rabbi and that his disciples were called to share the life of a person who preached and healed. That is why they also preached and healed.

12

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

friends and family, that is, tell them how God had had mercy on him and what he had done for him. This was apparently transmission of a memory restricted to a circle of friends, within the limited scope of a testimony. Nevertheless, the order to tell what had happened becomes an alternative to the initial wish expressed by the man who had been demon-possessed, which was to follow Jesus as his disciple. It is therefore difficult not to see in Jesus’ command a mission given to the healed man: he did not just have to believe in what had happened to him but also explain it in terms of the divine compassion that had been shown to him through Jesus. The man had to explain the facts and add the interpretation of them, spreading the news among his own people without any apparent restriction.26 Despite Mark’s interest in the theme of the mission to the Gentiles, it is worth saying that Jesus’ command to the man who had been possessed is seamlessly integrated into the account as a ‘substitute’ and an alternative solution to the man’s desire to become his disciple; exceptionally, however, Jesus refused to accept him, something which makes the historicity of what is said in vv. 18-19 all the more credible. So it would seem that Jesus provided the stimulus for transmission by someone who could testify in the first person about the gift he had received, despite the circumstances of his not being Jewish and having to pass on what had happened outside the land of Israel.

26 R. Bauckham says that usually the miracle stories are limited to a telling of the story, without any interpretation added by Jesus: “they were confined to telling the story in a fairly simple and memorable form” (Eyewitnesses, p. 354). However, the case of Mk 5.1-19 is not unique. The healing of the paralytic in Capernaum (Mk 2.1-12 and par.) is interpreted by Jesus as a story about the forgiveness of sins (v. 5). The healing of the man with the withered hand (Mk 3.1-6 and par.) is taken by Jesus as a critical evaluation of the Sabbath values (v. 4). Jesus expresses himself in similar terms on the occasion of the healing of the deformed woman (Lk. 13.10-17; see vv. 15-16) and the man with dropsy (Lk. 14.1-6; see v. 3). The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mk 7.24-30 and par.) is viewed by Jesus as an action in favour of non-Jews (v. 27: “food for the dogs”). The healing of the boy with a dumb spirit (Mk 9.14-29 and par.) includes a response on the part of Jesus to the failings of his contemporaries, among them his disciples who are castigated as a “faithless generation” (v. 19). The healing of the centurion’s servant (Mt. 8.5-13 and par.) is interpreted by Jesus as an action associated with the faith of non-Jews (Mt. 8.10; Lk. 7.9; Jn 4.50.53). Again, the healing of the ten lepers (Lk. 17.11-19) includes an interpretation: the praise of a foreigner for his gratitude (vv. 17-18). I will not go into detail regarding the stories of miracles where Jesus praises the faith of those of the benefitting from them or criticizes their lack of faith (the calming of the storm, Jairus’ daughter, walking on the water, the blind man of Jericho). In actual fact, that Jesus offered an interpretation of the healing of the man in Gerasa as a manifestation of divine mercy is nothing strange. Jesus did not simply heal but also gave a precise meaning to his healings.

4. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Pre-Easter Period

13

4. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Pre-Easter Period The First Quest insisted on identifying the sources of the existing documents, and it was thanks to this that it was possible to formulate the hypothesis of Q or of a collection of sayings that existed before Matthew and Luke. The same basic heuristic concern directs the research of more recent scholars such as J. D. Crossan or J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin.27 However, looking for Jesus behind the sources implies at the outset a belief that it is possible to reconstruct accurately his original words (ipsissima verba) by means of a process of separating the documents into layers and retrieving the oldest material. This attempt, one that also fascinated J. Jeremias and other authors who rigidly applied the schema Jesus – tradition – redactors, needs two correctives: the consideration of the notion of impact, and the understanding of orality as the first phenomenon that carried forward the tradition of Jesus.28 Actually, neither in their method nor in their results have the reconstructions of Crossan and the now distant Jesus Seminar withstood the passage of time, because of their methodological basis but also a certain ideological bias that governed their work. By this I mean Crossan’s claim to portray a Jesus who was different from official teaching or dogma, one who was reconstructed by rigorous scientific research and who had to become the object of ‘new’ confession of faith.29 In point of fact, taking account of oral tradition was never totally abandoned, not even in the high days of Formgeschichte. Bultmann himself defined the purpose of form criticism as being “to study the history of the oral tradition behind the gospels”.30 However, the fascination with literary models of transmission was powerful and almost exclusive, and the tradition about Jesus was described as a development guided by strict literary rules, which favoured the superimposition of strata, whether oral or written. These layers, once identified and separated, were meant to make it possible to reach the 27

See J.D. CROSSAN, The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco, 1991). According to Crossan, the goal is the sort out the layers of the Jesus tradition that are present in the Synoptic Gospels and the Apocrypha, especially the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter: “to search back through those sedimented layers to find what Jesus actually did and said” (p. XXXI). Likewise, Kloppenborg sets out to retrieve the existing layers in Q (the wisdom layer would be the oldest and most authentic of the Jesus tradition, a thesis worked out by Koester). See J. S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN, Excavating Q. The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, 2000). 28 J.D.G. DUNN, “‘All that Glistens is Not Gold’. In Quest of the Right Key to Unlock the Way to the Historical Jesus”, in J. SCHRÖTER – R. BRUCKER (eds), Der historische Jesus. Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (BZNW 114; Berlin – New York, 2002), pp. 131-161, esp. 147-156. 29 I sought to demonstrate the scope of Crossan’s position in “Les quêtes récentes du Jésus historique”, RCatT 25 (2000), pp. 95-120. 30 Cited by DUNN, Jesus Remembered, p. 193.

14

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

oldest layer – which, however, for Bultmann and for the leading exegetes, could not automatically be identified with the historical Jesus! Redaktionsgeschichte, meanwhile, disregarded oral tradition as part of the process of transmission of the words and deeds of Jesus: it must be said that studying the synoptic texts from a literary and comparative point of view is much more precise and satisfactory than diving into the murky waters of orality. It would appear, then, that one of the defining traits of the Third Quest is the retrieval of oral tradition or, better the history of oral tradition (Mündlichkeitsgeschichte), as the first chapter of a Jesus tradition that is understood in terms of remembrance (Erinnerung) and memory (Gedächtnis). This goal does not, however, avoid looking at various questions, ones that are currently being debated. One concerns the agents of the oral transmission. R. Riesner expresses the issue in simple terms: “who wanted to or could remember?”31 The interesting pages in which J. Dunn examines the theme of oral tradition, stressing its community nature, do not provide an entirely satisfactory answer.32 On the other hand, the notion of individuals authorized to hand on the tradition, as suggested by R. Bauckham, is worth taking seriously but it suffers from a certain one-sidedness.33 In my view, an inter-connected association of the community model (a descendant of Formgeschichte) with the individual or group model (based on early testimonies, such as that of Papias), may well offer a satisfactory answer to the question of the nature of oral tradition. Above all, it should be noted that, unlike contemporary rabbis, in particular Hillel, interest in the person of Jesus can be seen from the very beginning. There was interest in what he said and also in what he did, the way he lived and the network of relationships he created around him, in short, the biographical dimension of his person.34 Jesus was not forgotten: there was too much power in his words, and his miracles awakened in people a universal stupefaction. His ministry can be defined as a combination of forceful impacts made in various times and places, of unequal intensity but none of them 31

R. RIESNER, “Die Rückkehr der Augenzeugen. Eine neue Entwicklung in der Evangelienforschung”, ThBei 38 (2007), pp. 337-352, here p. 352. 32 DUNN, Jesus Remembered, pp. 173-254. 33 BAUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, pp. 240-357. In fact, Dunn himself writes that “the continuing role of eyewitness tradents... authoritative bearers of the Jesus tradition” should not be forgotten (Jesus Remembered, pp. 242-243). 34 The expression (“biographical dimension”) is taken from Dunn (Jesus Remembered, p. 242, n. 278). The treatise Avot (Pirqué Avot) of the Mishnah is nothing more than a collection of behavioural maxims and sayings about the Law attributed to rabbis earlier than or contemporary with Jesus (between 300 BCE and 200 CE), with no interest in the life of its authors. See J. NEUSNER, Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? (Brown Judaic Studies 135; Atlanta, 1988); A. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, “Hillel and Jesus: Are Comparisons Possible?”, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH – L.L. JOHNSON (eds), Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis, 1997), pp. 31-55.

4. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Pre-Easter Period

15

arousing indifferent. His impact affected two types of hearers: the small groups of people who constantly accompanied him or who were close to him (though not always physically present), and scattered individuals or groups, often without any connection between them, who came into contact with Jesus at some point or other and remembered what they experienced. This situation characterized Jesus’ activity, whether in Galilee or Judaea (focused in Jerusalem). Apart from these two areas, Jesus acted briefly in the southern area of Philip’s tetrarchy (historically viewed by Jews as part of Galilee) and in the region of Perea (Jewish territory belonging to the tetrarchy of Antipas); less often, in the territory of the Gentile towns of the Decapolis by the Sea of Galilee35 and, more rarely still, in the Gentile areas far from the lake (Caesarea Philippi or the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon). Concerning Galilee, which was the base of his activity during the first part of his ministry, it is unknown whether Jesus established fixed itineraries that allowed him likewise to set up local groups of followers.36 It is similarly unknown whether Jesus continually repeated his preaching so that, for example, the parable of the prodigal son was heard by different audiences, in different circumstances, and thus became part of what was ‘received’ and preserved by different groups. Similarly, it is unknown whether the disciples (both itinerant and fixed) constructed a kind of network of ‘communities’ of sympathisers, which were maintained after Jesus decided to reduce and finally abandon his activity in Galilee. In contrast, it is clear that, as suggested by H. Schürmann, that even in his lifetime it is possible to speak of a circle of committed disciples (a sort of Bekenntnisgemeinschaft) who recognized in him the plenipotentiary sent by God.37 This permanent commitment to discipleship is attributed by the written sources essentially to the Twelve, who travelled throughout Galilee and beyond (see Mk 10.28 and par.; Jn 6.67-70, where it is Peter who speaks on behalf of the others). The importance of the group of women from Galilee is not negligible, either – those who, according to Mk 35 Only Aenon and Salim (Jn 3.23) are villages of the Decapolis at a certain distance from the Sea of Galilee. 36 It is not, however, impossible that these groups existed especially in Capernaum, where Jesus preached and lived in a “house”, and in the neighbouring areas of Corazin and Bethsaida which also witnessed the activity of Jesus (Mt. 11.20-24 par. Lk. 10.13-15). The latter place was the home-village of three of the Twelve (Peter, Andrew and Philip). To the list should probably be added Cana (Jn 2.1.11; 4.46; 21.2), in accordance with the study of P. Richardson (“Khirbet Qana [and Other Villages] as a Context for Jesus”, in J. H. CHARLESWORTH [ed.], Jesus and Archaeology [Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, 2006], pp. 120-144). As for Bethsaida, see the study by R. Arav (“Bethsaida”, in ibid., pp. 145-166). Both Cana and Bethsaida are examples of the rural, and especially Jewish, context of the villages that Jesus visited. 37 See H. SCHÜRMANN, Jesus. Gestalt und Geheimnis (Paderborn, 1994), p. 429. The author underlines the pre-Easter origin of the Jesus tradition.

16

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

15.41, “when he was in Galilee followed him, and ministered to him” and who, according to Lk. 8.3, “provided for them [Jesus and the itinerant disciples] out of their means”. Thus, it is clear that there were basically two groups close to Jesus in Galilee: twelve men and maybe, five women, whose commitment was absolute in the first case and certainly strong in the second.38 The Galilean oral tradition, then, must have depended primarily on those two groups. As for Judaea, the situation was not exactly the same but nor was it completely different.39 The precise movements of Jesus are not known for this area, either, nor how often he went to each place. There is, however, an important difference between Galilee and Judaea. Whereas in the former, the setting for Jesus’ activity was small rural villages, in Judaea it was the city, Jerusalem, the essential location of Jesus’ activity, and in particular the Temple, as attested by the Synoptics and John. The other villages mentioned, apart from Ephraim (Jn 11.54) and Jericho (Mk 10.46 and par.; Lk. 19.1), belong to the region of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the city, would come to represent Jesus’ impossible dream, on account of the overall rejection of his urgent preaching (see Mt. 23.37-39 par. Lk. 13.34-35). Nevertheless, the rabbi who was raised and lived in Nazareth and who later moved to Capernaum managed to gather in Jerusalem and the surrounding area a group of sympathisers who were more or less regular witnesses of his preaching. Indeed, even before the crucifixion, the teaching activity of Jesus in the Temple precincts, and especially in the area known as the “Court of the Gentiles” (open to Jewish men and women but also to foreigners, whether proselytes or just visitors), drew an indeterminate number of people around him and his group of disciples.40 It is not known if these people knew each other or formed a network, but the family of Lazarus and his two sisters could have played a key role. In any case, what was hinted at above with regard to the crucifixion seems to be confirmed and consolidated after the resurrection. Thus, on his final journey to Jerusalem Jesus was accompanied by a considerable number of Galileans who were connected to him, people who were in the city for the occasion of the Passover and who, probably, all shared the same messianic expectations that had been created around the person of Jesus. On the one hand, there were the Twelve and other male disciples who had joined the 38 In the previous section, evidence for the existence of the Twelve (men) and of the group of women (maybe five) has been presented. 39 The presence of Jesus in Samaria is mentioned only in John 4, in an episode that took place while Jesus was going through the region (v. 4) before arriving at Sychar, a village not far from Sechem (vv. 5-6). The episode is not relevant for our subject, despite what is said in vv. 39-42. 40 John additionally reports two healings in Jerusalem: that of the paralytic at the pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda), to the north of the Temple (Jn 5.1-18), and that of the man blind from birth, who was sent to the pool of Siloam to the south of the city (Jn 9.1-41). The third episode occurred at Bethany, 3 km from the city: the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11.1-45).

4. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Pre-Easter Period

17

group of followers, also from Galilee and no doubt also from Judaea. Some of the Galilean women from among the regular followers of Jesus were also there (Mk 15.40-41). In addition – and this is what is surprising – a considerable part of Jesus’ family, people who had until then been hesitant and even opposed to his preaching (Mk 3.21; Jn 7.5-10), also went up to Jerusalem. The most conspicuous of these was his mother Mary (Jn 19.25; Acts 1.13), and his older brother James to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15.5; Gospel of the Hebrews, cited by Jerome, De viris illustribus 2), but also (all) his other brothers (Acts 1.13) and close relatives from his father’s side (Jn 19.25; Lk. 24.18) and his mother’s (Jn 19.25). All these Galileans came together with the followers of Jesus who lived in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. In short, the episodes that precede and follow the passion and death of Jesus (probably between the evening of 6th April and the day of 7th April in the year 30 CE) have in the background a nucleus of people, essentially from Galilee and Jerusalem, who were followers of Jesus of Nazareth – among them his closest family and the disciples, both men and women, who had accompanied him throughout the two years or so of his activity. Thus, for the last period of Jesus’ life, the oral tradition of Jerusalem is sustained by the mass of almost all the principal witnesses of his life who had come together in Jerusalem.41 It is not surprising that the account of the passion should contain the most detailed and homogenous material, in terms of volume and content, of all the Jesus tradition. The heterogeneity is significantly greater when it comes to the resurrection accounts.42 Having arrived at this point, some conclusions may be drawn. First, and despite attempts to prove the contrary, it would appear that the pre-Easter tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus was exclusively oral. It can be ruled out that there was any written record of Jesus during his lifetime. The reason is that not even from the point of view of oral tradition does Jesus seem to 41 It is not without interest that Paul mentions an appearance of Jesus “to 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive although some have died” (1 Cor. 15.6). According to the apostle, this would have been the third appearance of the resurrected Jesus, after the appearances to Cephas and the Twelve and before the appearances to James and “all the apostles”. 500 is the possible, and plausible, number of followers of Jesus in Jerusalem at the time of his last visit to the city. The figure probably includes people from Galilee and others from Judaea. 42 Two chapters are taken up in each of the common or canonical Gospels by the passion, albeit of varying lengths (Matthew 26–27; Mark 14–15; Luke 22–23; John 18–19). One is always devoted to the story of the empty tomb (Mt. 28.1-15; Mk 16.1-8; Lk 24.1-12; Jn 20.118) and the appearances (Mt. 28.16-20; Lk 24.13-53; Jn 20.19-29), with corresponding textual ‘expansions’: two appendices (Mk 16.9-20 and John 21) and a ‘second book’ (Acts 1.111, linked to Luke 24). The only gospel text that does not have any known expansion is that of Matthew.

18

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

have given any formal indication to his disciples to remember and repeat what they had seen and heard. On the other hand, it was only when the disciples had seen and heard and experienced for themselves the power in the miracles of Jesus that they were sent out on mission.43 Likewise, with regard to the anointing in Bethany (by Mary the sister of Lazarus?), Jesus encouraged the memory of what she had done to be handed on. Not only that, but Jesus was convinced that in his ministry there were things to be seen and heard that even went beyond the expectations and the longings of the greatest in the history of Israel. In contrast, those around Jesus were witnesses of his activity in the fullest sense: “blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Mt. 13.16-17 par. Lk. 10.23-24). Secondly, the pre-Easter tradition was derived from the direct testimony of those who accompanied Jesus on a regular or occasional basis: the class of “eyewitnesses” is not exclusive to Lk. 1.2, but in Jesus’ preaching, too, those who saw and those who heard first-hand were acknowledged and praised. These witnesses lived under the impact that Jesus had on them.44 Thirdly, the group of first-hand witnesses, as R. Bauckham has clearly demonstrated, was not anonymous. There are as many as 40 names of people, essentially adult men and women, who belonged to Jesus’ company, some of them permanently and others not so. These people converged in Jerusalem when Jesus made his final journey there for Passover in 30 CE, and constituted the fertile ground in which the seed of the Jesus tradition could grow.

5. The Shaping of Oral Tradition in the Early Community The notion of ‘remembrance’ is associated with the post-Easter period, whether implicitly or explicitly. Thus, the exalted Jesus at the end of Matthew (ch. 28) told the disciples to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you” (v. 20). Now this order could not be kept without remembering and repeating the teaching of Jesus, to the point that the Gospel of Matthew considers itself to be the depository of this teaching. The theme of remembrance is equally present in Luke 24 at the end of the Gospel. The women who had gone to the tomb were exhorted to remember (v. 7) and they recalled 43

The handing on of the tradition presupposes no command. However, it can be assumed that the disciples knew how to say and do the things they had seen Jesus say and do. 44 C. K. Barrett makes a memorable comment: “[the tradition] was preserved because it could not be forgotten” (cited by DUNN, Jesus Remembered, p. 239, n. 267). With reference to the eyewitnesses, see an earlier treatment of the theme in R. RIESNER, Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 2/7; Tübingen, 1981).

6. Elements of Oral Tradition with a High Degree of Certainty

19

(v. 8) the words of Jesus concerning his resurrection. As for the disciples of Emmaus, their problem was that they did not remember (“foolish and slow of heart”, v. 25) the words of the Scripture concerning the Messiah and his glory. And Jesus also reminded the gathered disciples of the words of the Scriptures concerning him (vv. 44.46-47), so they could understand them (v. 45). The notion of “witness” (see Lk. 24.48 and esp. Acts 1.21) is associated with the remembering of Jesus’ activity. Again, in John, the notion of remembering the words of Jesus would determine the first part of the Gospel. Indeed, in a similar manner to Luke, the disciples were to remember the Scriptures as a key for interpreting the work of Jesus (Jn 2.17; 12.16) and to remember what Jesus himself had done and said (2.22), between the cleansing of the Temple and his entry into Jerusalem. In the act of remembering, something that was peculiar to them, the disciples would be guided by the Holy Spirit (14.26). Thus, the four common or canonical Gospels – the only written documents of the Jesus tradition that can be dated with certainty to the first century – display a ‘an awareness of remembering’ in so far as they are the written end products of a substantial part of the Jesus tradition, which is not presented in an identical form in the four documents but which includes nevertheless striking resemblances between them. Now, the path taken by oral tradition is closely linked to the mission and its developments, and within the context of the early Christian communities, expansion and modification of this tradition took place. Here, research comes up against a fundamental difficulty, since so little is known about the processes that occurred in the first decades of Christianity. It is therefore not surprising that there are more disagreements than agreements, and hypotheses prevail over proof. Despite these circumstances, it seems nonetheless possible to outline some of the factors of transmission that operated in the communication of the Jesus tradition. We will begin with the five aspects of the transmission process that would appear to be certain. Then, we will continue with the five aspects that are less certain and that require further exploration. In this way, rather than dealing with the aspects progressively, something that research is not yet ready for and maybe never will be, we intend to evaluate the central elements of the debate and their degree of certainty with respect to the way they contributed to the fashioning of oral tradition.

6. Elements of Oral Tradition with a High Degree of Certainty 6.1. A disciple or follower is characterized by the fact of remembering and repeating the teachings of his master Repetition is not simply reproduction like some mechanical and inanimate phenomenon: the whole process of transmission leaves its mark in the trans-

20

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

mitted material and even more so when this tradition is part of the life of believing communities, as they use this material time and again. So the point of arrival for oral tradition cannot be the same as its point of departure. In the case where the oral tradition was fixed in writing, the person responsible for the writing would modify it so as to insert it into the framework of the macrotext, in our case the gospel account.45 When, on the other hand, the oral tradition was transmitted without anyone committing it to writing, the transmission would be reshaped by the lives it passed through and it is quite likely that it was modified to a greater or lesser extent. That is to say that oral tradition is a living body, not a fossil, as much with regard to its departure point (Jesus) as to its involvement in the lives of those who hand it on (primarily, the direct witnesses who saw and heard him): this involvement is intense, since what is transmitted gives shape to the people’s own lives and they naturally tend to pass this on to others.46 It is important, therefore, to underline the perception of the first Christians as they found themselves confronted by a unique and unrepeatable phenomenon that had entered into history within a different perspective, a novum. In that sense, the life of Jesus constituted the beginning of a complex chain of transmission, oral and written, that claimed to pass on real and actual traditions about his deeds and words. So it is no overstatement to say that Jesus was the founder of Christianity. Moreover, there is no indication of any internal censorship that sought to distort or give a more positive twist to the meaning of the material about Jesus. 6.2. Faithfulness to the material received includes its active reception A tradition passes along the paths of history with a certain degree of variation that belongs to the very process itself. The tradition about Jesus, therefore, moved between fidelity and flexibility, between the desire to transmit what had been received and the introduction of modifications (amplifications or omissions), which were never considered as a ‘betrayal’. Those who transmitted the Jesus tradition would not have allowed themselves to introduce changes that could have been taken as a falsification of his message, or make arbitrary changes or alterations that would cause a discrepancy between what 45 This does not mean that the words themselves necessarily had to be altered. What was altered was the interpretation of the traditional material in so far as the literary context was different in each case. It is sufficient to compare the use made of the saying about the first and the last in Mk 10.31; Mt. 19.30; 20.16; Lk. 13.30. This feature of the written tradition (the reworking of what is passed on) is not very different from the way the oral tradition was formed (by means of a retelling of events that were directly witnessed or transmitted). 46 Bauckham notes (Eyewitnesses, p. 277) that the person of Jesus is relevant for the first Christians from a sociological point of view (they transmit the tradition of Jesus for identity reasons, “purposes of self-identity”), but especially for religious reasons (Jesus is viewed as the Saviour, the one who brings eschatological fulfilment to God’s promises to Israel).

6. Elements of Oral Tradition with a High Degree of Certainty

21

was believed about Jesus and what was said about him. Redaktionsgeschichte has successfully demonstrated that there were various representations of Jesus – a redaction critic may refer, for example, to the “Jesus of Q” or the “Jesus of John” – but has also shown that the portraits of Jesus painted by one part of tradition are not contradictory to the portraits of another part. The very existence of several gospels shows that in the first century of Christian tradition there was no intention to offer an ‘official biography’ of Jesus, a ‘diatessaron’ avant la lettre. Oral tradition saw itself as a flexible and also certain instrument in the Jesus tradition. In the ancient world, the world of early Christianity, memorization (preservation) and expansion (creativity) enjoyed a peaceful co-existence in the transmission of the Jesus tradition.47 6.3. The path of the transmission of oral tradition lies between strict memorization and simple reminiscence It is inappropriate to think here of scholarly memorization such as might be carried out by disciples who would have had the intellectual capacity to retain every single detail of their master’s teachings. But nor is it appropriate to think of oral tradition as a string of vague and scattered memories, of “evanescent reminiscences”, to use Dunn’s terms,48 which would have been transmitted by intellectually weak and somewhat careless disciples. The impression given by the material of the Jesus tradition that has come down to us is that the transmission was done with care. Those who undertook it were, indeed, highly motivated. However, this care does not look as if it is related to the intellectual capacity of the disciples. Indeed, Jesus chose his twelve disciples from among people who had no particular intellectual qualification; the same may be said of the “two disciples” of John the Baptist who, according to Jn 1.35-39, became Jesus’ disciples: one unnamed and the other Andrew, a fisherman from Bethsaida in Galilee (see Mk 1.16 and par.; Jn 1.44), whom Jesus included among the Twelve. So the transmission of the Jesus tradition was basically due to the active and attentive attitude of the Twelve and of the other more or less permanent disciples (women and men) towards the deeds and words of Jesus that they witnessed.

47 See R. RIESNER, “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher”, in H. WANSBROUGH (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSuppl 64; Sheffield, 1991), pp. 185-210 (203). Riesner mentions Seneca (Epist. 33.4) as an example of a classical author who did not understand the transmission of the tradition of a school without a considerable degree of variation and expansion contributed by the members of the school itself. 48 Jesus Remembered, p. 249. Dunn refers actually to a “middle way between a model of memorization by rote and ... a series of evanescent reminiscences”.

22

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

6.4. Oral tradition did not operate in the same way in the two types of material in which it is found: narrative and sayings The distinction between narrative, the accounts that relate the major deeds in the life of Jesus, and the words or sayings (logia) that express his teaching, was already found in the written tradition of the 1st century, specifically in the words of Luke who, in the opening of his second work, refers to the content of his Gospel or %& '&, as “everything Jesus did and taught” (Acts 1.2). Now the manner of transmitting the events of someone’s life and their words is not exactly the same. While the words, by their very nature, require a more stable transmission – especially the core – the narratives are not subject to strict norms – but even so, the main thread is usually kept intact. If we take, for example, the account of Jesus walking on the water (Mk 6.45-52 par. Mt. 14.22-23; Jn 6.16-21), it is immediately apparent that the three Gospels refer to the same episode. Indeed, the central facts are the same: Jesus walks on the lake, the disciples see it from the boat and become terrified, and Jesus says to them: “It is I; have no fear”49 (Mk 6.49-50 par. Mt. 14.26-27; Jn 6.19-20). The other information provided by the three accounts is not contradictory but is reconcilable and even complementary, in such a way that the accounts can be easily linked together. The only details that cause any problem are the location (Bethsaida in Mark, Capernaum in John)50 – although all three accounts agree that the destination was “the other side (of the lake”) – and the way the journey ends (in Matthew and Mark Jesus got into the boat and went to the land with the disciples, while in John the disciples wanted to make him get into the boat but they suddenly and miraculously found themselves at the shore). Another point is that Matthew does not limit himself to reproducing Mark but adds the episode about Peter walking on the water and being rescued by Jesus (vv. 28-31) and the disciples’ confession of faith (v. 32), and also includes some elements that bring it closer to John’s account (especially the mention of “stadia”, cf. Mt. 14.24 and Jn 6.19).51 In summary, oral tradition seems to know a ‘long’ version (Mark and Matthew) and a ‘short’ version (John) of the same episode, independent of one another.52 On the other hand, Matthew’s account can be explained as a 49 These words are identical in the three accounts. But in Mark and Matthew, Jesus begins by saying “Take heart!” This is the slight difference compared with John. 50 Matthew does not specify any particular place. 51 Matthew speaks in general terms of “many stadia” while John specifies “25 or 30 stadia”. Matthew’s information is clearly secondary. 52 That it is the same episode can be seen even despite some of the apparently disparate details in Mark and John. Thus, in Mk 6.48d it is said that Jesus “meant to pass by them” without getting into the boat, presumably going in the same direction as the place they were heading for (a place on the northern shore of the lake). In Jn 6.21, it is said that the disciples “were glad to take Jesus into the boat”, to the place they were heading for and that Jesus,

6. Elements of Oral Tradition with a High Degree of Certainty

23

combination of the ‘long’ and ‘short’ versions of the episode in the oral tradition, expanded with the account of a tradition involving Peter walking on the water, and incorporating Mark’s account in its redacted form. There is no doubt about the fact that the text of Matthew could have included the Petrine tradition.53 All in all, orality is an essential feature that needs to be taken into account for understanding the tradition of the Jesus narratives. As for the words or sayings, the example of parallel passages from Matthew and Luke is instructive. There are occasions where the parallels are practically identical and occur only once without any doublets at all. This happens, for instance, with the preaching of John the Baptist about judgement (Mt. 3.7-10 par. Lk. 3.7-9) or with the preaching of Jesus about the worthiness and greatness of John (Mt. 11.7-11 par. Lk. 7.24-28). In these instances, oral transmission seems to have firmly fixed the material, although it is difficult to specify the scope or the process of this transmission.54 A second case is when, within a thematic unit, it is possible to detect a tradition in passages that are almost parallel in Matthew and Luke but where there are doublets that could indicate an oral tradition independent of the one common to Matthew and Luke. Take, for example, the pericope on the fruits (Mt. 7.15-20; 12.33-35; Lk. 6.34-35). From the outset, one is tempted to assume a connection between Mt. 7.16-17 and Lk. 6.43-44 on the one hand, and Mt. 12.34b-35 and Lk. 6.45 on the other, which can be explained by Q,

without getting into it, made the boat reach land immediately. The miracle that brings the Johannine account to a close is difficult to reconcile with the Markan ending. Perhaps the ‘long’ version, transmitted orally, originally ended with the sentence: “It is I. Have no fear”; if this was the case, Mk 6.51 par. Mt. 14.32 (cf. Mk 4.39-41) and Mk 6.52 (cf. Mk 8.17) would be later additions. As for the ‘short’ version, also transmitted orally and represented by John and in part reflected in Matthew, it maybe ended with the same sentence (“It is I. Have no fear”); in that case, Jn 6.21 would be the work of the Johannine editor who would have altered the account reflected in Mk 6.48d. 53 In order to explain the link between Matthew and John, U. Luz sees the introduction of oral tradition into the episode. As for the Petrine tradition of Matthew 14, it would depend, according to Luz, on an identical oral tradition that can be detected in John 21, which would have been introduced into the episode about the walking on the water, “aufgrund biblischer und anderer Analogien”. See U. LUZ, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt. 8-17) (EKK I/2; Zürich – Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990), p. 405. Gnilka prefers to assume a confession on the part of Peter (Mt. 14.33!), which would have given rise to the Matthean episode. See J. GNILKA, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. II (HThKNT 1/2; Freiburg – Basel – Vienna, 1988), p. 12. 54 This statement does not mean that in the course or at the end of this process modifications were not made (e.g., the combined quotation of Exod. LXX 23.20 and Mal. 3.1, which appears in Mt. 11.10 par. Lk. 7.27, is also found in Mk 1.2). The durability of traditional material (oral? written?) is seen in the Gospel of Thomas (78.1-3; 46), where there are strong similarities with the wording of Q, despite the typically Gnostic overtones (GThom 78.3!).

24

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

the source common to the sayings of Matthew and Luke.55 Indeed, despite the inversion in the order of the sayings, which could be due to Matthew’s arrangement of his Gospel, there is an indisputable parallel between Matthew and Luke. It is another matter to determine the origin of a repeated sentence (Mt. 7.18 and 12.33) that does not appear in Luke. Is it an editorial expansion of Mt. 7.17 or else the trace of an oral tradition known only to Matthew? It is not easy to come down in favour of one answer or the other, but the fact that there is a doublet suggests that Matthew knew both traditions – and did not simply seek to repeat a traditional saying! In other words, it looks as if Mt. 12.33 is another version of the saying preserved by Q (Mt. 7.17.20 par. Lk. 6.43-44a):56 the variations look like the result of varied and persistent oral transmission of the Jesus tradition.57 A third case is when the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke present important differences between them, to the point where it could be doubted if they depend on a common tradition at all: the theme is the same but the differences suggest a series of retellings, accounting for the fact that the similarities are thematic only. This happens in the major parables such as the parable of the banquet (Mt. 22.1-14 par. Lk. 14.15-24), or of the talents (Mt. 25.14-30) or of the pounds (Lk. 19.11-27). Here there is a real difficulty in elucidating the history of the tradition, but it seems that oral tradition can 55 In Mt. 7.15 there is an independent saying (taken from tradition? or the work of a redactor?), which is borrowed by Matthew as the heading for a pericope (Mt. 7.15-20) with the purpose of making its theme that of ‘false prophets’. 56 Mt. 7.16a, 20 (“by their fruits you will know them”) is clearly secondary, as is also Mt. 7.17 where a phrase with typical Matthean syntax is found (“every tree...”) together with the redactional use of “good” (('&) and “bad” ()'&) instead of “beautiful” ('&) and “bad” ('&). See the following note. As for Mt. 7.19, it seems to be something ascribed to Jesus but borrowed from the tradition related to John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 3.10 par. Lk. 3.9). This is confirmed by the wording of Mt. 12.34a, where the rebuke (“brood of vipers!”) is taken from another fragment of the Baptist tradition (Mt. 3.7 par. Lk. 3.7) and where a transitional phrase is edited in at the end of the verse (“how can you speak good [(] when you are evil [)$]?”). 57 A comparison of Mt. 12.33, where the Greek syntax is clearly Semitic (literally, “either make the tree good ['&] or its fruit [which is] good, or make the tree bad and its fruit [which is] bad, because from the fruit the tree is known”), and Lk. 6.43-44a, with its stylistic improvements to the Greek (literally, “because there is not a good ['&] tree that makes bad fruit, nor a bad tree that makes good fruit, because each tree from its fruit is known”), shows, on the one hand, the existence of two different oral traditions and the common origin of a single saying of Jesus – which may have been spoken by Jesus on different occasions and in different ways. One of the two oral traditions (which ended up in Q: Mt. 7.16b par. Lk. 6.44b) contained the comparison of the grapes/figs vs. the thorns and the comparison of the figs/grapes vs. the thistles. Those comparisons sit ill with the metaphor of the trees (this explains why in 7.16-17 the redactor of Matthew changed the order: first he mentioned the bushes then the trees, to avoid the discrepancy). The other oral tradition (present in Mt. 12.33) does not, in contrast, contain these comparisons and the metaphor of the trees is clearer.

6. Elements of Oral Tradition with a High Degree of Certainty

25

explain well enough the variation in material such as the parables, which are part narrative, part sayings. The parables are words of Jesus but also stories about an event he describes freely and, as such, they are liable to be transmitted with the flexibility of narrative. 6.5. In the course of the oral and written transmission of the Jesus tradition, there was a series of operations that modified it, but not substantially As has just been seen, each case raises the question as to how far the Jesus tradition was, or may have been, altered. In fact, this was already the question posed by the old Formgeschichte when they sought to explain the history of the tradition. Nowadays, the answers are more open-ended and it not infrequently has to be acknowledged that definitive solutions cannot be reached: literary and historical criticism must be critical of its own results if it does not want to end up in uncritical dogmatism. So giving serious consideration to oral tradition as a variation of the process of transmission, which is not merely anecdotal, makes the map of the transmission process plainer but does not close the matter.58 However, the role played by oral tradition as a factor in its own right within the trajectory that goes from Jesus (30 CE) to the mid-second century (Papias and Justin) leads to the conclusion that a purely ‘literary’ explanation is inadequate, and that the authors of the gospel documents (the Canonical Gospels but also the others such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, Thomas and, possibly, Peter) also had access to various oral traditions – no doubt more than one. And orality is not a uniform or quantifiable phenomenon. Each ‘redactor’ occupies a certain place, often on the fringe with respect to the others (the independence of the documents of Matthew and Luke in their final state is taken for granted in historico-critical exegesis), but not without some relationship to the others (the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Q is a hypothesis largely accepted by scholars). With respect to oral tradition, it cannot be denied that Luke – and to a lesser degree Matthew – benefited from extremely rich transmission processes, which became fixed in their respective 58

In his valuable book on the historical Jesus (Jesus Remembered, pp. 212-216), J. Dunn shows convincingly the role that oral tradition could have played in episodes such as that concerning the centurion of Capernaum (Mt. 8.5-13; Lk. 7.1-10; Jn 4.46-54). Dunn concludes: “the two versions (Matthew/Luke and John) provide good evidence of stories of Jesus being kept alive in oral tradition” (216). It should be stressed, however, that what Dunn tends to present as alternatives (either Matthew and Luke depend on Q as a written source, or Matthew and Luke depended on oral traditions) could have been simultaneous occurrences: Matthew and Luke could have had access to a Q source (oral or written, firmly established and legitimized) and at the same time to oral traditions that were circulating about a highly significant episode and that reached the ‘editors’ Matthew and Luke simultaneously. John’s version also seems to come from oral tradition.

26

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

Gospels. Furthermore, Redaktionsgechichte has shown that each Gospel author re-worked the Jesus tradition, not only in re-arranging the units of tradition (a miracle, a parable…) to fit their writing, but also conferring on these units a particular form when they inserted them into their written documents. In other words, there is a tension between oral tradition – both the first and the second orality – and the written document – both those documents that have been lost (some of the versions of Q, for example) and those Gospel documents that are extant. There is thus a need for caution in assessing the weight of oral tradition since, although it is possible to identify the guiding principles, it is much more difficult to specify how and when they operated in each case. That said, taking into account oral tradition avoids many problems, both artificial and real, which have sometimes transformed exegetical research into something of a vivisection of verses and sub-verses, of sources and sub-sources, that is, into an explosion of ingenious hypotheses that bring to mind the Italian aphorism: Se non è vero, è bene trovato. Furthermore, giving due weight to oral transmission is a protection against a type of historical exegesis that claims to offer ‘definitive’ solutions (like the myth of the “fifth gospel”, reconstructed by the Jesus Seminar), which are, in fact, totally unverifiable for all that they set themselves up as representing a consensus (as if they were accepted by ‘everyone’) or however much they draw on ideological considerations (the retrieval of the ‘authentic’ Jesus, distorted by Christian dogma).

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty 7.1. The Jesus tradition was originally in Aramaic and retains a certain Aramaic background, but the transfer into Greek was made at a very early stage It is evident that in Galilee where Jesus lived people spoke a dialect of Aramaic and thus, the tradition of the deeds and words of Jesus would have been started among individuals and groups whose language was Aramaic. Later, when on the occasion of Passover in 30 CE (Jesus’ last Passover) the majority of the people closest to Jesus travelled to Jerusalem and a large group of them apparently stayed there, the question of the language is more debatable. Obviously, the three major groups of Galileans (the Twelve, the women and the family) who moved to Jerusalem were Aramaic speakers and it seems that in Jerusalem at that time Aramaic had a particular place, as the language of ordinary and uncultured speech (see Mt. 26.73 par. Mk 14.70), in contrast with Hebrew, the Jewish language par excellence. However, the presence of Greek in Jerusalem was strong: among foreigners passing through (for example,

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

27

proselytes), foreigners who were staying for some time,59 Jews from the Diaspora who had their homes there (Acts 6.9) and part of the Christian community of the city (Acts 6.1). That is to say, the transition of the Jesus tradition into Greek would have happened in Jerusalem (Jn 12.20-22 is an important text!). Jerusalem, in fact, was a bilingual city, and the Jesus tradition seems to have been spread in Greek to the cities outside Palestine where there was a strong Jewish presence (especially Antioch and Damascus, maybe Alexandria) as well as the Hellenized territories of Palestine itself where there was a significant Jewish presence (Samaria, the Mediterranean towns, Phoenicia). All the places referred to here were the large urban centres of SyriaPalestine, where Greek was the lingua franca of the Jews as much as the Gentiles living there. Some areas of the Christian mission are an unknown quantity, namely: Galilee, which was an Aramaic speaking region, the rural areas of Judaea, where a Semitic language was spoken (whether Hebrew or Aramaic is a matter of debate), and the rural districts of Syria (also Aramaic speaking). The information is scanty and the socio-linguistic situation is not easy to assess. Obviously, a tradition such as the Jesus tradition that started in Aramaic was spread in Aramaic to the regions where the language was spoken (or else, possibly, was translated into Hebrew). However, outside Jerusalem the language of the Jews of the cities was Greek and the Greek-speaking Jews received the message of Jesus at an early date. They were followed by the non-Jews, all of them Greek speaking. In actual fact, it is undeniable that the Jesus tradition is full of Semitisms, which can be explained by the language of origin, Aramaic, and it is useful and necessary to take account of that. But it must also be said that simply because material contains Semitisms is not a reason for supposing it came directly from Jesus. The tradition was influenced by the early community whose language was Aramaic (that of the closest disciples and the family of Jesus). This influence, which was initially strong, quickly gave way to Greek on the whole, especially outside Jerusalem. Moreover, a Semitism is a linguistic feature (morphological, syntactical, stylistic) that could be due to the influence that the Greek Bible, a text full of Semitisms, exercised over the religio-cultural expression of the Greek-speaking Jews who were steeped in

59

The mistake of the soldiers who were guarding Jesus at the cross and who mistook “Eloi” (Mk 15.34) / “Eli” (Mt. 27.46) for “Elijah” is probably to be explained as a joke rather than be taken as a lack of understanding of Aramaic and Hebrew. The cohorts of the East were made up of local mercenary soldiers, among whom there can have been no shortage of those whose mother tongue was Semitic (Samaritans, Nabateans). That said, their lingua franca was no doubt Greek.

28

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

the Greek translations of the Bible (the Septuagint and also other later translations of the 1st century CE).60 7.2. In the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition, thematic grouping of material was made In spite of the difficulty in identifying thematic groupings, the scholars of Q, like those of Mark and even those who believe there was a special source for the singular Lukan material, all make frequent reference to them. The editors of the so-called “Critical Edition of Q” divided the reconstituted document into various units and sections,61 as did J. S. Kloppenborg Verbin working on his own.62 So it is not odd to see similar suggestions coming from scholars of Mark. 63 Clearly, the transmission processes favoured the grouping of material and the thematic criterion is one of the most obvious ones. For example, a chapter like Mark 4, devoted to the parables, probably presupposes a gathering together of parabolic stories that arose in diverse circumstances and because of the literary similarity between them, were grouped together as a sort of mnemonic, in connection with the missionary proclamation, catechetical instruction, liturgical readings or all three at once. Handing on the Jesus tradition meant establishing the best conditions for the process to be successful, that is, to be sufficiently trustworthy. The tradition had to ensure its own future survival and the grouping of related material was a natural mechanism.64 60 Barthélemy calls them “the forerunners of Aquila”. They are partial and flexible translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, undertaken before the so-called “Aquila” version and the other strict versions of the 2nd century. See D. BARTHÉLEMY, Les devanciers d’Aquila. Première publication du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton (Leiden, 1963). 61 See J.M. ROBINSON – P. HOFFMANN – J.S. KLOPPENBORG (eds), The Critical Edition of Q (Leuven – Minneapolis, 2000). Likewise, P. HOFFMANN – C. HEIL, Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch (Darmstadt – Leuven, 2002). For S. Guijarro (Dichos primitivos de Jesús. Una introducción al “Proto-evangelio de Dichos Q” [BEBM 6; Salamanca, 2004), the seven divisions suggested by the latter work (3.2-7.35; 9.57-11.13; 11.14-52; 12.2-13.21; 13.24-14.23; 14.26-17.21; 17.23-22.30) become nine by virtue of a threefold division of the first group (3.2-4.13; 6.20-49; 7.1-35). 62 J.S. Kloppenborg Verbin, The Formation of Q. Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 90-92. 63 The classical work is that of H.W. KUHN, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Göttingen, 1971). Apart from the parables (Mk 4.1-33), groupings can be identified in Mark that in some instances later became sections of the Gospel: the controversies in Galilee (2.13.6), the Jerusalem controversies (11.27-12.40), the miracles by the lake (4.35-5.43) or Jesus’ ‘emblematic’ day in Capernaum (1.21-38). 64 The real master of the art of constructing great discursive units by means of grouping material in order to facilitate committing it to memory is the author behind the Gospel of Matthew (probably a collective author who devoted extensive time and energy to the project).

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

29

There nevertheless remains the question of the origin of these groupings, that is, their relation to oral tradition. Without doubt, Matthew 5–7 is one of the best-known groupings in the Synoptic Gospels and within it oral tradition is interwoven with material that is well structured and articulated. But if an attempt were made to define the transmission process of each pericope, the results would be highly hypothetical. The same could be said of the groupings that seem to lie behind Mark’s Gospel. In reality, we come up against the same difficulty of distinguishing in specific cases (e.g., the so-called antitheses of Matthew 5) the exact path taken by the Jesus tradition. Moreover, the same episode or small collection of sayings of Jesus could have been transmitted simultaneously in different ways, despite the certainty of the transmission, which as a general rule indicates oral tradition. 7.3. In the Jesus tradition, the modifications have a claim to legitimacy and appear as changes that do not harm the tradition The transmission of the deeds and words of Jesus did not happen without changes being made. The process was a live and dynamic one, in which the people involved, as pointed out above, applied the criteria of faithfulness and flexibility in passing on what they had received. The notion of ‘re-working’ goes hand in hand with oral tradition, which is in itself a ‘re-telling’. It would, however, be inaccurate to think that this retelling had no boundaries and that each new teller could modify the material received as they wished – with the best will in the world, of course! Rather, the problem lies elsewhere: what was the understanding of the Jesus tradition held by those who were its transmitters? It is undeniable that the itinerant life-style adopted by Jesus as his own way of life and that of the Twelve meant that they were the only ones who, after two years or so of public life, could have an overall grasp of what Jesus said and did. The others only had partial knowledge, even the group of the five women and the other disciples, male and female, who were close to Jesus for a time.65 Only by the Twelve, then, was the Jesus tradition passed on as a block that presents the different aspects of his person.66 The Twelve were the catalysts of the tradition because they were the ones who were with Jesus from the beginAnother example is the Gospel of Thomas. See A. PUIG I TÀRRECH, Evangelis apòcrifs, vol. II (Barcelona, 2010 [forthcoming]). 65 This does not mean that there were female disciples who travelled around alongside the Twelve. The participation of the women was limited to their giving practical support to Jesus’ mission, but this meant also having the possibility of listening to him and, thus, being direct witnesses of his preaching on certain occasions. See my book, Jesús, pp. 255-260. 66 It should not be forgotten that on not a few occasions the Gospel accounts present Jesus alone with the Twelve. The people, whose number and identity varied, only had access to a part of what Jesus said and did.

30

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

ning. In consequence, after his death and resurrection, the teaching of Jesus only existed in so far as it was transmitted by someone who had been present when the word was spoken. Otherwise, the transmission would not be credible and the suspicion would be aroused as to whether Jesus actually said such and such, or whether they were just words that were attributed to him. So the question of authenticity is not a matter for textbooks of New Testament exegesis but something that defines the transmission process of the Jesus tradition. Indeed, the first condition for adhering to the Jesus tradition is to accept the truth of his message, that is, to accept that what are presented as the deeds and words of Jesus really are what Jesus said and did. And obviously, the guarantors of this truth are the direct witnesses, the Twelve. An example of the robustness with which the transmission was carried out is found in the existence of small details, aspects of a story that were not strictly necessary.67 What was remembered can be explained: the account seems to presuppose an oral explanation from an eyewitness. For instance, at Mk 4.38 there is the mention of a “cushion” that Jesus used as a pillow while he was asleep in the prow of the boat. The narrative function of the cushion is to show the kind of sleep into which Jesus had fallen: a deep sleep, helped by the fact that his head rested comfortably. The details – the cushion and the prow, but also the fact that the disciples were taking Jesus in the same boat as the one in which he had preached (v. 36), the anxious words of the disciples to Jesus (v. 38), his order to the stormy sea: “silence, be still!” (v. 39), his reproach of the disciples who were half dead with fear (v. 40) – all these elements can only be explained by the fact that the tradition that came down to Mark was more dependent on people who had been present than the tradition that came down to Matthew and Luke, whose account is simplified and sparser. Indeed, Matthew and Luke relate the episode without the liveliness of Mark. Would this liveliness of Mark have been lost in the course of transmission, in favour of a more sober and more easily memorized account, focused on Jesus’ intervention designed to affect the faith of the disciples (Mt. 8.26; Lk. 8.25) and on the recognition on the part of the disciples of Jesus’ dominion over the forces of nature (Mt. 8.27 par. Mk 4.41 par. Lk. 8.25)? Or was it rather that the liveliness was ‘retrieved’ because of the fact that Mark had direct access to a privileged witness of the episode? Or again, was it Matthew and Luke who were responsible for toning down the Markan liveliness with their separate accounts, which, though two different ways of retelling the story, both share the lack of vivacity? The little details are in no way insignificant. However, going on with the episode of the calming of the storm, it is clear that the reader/hearer is given two versions of the same episode, one of them 67

Pace Bauckham (Eyewitnesses, p. 55), for whom “a vivid detail has no probative force... in an argument about eyewitness testimony”.

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

31

highly developed to include the ‘small details’ derived from a first orality (represented by Mark), and the other with a tendency to simplify the episode, removing from it the ‘small details’ (represented by Matthew and Luke). What is interesting, though, is that the episode maintains a common identity in the three Synoptics. That is, the two versions are not antithetical since both are legitimized as accounts of the original episode, lived by Jesus and his disciples. The modifications brought by Matthew (the phrase “Lord, save us!” 8.25, or the expression “men of little faith”, 8.26) and by Luke (the detail that Jesus fell asleep as soon as they left the shore, 8.23, or that the disciples were in danger, 8.23; the systematic use of the terms “waves”, “water”, and “lake” not “sea”) are legitimate since they do not alter the essential features of the episode. In point of fact, the alterations to the Jesus tradition, in whatever form they were made (oral or written), were not arbitrary changes but maintained – at least that seems to have been their intention – the nucleus of what was transmitted, the traditum. The alterations are, however, sometimes considerable and it is difficult to maintain the principle of legitimacy without taking account of another perspective: the conception of the word of Jesus as something requiring an interpretation, a real exegesis. Within the tradition, the step was made from traditum to interpretamentum. For example, when the parable about the wedding feast is read in Lk. 14.15-24 it is essentially within the context of tradition (traditum). In contrast, the same parable in Mt. 22.1-14 has undergone profound changes (vv. 7,10, 11-13, 14), which are justified by the fact that the Jesus tradition had taken on the status of ‘text’, that is, of something sacred that can and must be interpreted. The Matthean parable functions then as an interpretamentum, as a theological piece with a historical background (the destruction of Jerusalem), an ethical background (the picture of the wedding garment as a symbol of good works) and an eschatological background (the final judgment). 7.4. The transmission of the Jesus tradition is explained by the combination of two categories: ‘witnesses’ and ‘communities’ Above, we have underlined the impact made by the words and deeds of Jesus on the first hearers and on all those who received their testimony. Furthermore, the Jesus tradition benefited from the stimulus given by Jesus himself, by virtue of which the chain of transmission was initiated. Thus, continuity between the pre-Easter and post-Easter traditions was established, since in both cases the process of oral tradition was active. However, before Easter this tradition did not settle in communities in the full sense of the word: there were no stable and structured groups of people linked by a common fellowship that went beyond family ties by their adhesion to Jesus and his mes-

32

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

sage.68 Only once Jesus was no longer present is it possible to speak of the central role played by the ‘witnesses’ who promoted and lived out his memory, who drew on a past that had become an event. That said, the action of the eyewitnesses caused the transmission process of the tradition to grow, both in quantity and quality, since that was the only way to reach Jesus. What is more, this phenomenon of growth manifested itself in the appearance of ‘communities’ – that of Jerusalem being the first one – that were a natural setting for the reception and divulgation of the Jesus tradition. As a result, this tradition was sustained by two inseparable entities at one and the same time: the ‘witnesses’ and the ‘communities’, the origin and the development, the matrix and the effect of the transmission process.69 In fact, the Jerusalem Church was paradigmatic and deserves the name of “mother-Church” because in her the two entities are found superimposed: in the beginning, it was a community formed principally by (all) the direct witnesses of the deeds and words of Jesus.70 The community of Jerusalem is the place where the Jesus tradition was crystallized.71 Thus, in the Jerusalem community as in the other communities that arose under its shelter and protection, the Jesus tradition permeated the community life. Now, a community existed when there had been a prior mission (of a person or a group) that had called it into being. So the transmission of the Jesus tradition was closely connected to the spreading of his message, to the development of new communities outside Jerusalem. These communities would be fed by the oral tradition handed on by those who had been responsible for their creation, but also by the liturgical ‘practices’ and the ethical ‘behaviour’ of the Jerusalem community where the witnesses were based, those who were viewed as the trustees of the ‘memory of Jesus.72 In conse68 Jesus and his disciples lived together and shared an itinerant life but they did not form a community in any way comparable with what was experienced after Easter, if only because in the early community there is no mention of a life together under the same roof (Acts 1.13 mentions that they gathered in the same house but not that they lived together). 69 These two entities are not to be opposed, since they necessarily function as complementary to one another. In point of fact, the written gospels act as ‘witnesses’ and occupy the place left by the ‘eyewitnesses’ once these latter had died and, as a result, direct oral tradition had come to an end. 70 Luke conceived of his work (Luke–Acts) according to the articulation of the tradition, since he devoted his first volume to explaining the testimony of the “eyewitnesses” (Lk. 1.2a), while in the second he presented these witnesses as changed into “servants of the word” (cf. Lk. 1.2b) and as a stable group of people “united” (Acts 2.1.47:  * ') under the guidance of the Spirit. The continuity between the pre-Easter and the post-Easter periods is based on the continuity of the witnesses, who guarantee the continuity of the tradition. 71 BAUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, pp. 298-299. 72 The statement of J. Dunn that “traditional-forming is a communal process” (his italics; Jesus Remembered, p. 240) is true in so far as tradition constitutes the community, as he himself points out, but it is incomplete in so far as it does not specify the people who make pos-

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

33

quence, the Jesus tradition came down in diverse forms and with diverse effects: the Lord’s Prayer (the community prayer proper of any disciple, which led to two versions according to the use that was made of it) or the teaching of Jesus on divorce (which was in conflict with the position of Pharisaic and Sadducean Judaisms and was tempered by the tradition that emerged in Matthew)73 do not have the same place in tradition as the miracle of the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (transmitted because it was a significant episode in the life of Jesus).74 Obviously, there are traditional units that occupied a central place in the life of the communities, and as such participated fully in the oral transmission. One of the clearest examples is the words of the Eucharistic memorial that give articulation to the community’s worship (there appear to be two traditions: Mk 14.22-25 par. Mt. 26.26-29 and 1 Cor. 11.2326 par. Lk. 22.17-20). This example shows that an active tradition does not imply more changes than a less lively tradition. All in all, specifying who was the agent of transmission in the case of the Jesus tradition means studying the connections between the pre-Easter eyewitnesses and the communities that arose after Easter. Following the typology of K. Bailey, J. Dunn suggests a model of informal but controlled transmission, while for R. Bauckham it is the formal and controlled model that should be applied.75 It is difficult to challenge the role of the eyewitnesses, those primary and direct witnesses, as the foundation and guarantee of the truth of later tradition, that which had its origin in Jesus and was started by those who had personally witnessed it. The question arises in seeking to understand the trasible the basis on which the community is constructed, the direct witnesses of the facts. The term ‘community’ is too often an anonymous and formless artefact, which Formgeschichte tends to use according to the tenets peculiar to the romantic historicism of a liberal origin, in an attempt to give a name (?) to the agent of transmission of the tradition. Not even Dunn himself is free of a certain romantic vision of the topic when he assumes, following K. Bailey (p. 206, n. 177), that the tradition was formed “in the communal gatherings” (p. 238), in the context of the night-time meetings of rural Palestine (“village communities... nightly gatherings”, p. 239). 73 In Mt. 5.32 and 19.9 the phrase “except on the ground of illicit sexual relations” ( +

 $,) lessens the radical nature of the position of Jesus on divorce as it is expressed in Mk 10.11-12. 74 Bauckham (Eyewitnesses, p. 354) underlines that the healings and exorcisms performed by Jesus were transmitted without the interpretation that Jesus himself gave them or that the early Christian community gave them afterwards. These miracles would have a literary and theological function within the macro-text of the respective Gospels and possibly this function could not be separated from the function they already had in oral tradition. In fact, as observed above, what is transmitted (traditum) is subject to interpretation (interpretamentum). 75 Bauckham claims to distance himself from Gerhardsson and Byrskog, who advocate a formal and controlled model of transmission similar to the rabbinic model. Thus, he describes his own view as “a particular kind of formal controlled model” (Eyewitnesses, p. 293; italics the author’s own).

34

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

dition once it had left the eyewitnesses. Was there a chain of particular people who were sent by the eyewitnesses as authorized transmitters of the Jesus tradition?76 Or was it that as soon as the collective memory of each community was set in action, it was they who became the agents of transmission and the eyewitnesses ceased to be relevant?77 From the explanation given by Papias, as cited by Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. 3.39.3-4), it can be inferred that the bishop of Hierapolis boasted of being the last link in the oral chain of a transmission formed by “those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord” (the “disciples of the Lord” and the “elders” who had heard him). Papias states that “the living and abiding voice” is more beneficial and useful than the information derived from “books”.78 This position, however, is odd, since it is obvious that by 130 CE the Christian communities already had access to the Jesus tradition largely by means of written gospels and that four of these books were considered, though perhaps not universally, to be the sure guarantee of the transmission of the Jesus tradition. There are two perspectives to be taken into account in examining the Jesus tradition: that of those who transmitted it (the direct or indirect witnesses) and of the circles within which it was transmitted (the communities), or that of those who received it (new adherents of the faith) and the contexts within which it was received (missionary proclamation, community instruction, liturgical practice). Importantly, distinguishing between the transmitter and the receiver of the tradition implies looking at the situation from within the Christian mission. Indeed, there is transmission where there is mission, that is, proclamation of a message and the creation and growth of individual and groups – communities – who receive it. The Jesus tradition was spread by those who handed on a message that was heard and understood as a guide for living. Questions, then, concerning the nature of the Christian mission arise. To what extent was it formally organized or, at least in the beginning, was it more a matter of something informal, without a pre-arranged set-up or plan of action? Was it a controlled mission with an explicit mandate or, at least in the beginning, was it rather carried out in a spontaneous manner, without the control or authorization of the eyewitnesses in Jerusalem, essentially the Twelve?

76

BAUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, p. 296: “a chain of individuals, authorized tradents”. Ibid., p. 292, speaking of the position of J. Dunn. Actually, Dunn readily points out good reasons for emphasizing the importance of the individual, respected for their personal and direct link with Jesus (Jesus Remembered, p. 243). The problem arises in seeking to explain how the Jesus tradition operated after Easter. 78 Naturally, Papias, conscious of the fragility of the oral tradition, which was by now about 100 years old (30 – 130 CE), took the trouble to set down in writing everything he had received in the five volumes of his work Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord – where the term “oracles” means “accounts of what the Lord said and did”. 77

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

35

First, it should be said that according to Acts (chs 8–12), the various missions outside Jerusalem began without a mandate from the Jerusalem community: Samaria (8.4: at the initiative of Philip, one of those scattered from Jerusalem), Gaza (8.26: at the initiative of the angel of the Lord who prompted Philip), Damascus (8.19-20: at the initiative of Saul), Caesarea (10.20: at the initiative of the Spirit who prompted Peter), the Jews of Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (11.19: at the initiative of those scattered from Jerusalem), the Greeks of Antioch (11.20: at the initiative of people from Cyprus and Cyrene). The Jerusalem community, on the other hand, confirmed and ratified the missionary activity: Peter and John were sent to Samaria (8.14, 25), Peter informed those in Jerusalem about what had happened in Caesarea (11.1-18), Barnabas was sent to Antioch (11.22). Obviously, this information had passed through the hand of Luke, but it is nevertheless symptomatic that in Acts 8-12 the mission is never presented as being at the initiative of the Jerusalem community.79 So from the picture of the missionary practice built up from Acts 8-12, it is appropriate to speak of informal transmission, without previous planning; and in contrast, it is right to acknowledge control from the Jerusalem community. Secondly, it should be remembered that the Jerusalem community did not produce an official corpus of the deeds and words of Jesus suitable for the Christian communities. Otherwise, there would not have arisen four written Gospels, rather just one or two, the ones that would have been re-workings of the material contained in the ‘oral gospel’, a complete account or collection of the Jesus tradition.80 The fragmentation of the Jesus tradition is seen in the fact that each canonical or common Gospel – apart from Mark, of which Matthew used nine-tenths – has material that does not figure in the other Gospels. So there must have been many channels of oral tradition. This means that there was no desire to fix the message of Jesus but there was the will to transmit it with the guarantee of faithfulness that oral tradition gives and taking account of the degree of variation that this tradition involves.81 Oral tradition wandered along countless paths with all their twists and turns until it settled in some collection, whether oral or written, and finally ended up in a complete account of the ministry of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, 79 In what followed, Barnabas and Saul were sent out on mission by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13.2, 4). In fact, as Luke underlines, the Pauline mission was divinely guided (16.10; 19.21), although it was the missionaries themselves who decided the direction it took (15.36; 18.23). 80 The collection of sayings in Q is the first attempt in this sense. Here, though, most of the material is discursive not narrative. Another attempt could have been one early oral account of the passion, a more or less official account of the Jerusalem community. There is no proof, however, that this account ever actually existed. 81 See DUNN, Jesus Remembered, p. 254. The author’s statement about the character presented by Matthew and Luke is less convincing: “oral retelling more than a literary editing” (ibid.).

36

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

which goes from the baptism of John to the resurrection (cf. Acts 1.21-22). So in view of the plurality of the extant written documents, it has to be concluded that the Jesus tradition was transmitted rather in an informal manner, although the great similarities show that there was some control on the transmission on the part of those who initiated that tradition. Thirdly, the term ‘control’ applied to the tradition must be considered from the point of view of the recipients. The central control by which a message passes is the control of its veracity. That is, if the recipients of the Jesus tradition had not been sure of the truth and authenticity of what had been communicated to them about the deeds and words of Jesus, there would have been no chain of transmission of that tradition or the transmission would have been very uneven. For a tradition to be accepted, the people to whom it was handed would have had to be able to acknowledge it as true, certain and sure. And in consequence, they had to see behind it the witness of qualified persons who, in a direct way, confirmed the truth of the events that were presented as extraordinary in themselves as well as for the effect they produced. As a result, not only is there a need to speak about the control exercised by the transmitters of the tradition, who desired it to be passed on in a trustworthy manner, but also the control on the part of the recipients, those people who were invited to accept a faithful and credible tradition. Indeed, strict control would have been exercised by the recipients of a tradition such as that about Jesus which made lofty claims – Jesus had to be confessed as the Son of God and Messiah, the one sent by the Father, the resurrected one. So the guarantee provided by the eyewitnesses was key for the acceptance of the Jesus tradition. The communities that developed did not just accept the testimony they received as true, but they also made it into their own. In this way, they became witnesses of the eyewitnesses and, as such, indirect witnesses.82 This does not mean that the early communities ignored the worth of the fundamental function of the eyewitnesses: they were, and remained, the basic source of reference for the Jesus tradition. Nonetheless, the communities themselves set themselves up as trustees of what was handed on by the direct witnesses and, while relying on them, they viewed themselves as sure guardians of the Jesus tradition. The examples of Damascus and Antioch (see Gal. 1.17; 2.11) illustrate the role played in the life of Paul by communities that familiarized the ex-Pharisee with the Jesus tradition (see 1 Cor. 11.23; 15.3). 82

Two of the four canonical Gospels are presented in the tradition of the end of the 2nd century as the fruit of direct witnesses (Matthew and John), while the other two (Mark and Luke) are attributed to indirect witnesses who drew on the sources of the tradition: Peter (Mark) and Paul (Luke). Note, however, that Paul was not en eyewitness since he did not know the earthly Jesus. Furthermore, both literary and historical criticism indicate that Matthew depends on Mark and that, therefore, Matthew could not have been a direct witness. The case of John is clearer, since his writing is recognized as a profound re-working of the message of Jesus.

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

37

Plainly, Paul’s stays in Jerusalem were very limited in time (the first lasted only 15 days, Gal. 1.18!) and far apart (the second visit was 14 years after the revelation that changed his life, Gal. 2.1). Thus, early on Damascus and Antioch became the communities authorized and recognized as the active agents in the transmission of the Jesus tradition. Paul would only see the great eyewitnesses (Peter, John and James) who were still there in Jerusalem on his second visit to the city! As a result, it should be said that the communities were not passive subjects but active agents in the Jesus tradition: they relied on the tradition passed on by the eyewitnesses while becoming themselves indirect witnesses (witnesses of the witnesses). This fact meant that they became authorized agents of the oral tradition, and that it was in the most prominent communities outside Jerusalem that the tradition was re-worked and expanded. The gospel documents were the written form of the processes, probably oral, begun earlier; it is important to note that this step towards a written tradition would have been undertaken precisely in the urban centres that had been powerfully affected by the Jerusalem tradition. In short, control was exercised on the Jesus tradition by the transmitters but more especially by the receivers, within the spread and consolidation of the Christian mission, which seems not to have been a formally structured and planned process.83 7.5. The fact of the variability of the Jesus tradition does not mean that there was no ‘original’ for many of the units of the material that gave shape to it In the Jesus tradition there are few doublets, meaning that in many cases there is an ‘original’. Another point is that the variability can often be explained by the processes that formed the oral tradition which, as has been mentioned, was subject to change by its very nature. On that point, it is impossible to be categorical since each literary genre operates in a different way.84 In addition, oral tradition made deliberate alterations with the aim of adapting the Jesus tradition material and bringing it up to date to make it correspond to the situation after Easter. Yet, it is important to bear in mind the changes made by those who wrote the Gospels as they integrated material from different

83 In this sense, the gap between the model of informal but controlled tradition (Dunn) and a model of more or less formal tradition, also controlled (Bauckham), is not so huge. Neither a purely communal model nor a purely individual model should be seen as accurate. They are to be appropriately combined. 84 Theissen writes: “The relationship between variability and continuity must be determined for each genre specifically” (G. THEISSEN, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition [Edinburgh, 1983], p. 195).

38

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

sources, some of it superimposed – that is, it existed in different oral traditions simultaneously and, possibly, in more than one written text.85 Once more, the existence of a tradition that is living, flexible and conservative all at the same time, that displays similar characteristics at the various stages of its transmission, is to be seen. That is why it is difficult sometimes to decide if a modification was introduced at the level of the oral tradition or rather the written gospel in its intermediate or final phase. Besides the material of the tradition contains diverse versions of the same saying (e.g., Mt. 19.30; 20.16),86 two sayings that contradict each other (e.g., Mk 9.40; Mt. 12.30),87 or else parables that use contradictory pictures (e.g., Lk. 12.37; 17.8).88 Of course, a teller of parables is entirely free to use this or that metaphor for the parable, and the brief sayings were spoken in contexts that are often irretrievable. For that reason, the variations are an indication of the great freedom of Jesus when he created proverbial type material, even the parables, and of the moderated variability of the oral tradition in its transmission processes. The variability is a factor that runs through all the phases of the tradition, the original phase (Jesus) and the successive ones (first orality, writing, second orality, writing). Therefore, it cannot be said, as W. Kelber claims,89 that there were no ‘originals’: the extant material does not lend itself to the conclusion that Jesus repeated every thing he said, though nor do they suggest that he never preached the same thing twice, especially in front of different audiences. The variability is greater in the short discursive material (proverbial type sayings) and this suggests that it was material more likely to be repeated and modified. In contrast, a major narrative parable, such as that of the prodigal son, has a specific line of argument, which, if it were explained more than 85 See BAUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, p. 286. Despite this, the number of traditional units present simultaneously in Mark and Q is definitely small. The traditions that gave rise to Q would seem to be very different from those that were given shape in the Gospel of Mark. 86 Mt. 19.30 (“many that are first will be last, and the last first”) and Mt. 20.16 (“the last will be first, and the first last”) record two sayings linked by the same theme. The second sounds more like a punishment (it ends with the ‘chastisement’ of those who want to be the first), while the first has offers encouragement to the “last” for they become the “first”. 87 Note that Mk 9.40 (“he that is not against us is for us”) is a saying addressed to the disciples, while the opposite (“he who is not with me is against me”, Q: Mt. 12.30 par. Lk. 11.23) is found within an invective of Jesus against the Pharisees on account of their accusation that he was associated with Beelzebul. Possibly the change in addressee explains why Mk 9.40 is highly inclusive while Mt. 12.30 stresses the separation between the supporters and opponents of Jesus. 88 The servant of Luke 12 is served by the master himself (!) who returns home at night, while in Luke 17 the servant who returns from the field only eats once his master has eaten and he has served him at table. Note that it is said explicitly that the attitude of the latter deserves no special acknowledgement or gratitude (17.10). 89 W.H. KELBER, The Oral and the Written Gospel (Philadelphia, 1983).

7. Elements of Oral Tradition with a Fair Degree of Certainty

39

once, did not suffer significant alteration.90 Again, an event with a strong impact, such as the festive entry of Jesus into Jerusalem accompanied by a considerable crowd permits few changes to the traditum (the account of the facts) and, in contrast, will be the object of clear interpretamenta at the point when it is included into the gospel macro-text.91 The miracle stories likewise allow little variation, linked as they are to unique and striking events, although the motifs that they contain are applied according to the tendencies peculiar to the literary genre (compression, expansion, affinity, as Theissen explains) and the diverse types of composition.92 In actual fact, the variability is linked to the orality, and it existed at every stage of the Jesus tradition, even after it began to be consigned to writing. Proof that the oral tradition did not lose its validity when written texts containing the Jesus tradition began to appear is the existence of certain sayings (agrapha) in Christian documents of the 1st century (e.g., Acts 20.35; 1Cl 13.2) and the 2nd (e.g., Gospel of the Hebrews, cited by Jerome, In Eph. 5.4; IgEsm 3.2-3; PsClem [H] 2.51.1), documents such as the Gospel of Thomas or the unknown gospels which contain material not included in the Synoptics,93 writers like Papias and Justin, and also additions introduced by scribes into the Gospels (Lk. 6.5 D; Lk. 9.55 D and K). All these strands of the oral tradition show that recognizing the variability also depends on gathering together all the different materials that may have belonged to the Jesus tradition. This was the primary concern of the tradition: to transmit in an exhaustive manner everything Jesus said and did.

90

In any case, the meaning of a parable admits of alterations, because its meaning is potentially multi-layered. What contributes to that feature is the fact that the Jesus tradition normally transmitted the parable without the context or contexts in which it was spoken. The causes are various: the image and the metaphor are easily remembered (unlike the circumstances that prompted the parable to be spoken); the word of Jesus is the point of interest for the traditum (it is without interest, apparently, for its first interpretamentum); in a few cases, the parable is situated within an episode that explains it (as happens with the parable of the two debtors, Lk. 7.41-42); Jesus himself seems to understand the parable as a proclamation full of meaning and not as an illustration of his message (the parable metaphor does not explain the ‘doctrine’ of Jesus, as was the case with the rabbis of his time). See the recent collection of articles on the parables compiled by R. ZIMMERMANN (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh, 2007). 91 This is seen with a simple comparison of Mt. 21.1-11; Mk 11.1-10; Lk. 19.28-44; Jn 12.12-19. 92 See THEISSEN, Miracle Stories, p. 195. Theissen rightly emphasizes the value of the “written versions of the oral tradition”, in which the written text retains elements of the previous oral composition. Thus, he suggests a classification half way between oral tradition and written tradition. 93 See recently T.J. KRAUS – T. NICKLAS (eds), Gospel Fragments (Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts; Oxford, 2009).

40

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

8. Conclusion The Jesus tradition stands as a process of transmission that contains a satisfactory degree of trustworthiness.94 This trustworthiness leads to the conclusion that access to Jesus contains a guarantee of historical credibility, and that the documents written in the first century that have come down to us (the four common or canonical Gospels) have not twisted or distorted the historical figure of the rabbi of Nazareth. The memory of Jesus, however, did not follow a linear or tele-guided path but was often subject to the usual processes of a lively and living oral tradition, within the framework of the early Christian mission in the city of Jerusalem as well as outside it. The tradition was grounded in Jesus of Nazareth, but began to be developed by the men and women who had been eyewitnesses of his activity. There is no evidence to show that Jesus was concerned with formally instructing his disciples to memorize what they witnessed, but the stimulus to do so came from him. In that way, it was an informal rather than a formal process, but one that contained prompts from Jesus and so has to be viewed as moderately formal. It is plain that there was no control on the part of Jesus but there was reception on the part of the disciples and therefore control on the part of the receivers who assumed their role as eyewitnesses and, in the specific case of the Galilean mission, they became actual transmitters of the message of Jesus. As H. Schürmann has demonstrated, the Jesus tradition began before Easter. After Easter, things were not so very different. The starting point remained the character of the eyewitness of three groups of people, about 40 of them known by name: the Twelve Galileans and other male disciples (especially in Judaea), the five Galilean women and other female disciples (between Galilee and Judaea) and the family of Jesus (his mother, brothers and sisters, and relatives in general). The place where the tradition was forged was Jerusalem, the city where Jesus died and where the three groups mentioned gathered. Jerusalem became the mother-community, the crucible for the Jesus tradition, closely connected with the witness to his resurrection.95 These eyewitnesses were sensitive to everything that prompted them to begin the process of fixing a remembrance, in such a way that by virtue of their remembrance which

94

Dunn concludes with reference to the accounts transmitted by oral tradition: “developments in the Jesus tradition were consistent with the earliest traditions of the remembered Jesus” (Jesus Remembered, p. 224). This conclusion can be applied to his words or teachings. 95 Acts 1.15 speaks of 120 persons, 1 Cor. 15.6 of more than 500. The first is a round figure, with symbolic connotations (10 x 12). The second, as we have already suggested, could represent the total number of people, from Galilee and Judaea, who were associated with Jesus at the time of his death and his appearances, and who were staying in Jerusalem or in the area round the city.

8. Conclusion

41

became memory, the past and the present were legitimized.96 The direct testimony became crucial for the memory of Jesus especially in connection with the events surrounding his death and resurrection – the empty tomb and his appearances. The eyewitnesses were the trustees of the Jesus tradition, and their function was decisive for the amalgamation and the growth of this tradition. The growth, though, was tied temporally with the spread of the message of Jesus outside Jerusalem. The mission thus became the touchstone of the transmission of Jesus’ message. The urban model, in the Pharisaic mould but without any restrictions as to the addressees (it was a matter of creating communities that confessed the resurrected Lord in which life could prosper, not forming groups of experts in the teaching of Jesus) seems to have been the preferable model. It is a more functional one than the model of the itinerant charismatic figure, of a more rural nature. The Christian prophetic movement flourished in the first years of the development of Christian communities, following the impetus derived from the life that Jesus chose for himself and the Twelve, but the transmission of the Jesus tradition was not solely in the hands of itinerant prophets. The importance of the cities required a more stable model of transmission for what is sometimes known as the “Jesus movement”. Transmission occurred via a non-regulated mission, one with little structure and that began with people who had been in contact with the eyewitnesses and afterwards themselves became active agents of transmission.97 The next step took place when the communities who received the tradition, and thus were indebted to the eyewitnesses, considered themselves to be legitimate channels to pass it on in an authoritative and at the same time selective manner: there was no community that was given the whole of the tradition but they all received the essential components of it. Therefore, the communities, or groups within the communities, relied on a direct eyewitness or on an indirect witness who was responsible for their Christian allegiance. Thus, in Corinth, there were people who held up Paul or Apollos, both indirect witnesses, as their authority, while others relied on Peter and others still, hoping to convey their genuineness, said they were “of Christ” (see 1 Cor.

96 Using a classification taken from social psychology, Bauckham lists nine factors that he believes produce a memory of the past that is trustworthy (Eyewitnesses, pp. 341-346). Without going into detail on each point, I note that the event that is the object of remembering has to be outstanding, should be decisive for a person’s life and have an emotional impact. 97 The unregulated model of mission, without proselytizing strategies prepared by a central authority, would be usual in the Christianity of the Roman Empire after 70 CE. See my article “The Mission according to the New Testament. Choice or Need?”, in A.A. ALEXEEV – C. KARAKOLIS – K.-W. NIEBUHR (eds), Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament. Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg 24.-31. August 2005 (WUNT 218; Tübingen, 2008), pp. 231-247.

42

Introduction: The Jesus Tradition

1.12). More than Church leadership, what was at stake here was the legitimacy of the Jesus tradition and the privileged witnesses of his message. In the end, the Third Quest is confronted with the necessity of dealing with the basic Christological question, the relation between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith; it can hardly take refuge in the neighbouring fields of ‘pure history’ and the related sciences (social history, cultural anthropology, sociology, psychology of religion). The question, which was first posed by Reimarus and lasted throughout the first two Quests, is at one and the same time historical and theological, and cannot be avoided by any responsible interpreter who wants to preserve the nature of the New Testament texts, especially the Gospels.98 The era of progressive hypotheses in Christology is over, hypotheses that assigned a ‘low Christology’ to the first decades of the history of the early community. Various recent monographs show that the distribution of christological statements is subtler and more complex than the authors of the Second Quest thought when they frequently advocated a linear Christology.99 Besides, the categories of ‘implicit – explicit’ and ‘evoked – expressed’ can create approaches that go beyond the simplicity of a division – for all that it is totally necessary from a heuristic point of view – between ‘pre-Easter’ and ‘post-Easter’. The fact that the starting point of the Third Quest is historical, and not theological as it was in the case in the Second Quest, and the fact that the goal is no longer to show the acritical character of Christian dogma as the authors of the First Quest often sought to do, all this opens the door for trying out new paths for a christological approach. In any case, the figure of Jesus occupies the centre of the New Testament and, therefore, of the debate it arouses. Prophecy and wisdom are the two domains to which the early understanding of his identity belonged, on the part of those around him, both sympathisers and opponents, and also on the part of Jesus himself who never refused to be called “prophet” or “rabbi”, “master”.100 In fact, Jesus did not refuse to be called “Messiah” either, although he seems to have been very wary about the use of the name applied

98

THEISSEN, “Vom historischen Jesus zum kerigmatischen Gottessohn”, p. 286. See also J. SCHRÖTER, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament (WUNT 204; Tübingen, 2007). The Italian scholar G. Segalla uses the category of “mediatore del Padre” to explain the self-understanding of Jesus (see Sulle tracce di Gesù. La “Terza ricerca” [Assisi, 2006], pp. 82-122). This latter work offers a helpful summary of the views of authors who have written on the Jesus of history in recent years in Italy, in a survey presented by G. Ghiberti (ibid., pp. 399-431. For a list of literature on the theme (including works in Spanish and French), see ibid., pp. 392-397. 99 See, by way of example, L.W. HURTADO, Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids – Cambridge, 2003). 100 See Chapter 7, which bears the title precisely of “Jesus: Prophecy and Wisdom” (pp. 219-244).

8. Conclusion

43

to himself.101 The term the “son of man” also belongs to different registers of use, although often pointing towards the relationship between Jesus and God.102 This relationship becomes the great theme: how Jesus lived out the meaning of his son-ship and how he took it to its ultimate conclusion, in a life of obedient listening to the purpose of the Father.103

101 On one occasion – at the time of his entry with the crowds into Jerusalem – Jesus stirred up action, whose significance was ambiguous for the Roman authorities but clear to his friends and sympathisers. 102 See J. DUPONT, “Le Dieu de Jésus”, NRT 104 (1987), pp. 321-344. Likewise, J. SCHLOSSER, Le Dieu de Jésus. Étude exégétique (LD 129; Paris, 1987). 103 See Chapters 4 and 8, with the respective titles of “Why Was Jesus Baptized by John?” (pp. 143-162) and “Was Jesus a Mystic?” (pp. 245-285).

Chapter 1

The Search for the Historical Jesus The historical method was born with the Enlightenment and thus belongs to modernity. In a culture that has, from the very beginning, sought to justify reality through reason and desired to reach the past by following the critical method, the question of the credibility of this past is firmly established as the focus of attention. In so far as Jesus of Nazareth is also part of this past, a theology that carries an awareness of the world in which we live can diminish neither the aims nor the results of the search for the historical Jesus. Christian believers, and even those on the fringes of the faith, demand an approach to the person, life and teaching of the founder of Christianity that has a solid basis. The present-day culture, that of Postmodernism, is interested in the real person as well as in the fascination and mystery surrounding the son of the carpenter. The success of media-based approaches to Jesus shows the need people feel to find out who he was. For theology, likewise, the character of Jesus is by no means secondary. The object of faith is a person, who lives forever and to whom a total commitment is made as the believer’s life is based on him. The confession of faith is founded on the basis of the one who was crucified and resurrected, on the one who was destroyed and exalted. The kerygma is inscribed within the realm of history. The Christ in glory identifies with the one who was born of the line of David. A Christianity without Jesus would be empty of humanity, it would have done away with the incarnation and in so doing would have become a kind of Gnosticism. Above all, though, it would be a partial Christianity, with no true confession of faith. The quest for the historical Jesus is a task for the historian but it is also of interest to the theologian and, therefore, to the exegete, too. Research on Jesus must treat him as a whole character. In Jesus of Nazareth a rich and complex reality is found, one that cannot be fully grasped and that derives its strength and cohesion from his relationship with God. That is why whoever sets out to examine the historical Jesus must master the historical-critical method and, at the same time, must possess a religious sensibility capable of integrating the presence of the Transcendent One in the interpretation of the material analysed. After 200 years of these two aspects being painfully separated, the time has come to embark on a path that will shorten the distance between history and faith.

1. The Historical Method

45

1. The Historical Method Two topics need to be considered: the sources and the criteria of historicity. Concerning the sources, this present study will deal only with those that speak directly of Jesus. As for the criteria, the current situation in scholarship will be presented together with the opportunities that exist for moving forward. 1.1. The sources Current research confirms that the main historical sources about Jesus are to be found in the four canonical gospels. Tracing the historical Jesus is a matter, above all, of considering the material that an analysis of the history of traditions brings to light in the following sources: Q, Mark, Matthew, M (special Matthew material), Luke, L (special Luke material) and John. To that list should be added the collection of logia known as the Gospel of Thomas (or simply Thomas), as well as some passages from Acts and Paul. Outside the New Testament, Josephus remains the most important source. For many scholars the sources consist solely of Josephus and the New Testament.1 Indeed, the value that should be accorded to other sources is a much debated question: the agrapha (especially the later additions to New Testament manuscripts and the sayings transmitted by Papias and the Fathers), the noncanonical gospels (the Jewish-Christian gospels, the Gnostic gospels and the gospels close to the Synoptics and John) and the non-Christian material (the rabbinic and targumic sources).2 The rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus has led many exegetes to look in 1st century Judaism for anything that can help understand not only the words of Jesus but his actions, too.3 E.P. Sanders, for example, insists on the need to situate Jesus in the context of the Judaism of his time. It is true that the Jesus of history cannot be uprooted from his people. However, according excessive weight to the rabbinic sources leads to an image of Jesus in which not all the aspects are integrated. Furthermore, there is a problem of chronology raised by the use of Jewish sources, given that most of them date from after the 1st century. It has to be asked 1

Cf. J.P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL; Garden City, NY, 1991), I, p. 140. 2 The Roman authors (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius) are a valuable source of general historical information, which is confirmed by other sources. Their contribution, however, is slight: “Christus” is the founder of the Christian sect. Cf. G. THEISSEN – A. MERZ, The Historical Jesus. A Comprehensive Guide (London, 1998), pp. 79-85. The original German was published in 1996. 3 Mention may be made of two works edited by Chilton and Evans that divide the material on Jesus between dicta and facta. Cf. B. CHILTON – C.A. EVANS (eds), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS 28/1; Leiden, 1999) and Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS 28/2; Leiden, 1999).

46

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

how far they reflect Palestine in the time of Jesus. Each case has to be judged separately. As for the research of J. Jeremias on the agrapha, the results are somewhat thin: 18 very short logia, which, in this scholar’s opinion, are nothing more than echoes of the canonical gospels.4 Discussion in recent years has focused on the Gnostic texts. The extraordinary discovery of Nag Hammadi (1945) broadened the scope of the study of the historical Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas has attracted the attention of scholars. Work has been carried out on NHC II. 2-7 (a complete text in Coptic) and the Oxyrhynchus papyri 1, 654 and 655 (fragments in Greek), in an attempt to interpret a text that is somewhat hermetic and on whose contribution to the study of the historical Jesus opinion is sharply divided. H. Koester, as also J.M. Robinson, J.D. Crossan and S.J. Patterson, claim that Thomas transmits traditions about Jesus independent of the Synoptic Gospels and going back before 70 CE. As for Theissen, he would place the terminus ad quem in 140 CE.5 In contrast, authors such as W. Schrage, R.E. Brown and R.M. Grant place Thomas in the 2nd century CE. According to Meier, Thomas used Matthew and Luke, and is therefore an entirely secondary source for research on the historical Jesus. Meier likens himself to a fisherman sitting by the sea throwing back bad fish into the water, that is, the insignificant material, such as the Gospel of Thomas.6 Crossan, meanwhile, places his prize fish on a plate with three other choice morsels that he considers to be of first class quality, and he offers them to anyone who would care to taste these new specialities. In 1985, he published the ‘alternative’ gospels (Four Other Gospels): Thomas, Peter, the Secret Gospel of Mark and Egerton Papyrus 2.7 According to Crossan, these four represent exceptional witnesses to the historical Jesus, preserving traditions that are parallel to and/or earlier than the Synoptics. The most surprising theory concerns the Gospel of Peter: behind this gospel there is supposed to be a “Gospel of the Cross”, a common source

4

Theissen also attempts to explore the field of agrapha (Jesus, pp. 54-58). The results are no better. 5 In any case, the traditions preserved by Thomas should be viewed, according to Theissen, as “autonomous (independent of the Canonical Gospels) and old” (Jesus, p. 38). Elsewhere, he insists on the autonomy of Thomas. Its present form could be explained by the canonical gospels, even if these gospels had had a secondary influence on some of the traditions transmitted by Thomas. Cf. G. THEISSEN, “Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research or My Attempt to Leap Across Lessing’s Yawning Gulf”, SJT 49 (1996), pp. 147-176. 6 Cf. MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 140. 7 J.D. CROSSAN, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis, 1985). It should be pointed out that all four texts had already been published but Crossan’s stroke of genius was to make them known to a non-specialist public.

1. The Historical Method

47

drawn on by the canonical gospels.8 Even for Theissen, GPet. 8.28–11.49 represents the earliest account of the resurrection of Jesus.9 As things stand at present, scholarly opinion is divided between scepticism and enthusiasm with regard to Thomas. It seems that the real discussion at times is about the theological value of this text. The four canonical gospels, it is said, represent ecclesiastical Christianity – established, traditional – whereas the four ‘alternative’ gospels are the new ‘canonical’ text (canonized, that is, by strict historical criticism!) of an alternative Christianity. Setting the texts in opposition in this way runs the risk of leading scholarly discussion into a cul-de-sac.10 With regard to exegetical problems, efforts to widen the base of research on the historical Jesus must be encouraged. However, as far as the Gospel of Thomas is concerned, Jeremias and Hunzinger used this document in order to ‘recover’ parables that can be attributed to Jesus but it must be acknowledged that it offers only limited material.11 Besides, the dating of this document remains a difficulty. In its present form, it does not go back beyond the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. logion 71). And as Theissen recognizes (cf. n. 5 above), it is not impossible that the Synoptics inspired Thomas. Consequently, it is better to dispense with global hypotheses concerning this early Christian document (independent of the Synoptics? a Gnostic text? an ancient gospel?), and concentrate instead on the tradition-redaction process 8

J.D. CROSSAN, The Cross That Spoke. The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco, 1988). Unfortunately, Crossan omits discussion of the detailed work of L. VAGANAY, L’Évangile de Pierre (Paris, 1930) as well as the article by R.E. BROWN, “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority”, NTS 33 (1987), pp. 321-343. Both these authors insist on the secondary nature of the Gospel of Peter compared with the Synoptics. For Brown, the Gospel of Peter is “a window into popular Christianity of the 1st half of the 2nd century” (BROWN, “Gospel of Peter”, p. 339). 9 THEISSEN, Jesus, p. 509. He maintains that the Gospel of Peter was composed in the second half of the 2nd century, and that it is based on an early account of the passion and resurrection that is independent of the Synoptics (Jesus, p. 50). 10 Thus M. FRANZMANN, Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings (Edinburgh, 1996), attempts to describe the images of Jesus in the Nag Hammadi texts and considers this quest “a valid investigation of the historical Jesus since the texts belong to one strand of the many interpretative traditions about him” (p. 21). Obviously, the theological reading presented by the four canonical gospels is one of the possible readings. A different tradition is reflected in the Nag Hammadi texts, viewed as ‘canon’. Echoes of Crossan’s position can be heard in all of this. Note, for example, the revealing title of the work by G.J. RILEY, One Jesus, Many Christs. How Jesus Inspired Not One True Christianity but Many (San Francisco, 1997). 11 Cf. L.T. JOHNSON, The Real Jesus. The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco, 1996), pp. 2-6. Johnson points out that in the voting system of the Jesus Seminar, the 15 logia that received a red rating (meaning maximum degree of authenticity) are all found in the Synoptics. Among them, 5 are also found in Thomas. In contrast, among the texts that received a “probably authentic” rating (pink), three are only found in Thomas (logia 97, 98 and 113).

48

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

involved in the composition of Thomas. It should be asked, for example, if there is a core of sayings without Gnostic influence, another collection comparable to Q. Would this collection provide any truly new material? Or would it be similar to the Synoptic tradition, a kind of echo of it? What is needed is a detailed study of the 114 sayings of Thomas, examined in their own right and in comparison with the Synoptic tradition.12 In that way, more precise and more nuanced conclusions could be drawn, even if the methodology is more cumbersome.13 It would be possible, for example, to check the suggestion that Thomas depends on a harmony of the canonical Gospels, similar to that of Tatian, which the compiler of Thomas himself knew.14 In any case, and given the present state of research, it seems that independent traditions (or, at least, ones parallel to those transmitted by the Synoptics) may be uncovered in the Gospel of Thomas.15

12 Such a study has already been started and has yielded some results. For example, Tuckett has identified Lukan redactional elements in logion 5, see C. TUCKETT, “Thomas and the Synoptics”, NT 30 (1988), pp. 132-157. Another study has concluded that logia 33, 34 and 99 show signs of inter-dependence, see W.D. KOEHLER, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus (WUNT 2/24; Tübingen, 1987), pp. 386-388. J. M. Sevrin has shown how the final editor of Thomas placed logia 63, 64 and 65 in parallel to three Synoptic parables (logion 66 could be added to the group), in order to develop his Gnostic doctrine, see J.M. SEVRIN, “Un groupement de trois paraboles contre les richesses dans l’évangile selon Thomas. Ev Th 63, 64 et 65”, Les paraboles évangéliques. Perspectives nouvelles (J. Delorme [ed.]; Paris, 1989), pp. 425-439. Sevrin underlines how the final author of Thomas censured anything to do with the history of salvation or eschatology. See also the studies by A.D. DE CORNICK, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, with a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (London – New York, 2007). For a perspective on Thomas strikingly different from earlier ones, see S.J. PATTERSON, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma, CA, 1993). 13 Schrage examined the logia of Thomas that have parallels in the Synoptics (more or less half of the 114) and concluded that most of them were easier to understand if the former depended on the latter; see W. SCHRAGE, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangelium zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen (BZNW 29; Berlin, 1964). This position has also been adopted by M. FIEGER, Das Thomasevangelium (NTAbh 22; Münster, 1991). 14 MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 137. 15 I have attempted to follow this trend in my work Un Jesús desconocido. Las claves del evangelio gnóstico de Tomás (Barcelona, 2008). That is not the same as saying that the Gospel of Thomas was independent of, or earlier or contemporary with, the Synoptics. Thomas shows clear signs of second century Gnosticism. The issue is not the final redaction of Thomas, which is clearly later than that of the Synoptics, but rather the traditions, of a wisdom or parable type, incorporated into the Gnostic gospel. One way or another, the early materials underwent an extended process of transmission during which they came under Gnostic influence. For that reason they have, for the most part, lost their early flavour.

1. The Historical Method

49

What is needed is a careful and thorough investigation of Thomas for the internal history of the text to be unravelled16 and for the nature of the document to be established. The absence of narrative in Q and in Thomas, an obvious difference with the Synoptic Gospels, means that a clear distinction must be made between “gospel” and “logia collection”. Even if Thomas himself gives his work the title of “gospel” (speaking through Jesus), the literary form of the text makes it much closer to Q than to the Synoptics. Taking account of what was called “ancient biography” in Greco-Roman literature, it is better not to apply the term “gospel” to Thomas. 1.2. The criteria of historicity One of the most controversial points in the research on the historical Jesus is undoubtedly the question of the criteria adopted for approaching the texts.17 The New Quest was characterized by the use of the criterion of discontinuity, supported by the criterion of coherence and possibly other minor criteria. It used to be thought that these two criteria would lead to the uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth. By initially applying the criterion of discontinuity or dissimilarity as the sole criterion, an attempt was made to reach the indisputable core of the message and life of Jesus. Anything that could have been derived from, or belong to, Judaism or early Christianity was set aside. A sort of purification was made of all possible parallels in the sure hope of getting to the authentic words of Jesus. In a second stage, working from the sure basis, the criterion of coherence was applied: material close to Judaism or early Christianity could be ‘retrieved’ if it could be integrated into the overall picture created by the criterion of discontinuity. What characterizes the Third Quest, on the other hand, is a revision of the two criteria just mentioned (Theissen) and the inclusion of new criteria (Crossan, Meier). Already, the usefulness of the two methodological tools of the New Quest had been questioned by J.M. Robinson, J.I.H. McDonald and M. Hooker among others. According to Hooker, the criterion of discontinuity is founded on a confusion between ‘different’ and ‘characteristic’. In determin16 Things are not, of course, that straightforward, if the results obtained for the Gospel of Peter and Q are anything to go by. The hypotheses of “the gospel of the cross” (with respect to the Gospel of Peter) and “the wisdom layer” (with respect to Q) are short of convincing. 17 For a good overview of the matter, see W.R. TELFORD, “Major Trends and Interpretative Issues in the Study of Jesus”, in B. CHILTON – C.A. EVANS (eds]), Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden – Boston – Cologne, 1994), pp. 33-74, esp. 65-70. The work of Theissen and Winter, published in 1977, remains fundamental (cf. n. 23 of the present chapter). See also T. HOLMÉN, “Doubts About Diversity. Restructuring the Main Criterion of Jesus-of-History Research”, in B.D. CHILTON – C.A. EVANS (eds), Authenticating the Words of Jesus, pp. 47-80; more recently by the same author, “Seven Theses on the So-Called Criteria of Autheniticity of Historical Jesus Research”, RCatT 33 (2008), pp. 343-376.

50

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

ing what is authentic, and identifying it automatically as central to the message of Jesus, no thought is given to the possibility that some key elements of this message could coincide with elements present in Judaism and in the early Christian community.18 The consequences of such a position show the pitfalls of a mechanical application of the criterion of discontinuity. First, removing any elements that link Jesus to Judaism and the early Church creates the danger of setting up a picture of the uniqueness of Jesus which, in the end, operates in an aprioristic way.19 Secondly, the assimilation of ‘different’ with ‘characteristic’ runs the risk of deforming the life and ministry of Jesus, because peripheral features can look like central elements.20 Thirdly, the success of a negative approach or one of elimination, which claims to highlight the originality of Jesus as distinct from Judaism or early Christianity, depends on an adequate knowledge of these two historical realities.21 As a result, the only way to apply the criterion of discontinuity is in a positive sense, in other words, by bringing in elements of continuity either with respect to Judaism or with respect to early Christianity.22 Theissen has suggested that the criterion of discontinuity should be reformulated and called the criterion of historical plausibility (Plausibilitätskriterium).23 It can be stated thus: anything in the sources that serves to explain the impact of Jesus (on early Christianity) and which, at the same time, can only exist in a Jewish context, is to be considered as historical. So 18 Hooker expresses the confusion thus: “what makes Jesus distinct from others is being regarded as that which is characteristic of him” (M. HOOKER, “Christology and Methodology”, NTS 17 [1971], pp. 480-487, here 481). 19 THEISSEN, Jesus, p. 115. This risk is pointed out with respect to Käsemann by V. FUSCO, “La quête du Jésus historique. Bilan et perspectives”, in D. MARGUERAT – E. NORELLI – J.M. POFFET (eds), Jésus de Nazareth. Nouvelles approches d’une énigme (Le Monde de la Bible 38; Geneva, 1998), pp. 25-57, here 54. The problem is that the polemic of Jesus against Judaism is over-stated as is also the inability of the early disciples to understand the new message of Jesus. Fusco cites the amusing summary by Charlesworth: “A strict application of this method produces a Jesus who was not a Jew and who had no followers” (ibid., p. 53, n. 113). 20 MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, 173. 21 THEISSEN, Jesus, 115 concludes that the criterion of discontinuity in its negative expression is not practicable. 22 As early as 1981, Schürmann highlighted the positive use of this criterion; see H. SCHÜRMANN, “Kritische Jesuserkenntnis. Zur kritischen Handhabung des ´Unähnlichkeitskriteriums”, BLit 54 (1981), pp. 17-26. 23 In collaboration with D. Winter, G. Theissen has written a work that is fundamental to the present debate, see G. THEISSEN – D. WINTER, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung. Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitätskriterium (NTOA 34; Friburg, Switzerland – Göttingen, 1997). The theses of this publication (cf. pp. 215-217) are also found in a book (Jesus, p. 118) and an article (“Historical Scepticism”, p. 153) by Theissen, both of which appeared in 1996.

1. The Historical Method

51

the criterion of plausibility seems to take account, in a positive way, of the relationship between Jesus and the early disciples (the impact) and also of the relationship between Jesus and Judaism (the context). Indeed, a historical event must be understood within its context, its historical setting (in this case, Judaism) and can only be properly defined through its actual impact, such as can be seen in the sources that attest to it (in this case, early Christianity). Furthermore, the criterion of coherence also needs to be revised. It, too, must be interpreted in a positive sense. If it is not, one could become highly subjective in so far as decisions are taken in the here and now about what was more or less coherent two thousand years ago. The paradoxes, the developments, the tensions and surprises in Jesus’ speeches could all be set aside as non-authentic if the criterion of coherence is badly used. And a corresponding mistake could be made by attributing to Jesus elements of coherence that, in fact, were created by the early community.24 Another consideration is that the sources that we possess are fragile and incomplete, indeed limited, even though they are capable of leading to entirely valid results. This limitation demonstrates of itself that they are true historical sources. The very nature of the sources and the fact that they have to be considered in relation to one another means that they must be viewed from two points of view: their coherence (or similarity) and their incoherence (or difference).25 As a result, whether at the level of the impact of Jesus on the early Christians or at the level of the Jewish context in which the uniqueness of Jesus must be placed, the search for historical plausibility requires the similarities to be combined with the differences and the differences to be combined with the similarities. According to the New Quest, the criterion of coherence depended on the criterion of discontinuity. However, from what has just been said, it can be seen that this dependence is by no means necessary since the sources themselves testify to the impact Jesus had on them. The next question, then, concerns the criterion of multiple attestation. It is J.D. Crossan who has given special weight to this criterion in his reconstruction of the words of the historical Jesus. Crossan underlines that the sources must be independent,26 that 24

MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 176. These contradictions show that the criteria should allow trajectories to be traced between Jesus and the early Church, and go beyond futile contradictions. Why should a logion that reflects the message of Jesus, even though it derives from the early community, not be considered authentic? The concept of historical authenticity must find its place in a balance between opposites rather than in their mutual exclusion. 25 Theissen speaks of a mixture: “This criterion [of coherence] functions only if there exists in our sources a mixture of coherence and contradictions” (“Historical Scepticism”, p. 156). 26 CROSSAN, Jesus, p. XXXI: “The fundamental word is independent” (Crossan’s italics). Meier, meanwhile, correctly states that the strength of the attestation is increased if a tradition is found in several literary sources and/or in several genres (Marginal Jew, I, p. 174).

52

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

is, a check must be made in each case that no contact between the sources existed; it is only then that it can be concluded that the tradition attested is older than the oldest of the sources.27 Even if it could be objected that this tradition does not necessarily correspond to Jesus, it is clear that it takes us back to a very early stage. It should be noted that this criterion of multiple attestation is only valid if the traditions cannot be explained as tendencies of early Christianity. It should also be added that this criterion cannot function alone.28 It must be applied within the framework of the criterion of historical plausibility, looking at historical reconstruction together with, and at the same time as, literary reconstruction – in other words, placing the sources in the historical setting and not isolating them as pure literary artefacts.29 With regard to the fourth, classic, historical criterion, that of “embarrassment”,30 this also ought to be incorporated into the overall criterion of historical plausibility. If an element does not square easily with the general picture of Jesus and is thus an embarrassment as far as that picture is concerned, it should be viewed as possibly belonging to an early stage of tradition. The early disciples would not have invented an element such as the baptism of Jesus by John, since it places John in a position of superiority with respect to Jesus. Despite this fact, the early community did include the baptism in their testimony to Jesus, accounting for it in some quite different ways.31 In summary, the criteria of multiple attestation and of embarrassment should be part of the methodology in the search for the historical Jesus but

27

The expression is Theissen’s (Jesus, p. 116). Theissen distinguishes between multiple attestation (several independent sources) and equivalence in the content of two sayings each attested by a single source. It is in the identification of sources that the stumbling block of the criterion of multiple attestation is found, as is seen in the work of Crossan and, following him, several other authors. Specifically, the Gospel of Thomas cannot be accepted as a witness in toto because in some instances at least its secondary character with respect to the Synoptic Gospels has been demonstrated (cf. nn. 12 and 23 above). Likewise, the use of Q, whose exact form is difficult to determine, or of a hypothetical wisdom source behind Q, needs to be treated with extreme care. 29 Fusco rightly criticizes Crossan for the priority he gives to his reconstitution of texts, on the sole basis of the criterion of multiple attestation, which he applies almost mechanically. He concludes: “Il n’est pas correct de supposer que le critère historique ne se met en mouvement qu’une fois que la critique littéraire a accompli sa tâche” (“Quête”, p. 52). Theissen makes the following comment on the use of sources when applying the criterion of multiple attestation: “you are on the one side dependent on the random preservation of some words or deeds of Jesus on some fragments of papyrus and on the other side dependent on the rather biased selection of Jesus sayings in the Gospel of Thomas” (“Historical Scepticism”, p. 159). 30 The terminology is that of Meier (Marginal Jew, I, p. 168). Theissen calls it “resistance to the tradition” (Jesus, p. 117). For Meier, this criterion is the most important one. 31 As can be seen from a comparison of Mt. 3.13-17; Lk. 3.19-22 and Jn 1.29-34 with Mk 1.9-11. 28

1. The Historical Method

53

cannot stand alone as a foundation for the search. The basic criterion has to be that of historical plausibility. 1.3. The criterion of historical plausibility Account must be taken of the four basic axes on which, according to G. Theissen, the criterion of historical plausibility should be established. These four axes are: impact and context, coherence (or similarity) and incoherence (or difference). The first two (impact and context) are a development of the old criterion of discontinuity and the last two are a reworking of the old criterion of coherence. By combining the four axes, the result is the four subcriteria of historicity, which represent the divisions of the principal criterion that ought to guide the search for the historical Jesus, namely, the criterion of historical plausibility. The first sub-criterion is the coherence among the Christian sources (Quellenkohärenz), as long as these sources are independent of one another and their singular traits cannot be explained as characteristics typical of the source, for instance as redactional traits. The expression “the kingdom of God” will serve as an illustration. It appears in five (or six including the Gospel of Thomas) of the basic sources: Q, Mk, special Mt. (M), special Lk. (L), and Jn. There is no doubt that it is an original expression.32 The second subcriterion is that of the contradiction between Christian tendencies (Tendenzwidrigkeiten): anything that is contrary to the major tendencies of the early Christian community can be thought to be authentic. An example would be the accusation levelled against Jesus for his lack of asceticism – he is seen as given to eating and drinking (Mt. 11.19 par. Lk. 7.34). Both these sub-criteria function in combination with each other and, in consequence, ought to be integrated into the criterion of the plausibility of impact (what Theissen calls Wirkungsplausibilität). In other words, it is not enough to relate the story of Jesus; account must also be given of how it shaped the Christian sources that transmit it, and of the impact Jesus had on the early disciples.33 Thus, in the example of the kingdom mentioned above, there is a clear divergence in the sources: is it a matter of a reality already present or is it something that belongs to some time in the future? As for Jesus’ attitude to food, attention 32

Cf. Q (Mt. 12.28 par. Lk. 11.20), Mk (10.24), M (Mt.13.24), L (Lk. 17.21), Jn (3.5). Cf. also GThom. 22 and Paul (e.g. Rom. 14.17). Another application of this sub-criterion involves the literary genres. If different literary genres are found within the same tradition, this tradition could well be historical. Theissen gives the example of the tradition about the miracles found both in the accounts of the miracles (narrative material) and in the logia (e.g. Mt. 11.20-24 par. Lk. 10.12-15). Cf. THEISSEN, “Historical Scepticism”, p. 158. Note that the criterion of multiple attestation reinforces the criterion of coherence among the sources even though it is not itself a central criterion. 33 THEISSEN, “Historical Scepticism”, p. 161.

54

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

could be drawn to the impact his fast in the desert at the beginning of his ministry would have had on the early Christian community.34 Given these divergences, it is important to proceed with caution and to speak of “plausibility”, in order that the limited nature of the sources may be taken seriously and their similarities and contradictions held in balance. In short, the traditions on Jesus are historically plausible – and they should be accepted as authentic – when they can be explained as the result of the impact that the life of Jesus had on them, either because of the coherence of the sources or because of the opposing elements that exist within them. Let us take now the second major criterion, that of the plausibility of the context (Kontextplausibilität). The starting point is the fact that no historical event can be interpreted in isolation. Taking account of the context means analysing the development of tradition in accordance with a clear methodological principle: historical facts and events must be situated in their context. In the case of Jesus, the historical context is that of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. It is in this context that Jesus must be situated, though without forgetting all the elements that characterize him and distinguish him from his context. At one and the same time, it is possible to identify elements in common and distinctive elements, even if the difference is a relative one. So really, it is a matter of a sub-category, which can be called the relationship to the Jewish context (Kontextentsprechung). From the outset, a tradition about Jesus must be situated in the Judaism of his time. The Jewish context will always be an essential reference point in the historical search for the prophet of Nazareth. The Jewishness of Jesus is a given that cannot be denied. Take again the example of the baptism of Jesus by John: this event corresponds to what is known about John the Baptist, either through Josephus or through the Christian sources.35 The fact that Jesus was baptised by John fits well with the Jewish milieu and the baptismal movements of the time, of which John’s was one. The second sub-criterion related to the plausibility of the context is that of the singularity in the Jewish context (Individualität). What this means is that Jesus stands out as a unique individual with the Jewish context. An example will serve to illustrate the point. Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, and thereby scandalised all those who thought of themselves as righteous and refused to engage in behaviour that went against the strict rules of purity of the Jewish Law.36 These two sub-criteria support each other and clearly one cannot function without the other. In other words, the criterion of the plausi34 Cf. Mk 1.12-13 (where it is not mentioned explicitly) and Mt. 4.2 par. Lk. 4.2. On the other hand, the logion on fasting (Mk 2.19-20; par. Mt. 9.15; par. Lk. 5.34-35) implies a somewhat reserved attitude towards fasting on the part of Jesus. 35 On Josephus, see AJ 18.116-119. On the Christian sources, cf. n. 31 above. 36 Cf. Mk 1.15-17; Mt. 11.9; par. Lk. 7.34; Lk. 19.1-10. Cf. also Mt. 21.31.

1. The Historical Method

55

bility of the context incorporates aspects pulling in two different directions, that of coherence and that of incoherence. Taking once more the example of Jesus’ baptism by John, the historical setting of the event can be verified (and implies the superiority of John over Jesus), but in the relationship between the two characters a distinctiveness on the part of Jesus may be observed: the disciple dares to declare that John, the master, is smaller than the smallest in the kingdom (cf. Mt. 11.11 par. Lk. 7.28). As for the friendship of Jesus with sinners, it shows the distinctive characteristics of Jesus compared with the attitude of the religious men of his time, and also in comparison with John. Jesus preaches conversion, but his central message is the kingdom of God. John, on the other hand, restricts his activity to preaching a baptism of conversion for everyone, righteous and sinners, in view of the impending divine judgement. In summary, the traditions about Jesus are historically plausible – and should be taken as authentic – when they fit with the Jewish context of Jesus’ activity and can be identified as unique events within this same context.37 It would appear that the approach to the criteria of historicity adopted by the New Quest needs to be revised. The criterion of discontinuity can no longer be applied on its own but must be combined with other criteria. In that sense, the criterion of historical plausibility possesses the necessary flexibility to become a worthy successor to the criterion of discontinuity, which is too rigid and inclined to lead to sterile results. This rigidity prevents the criterion from taking account of all the nuances demanded by a detailed search for the historical Jesus. The need for an overall criterion, one that draws together all the others, is felt by many exegetes. Meier believes that a “holistic” approach is still a distant goal.38 As for Fusco, he proposes that the criterion of “adequate explanation” should be the one that draws together all the others.39 37 HOLMÉN (“Doubts”, 75) suggests that the criteria of dissimilarity should not be applied to Judaism: the distinctiveness of Jesus should only be considered in relation to the early Christian community. According to Holmén, the dissimilarity of Jesus with respect to Judaism would be neither an indication of authenticity nor of inauthenticity; furthermore, if such dissimilarity were sought, it would lead to some strange distortions. This position is not new (for similar opinions, see the volume published by THEISSEN – WINTER, Kriterienfrage, pp. 270-316). It is quite true that care must be taken not to assimilate in a mechanical fashion discontinuity with singularity. An excessive concern to distinguish Jesus from Judaism has led scholars to some historical oversimplifications. A rigorous approach to 1st century Judaism is required in order to compare it with the praxis of Jesus, which sometimes coincides with it and sometimes differs from it. On the other hand, it would be wrong to ignore the historical problems that arise in attempting to paint an exact picture of Judaism at the time of Jesus: overconfidence in this respect would be inappropriate. In each and every case, it is necessary to weigh together the aspects of continuity – discontinuity that can be established between Jesus and 1st century Judaism. 38 MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 195, n. 66: “a ‘holistic’ approach remains a distant ideal”. The statement was made some time before the publications of Theissen. 39 FUSCO, “Quête”, pp. 55-56.

56

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

He insists on the unique process that should be followed to connect Judaism, Jesus and the Church. He maintains that anything that is indispensable to explain – it could be added “in a plausible manner” – the traditions to which he gave rise should be attributed to Jesus.40 Although Fusco’s wording only takes account of the impact of Jesus on early Christianity, it is obvious that Judaism, as the context of the Jesus tradition, is a central element. Other authors such as Latourelle and Lambiasi suggest similar ways forward.41 Be that as it may, it was Theissen who formulated the criterion of plausibility and the sub-criteria of historical authenticity regarding the traditions about Jesus. As has just been demonstrated, the analytical methodology developed by Theissen, in collaboration with Winter, is both sound and useful. In any event, its application is closely tied to the critical sensitivity of the person using it. Unlike the rigidity that characterizes the criterion of discontinuity, the mechanical way in which the criterion of multiple attestation is applied and the inadequacy of the criterion of coherence, it could be said that the criterion of plausibility takes into account all the necessary factors. This criterion allows for nuances and leads to an integrated view, despite a certain risk of ambiguity and imprecision.42 It is incumbent on the exegete to give due weight to each element under discussion in an attempt to draw a picture of Jesus that is not lacking in interpretative strength. 1st century Judaism (or

40 Even Crossan mentions the criterion of adequate explanation, calling it the “criterion of adequacy”. His definition is as follows: anything that best explains “the multiplicity engendered in the tradition” is original (cited by FUSCO, “Quête”, p. 55 n. 118). In his work on the historical Jesus, Crossan states that study is needed of “how the ways of the phenomenon Jesus, his preaching and fate, are refracted in the different early Christian writings” (Jesus, 155). 41 On these authors, see MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 194, n. 66. Latourelle calls this criterion “the criterion of necessary explanation”. Lambiasi even tries to give it a philosophical basis. 42 HOLMÉN, “Doubts”, p. 73 n. 106 criticizes Theissen – Winter, saying that the criterion of plausibility brings nothing new to the present discussion. In my opinion, what this criterion does is to take seriously the frequently observed need to interpret positively the old criterion of discontinuity. The distortions and the sterility that have dominated the New Quest on the one hand, and, on the other, the recent reductionist view that seeks a strictly Jewish portrait of Jesus, are avoided by using the criterion of historical plausibility. Its particular contribution is to give the necessary flexibility to the contextualisation of Jesus in Judaism and to provide a satisfactory account of the trajectories between Jesus and the early community. The result is an overall plausibility (in Theissen’s terminology, Gesamtplausibilität) that allows the characteristic traits of the historical Jesus to be drawn (THEISSEN – WINTER, Kriterienfrage, pp. 191-193 and pp. 206-214). Indeed, research should not lead to a general and generic picture of Jesus, one whose outline is blurred and that could be charged with being aprioristic. In research on the historical Jesus, the criteria used should avoid the pitfalls of being either excessively conciliatory or rigid.

2. The Connection between History and Faith

57

better: Judaisms) cannot be allowed to be an impassable barrier beyond which nothing can be said about Jesus or his message, his life and his ministry.43

2. The Connection between History and Faith In an article some twenty years ago, S. Brown alluded to the dominant theology of Europe in the 20th century in denouncing the separation between Jesus and the kerygma that characterized this theology. In his view, there was a problem of anachronism.44 In the theological culture of Postmodernism, identifying the historical Jesus and rediscovering his message indisputably constitute one combined venture. The most recent historical research has increased the level of confidence in the possibilities that are opening up for retrieving the figure of Jesus. The restating of the criterion of historicity, such as has been outlined here, brings a considerable degree of certainty concerning the historical Jesus. On the other hand, however, an attempt ought to be made to reconnect history and faith, which, in the name of reason, have been set against each other since the Enlightenment.45 It is true that Lessing tried to bridge the gap he created between faith and history by underlining the prior agreement that must exist between them. So, for example, the commandment to love is at one and the same time an eternal, self-evident truth and a historical truth firmly rooted in the teaching of Jesus. However, the theological foundation for this kind of agreement is lacking and as a result, understanding has to go through one or the other of either history (H.S. Reimaus) or eternal truths (D.F. Strauss). Thus, the Jesus of the liberal school is simply a master of eternal truths, separated from Christological dogma. The rediscovery of the 43 Theissen insists on the value of Judaism as a border that must not be crossed. In this respect, the following statement should be noted: “what cannot be ‘derived’ from the Judaism of the time is probably non historical” (Jesus, p. 118). This statement, which is correct in itself, must not deflect our attention away from the historical figure of Jesus in his individual complexity (THEISSEN – WINTER, Kriterienfrage, p. 191). The aim of research is to show who Jesus was, not to demonstrate what is obvious from the outset, that is, his Jewishness. 44 Brown writes: “... the wall of separation between Jesus and the kerygma which Bultmann erected is an anachronism which... contributes to the sterility and irrelevance... (of) New Testament scholarship” (S. BROWN, “Jesus, History and Kerygma. A Hermeneutical Reflection”, in H. FRANKEMÖLLE – K. KERTELGE [eds], Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. Fs. J. Gnilka [Freiburg i. Br., 1989], pp. 487-496, here 496). 45 The rationalism of the Enlightenment, which had no small influence on modern thought, is apparent in the famous distinction drawn by Lessing between the truths of reason (obvious and necessary) and historical truths (limited and incidental). Lessing thus created an unbridgeable gap between eternal truths (the kerygma adhered to by faith) and historical events (the search for the historical Jesus undertaken within the “limits of reason”), in such a way that a historical truth cannot be used to demonstrate a truth of reason. Cf. FUSCO, “Quête”, pp. 27-31; see also THEISSEN, “Historical Scepticism”, pp. 147-150.

58

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

eschatological dimension of the message of Jesus (A. Schweitzer) entails the downfall of the liberal Jesus, but the picture of the apocalyptical Jesus, returned quite rightly to the Jewish context of his time, is overall just as far removed from Christian theology. The gulf opened up by Lessing got wider and wider throughout the 19th century. The liberal Jesus, the gentle preacher of universal and essential ethical truths, and the apocalyptic Jesus, the Jewish prophet of an imminent kingdom, share a common distance from the Christ confessed in the kerygma. The attempt of the Old Quest to retrieve the historical Jesus led to a remarkable variety of results, accompanied by a separation between the kerygma and historical research. In the 20th century, Bultmann already placed himself firmly on the side of the post-Easter confession of faith. His theological project, which was hermeneutical in character, was addressed to the modern man and woman and to their subjectivity, where the action of grace takes place and where faith is rooted. For Bultmann, the Christ of the kerygma is at the centre of theological discourse, whereas the historical Jesus (a rabbi? a prophet?), placed in his Jewish context, has almost no meaning for faith and theology. Furthermore, the quest for the historical Jesus could be dangerous for the kerygma because it could produce a faith that includes the message of Jesus!46 Bultmann thus aligns himself with the Old Quest, which sought to safeguard the neutrality of reason and purify faith from dogmatism, and he fights for the right of modern people to have access to faith, freed from the mythical formulations of the Christian message. The dissociation of faith from history thus continues. As a matter of fact, the search for the historical Jesus ended up with a historical reconstruction that was, when all is said and done, rather flimsy. With the New Quest, the aim is to bring back together the historical Jesus and the Christ of the confession of faith. The fundamental methodological tool is the criterion of dissimilarity, already used by Bultmann though now taken up with a different purpose: to reach the Jesus of history. Nevertheless, the special importance accorded to the criterion of dissimilarity continues to maintain the tension between Jesus and the post-Easter community, so that the two realities are set against each other. The same could be said of Jesus and Judaism. Lessings’s “gulf” is still at the centre of the problem. For some authors of the so-called Third Quest the opposition between history and kerygma may take on different forms, yet it remains the point of departure. With striking coherence, J.D. Crossan identifies the Christian faith as an act of faith in the historical Jesus, perceived as the direct manifestation

46

Bultmann claims that the idea of establishing a historical foundation for faith is like seeking a false security. But history is not the enemy of faith. Otherwise, as S. Brown points out with a certain irony: “Paradoxically, faith based on the message of Jesus would not be Christian faith” (BROWN, “Jesus, History and Kerygma”, p. 490; his italics).

2. The Connection between History and Faith

59

of God.47 The task of the exegetes is to reconstitute what Jesus said (verba) and what he did (facta), and to put that forward as the object of faith. Jesus of the past becomes Jesus of today in so far as he is interpreted in relation to the present. The canon of faith is no longer the fourfold Gospel but the gospel of Jesus that has been critically reconstituted by the science of exegesis. The object of faith is the historical Jesus, presented as an alternative to the Christ of the kerygma.48 However, this does not mean that one should speak of only one faith. On the contrary, the Christian faith, as an actualization of the message of Jesus, is necessarily multiform. Each generation of believers has to make afresh its own reading of the historical Jesus, just as in the New Testament the various theologies represent different ways of reading the story. So for Crossan, the historical Jesus is the direct object of a faith that is constructed on a unique basis, whether personal or belonging to a church.49 What this Irish-American exegete proposes goes beyond the simply historical and becomes something theological. From a strictly methodological point of view, the following question arises: why should an absolute value, one on which the act of faith is based, be accorded to this reconstruction of the historical Jesus?50 As for J.P. Meier, he affirms outright the opposite of Crossan: the historical Jesus is a scientific reconstruction of modern criticism and cannot be the true object of the Christian faith. For Meier, the object of faith is simply Jesus Christ, the one who is resurrected and seated at the right hand of the Father.51 As both a believer and an exegete, he insists on a clear distinction being maintained: between what is known of Jesus as a historian and what is confessed about him as a believer.52 Consequently, he resolves to limit himself to pure history when writing about this marginal Jew who was Jesus of Nazareth, without bringing into his research any element that could be construed as

47 The statement is taken from CROSSAN, Jesus and Faith. A Conversation on the Work of John Dominic Crossan (p. 3), published in 1994. It is quoted by M.M. JACOBS, “The Relation between Jesus, Christ and Christian Faith in Current Historical Jesus Scholarship”, Neot 30 (1996), pp. 151-168. 48 The resurrection, which is the central element in the kerygmatic theology of Bultmann and his disciples, becomes a secondary event. It may well be asked, with L.T. Johnson, what has become, for Crossan, of Christology, the Trinity and the Church (L.T. JOHNSON, Real Jesus, p. 50). 49 Note may be made of the title of the book by I.H. MARSHALL, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997). 50 See the reflections of C.S. EVANS on the critical method in his work, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith. The Incarnational Narrative as History (New York, 1996), pp. 326-327. 51 MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 198: “the object of Christian faith is a living person”. 52 “... what I know about Jesus by research and reason and what I would by faith”, (MEIER, Marginal Jew, I, p. 6). We are still in Lessing’s ditch!

60

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

Christological or theological.53 He seeks to write as an honest historian, keeping his convictions as a believer out of the picture. This, too, throws up a question: what value for the confession of faith is there in investing such enormous effort in historical research? Meier’s answer is unequivocal: there is little value if one seeks only the direct object of the Christian faith, namely, Jesus Christ crucified, resurrected and alive in the Church.54 From his point of view, research on Jesus has two purposes: it makes a contribution to theology in so far as theology has the role of presenting the Christian message to contemporary culture with historical credibility; secondly, research on the historical Jesus gives a concrete content to faith. Nonetheless – Meier insists – faith is above all adhesion to a person and only in a secondary sense does it involve adhesion to what the person said or what is said about the person.55 It seems to me that in actual fact we are not far from the position of Bultmann: the message of Jesus is not part of the kerygma, of what Meier calls “the essential content of faith”, even if this message must be “an integral part of modern theology”.56 The separation of ‘faith’ and ‘theology’ echoes that of ‘kerygma’ and ‘history’, which has become the classical distinction between Christ and Jesus. Meier is doubtless aware of this and that is why he puts forward a means to bring the two poles together: the post-Easter Christ is the direct and essential object of faith, whereas the historical Jesus (pre-Easter) is part of the content of faith. There is still an ambiguity. The dilemma stated by M.J. Borg is as strong as ever. What is to be the definitive norm of faith: the historical Jesus or the canonical Jesus? Crossan chooses the first and Meier, with the various qualifications already discussed, the second. For Crossan, the postEaster community has no theological significance. For Meier, what is important is the meaning of the life of Jesus for the kerygma and faith.57 The reconstruction of the historical Jesus can in no wise be, as Crossan claims, the foundation of faith. This would make Bultmann right to say that the resultant faith would be one that depended on works for its justification. It is rather the Jesus-event, as it is told in the Gospel accounts, that should be the object of faith. The Christian faith is founded on the whole life journey of Jesus, the Christ, including all of his ministry, his words and his deeds, his passion, death and burial, and his resurrection as shown through his appearances. We confess the Christ who died and was resurrected, earthly and heavenly, pre-Easter and post-Easter, in other words, the one who participated in 53 Meier prefers “to write history rather than covert theology or christology” (Marginal Jew, II, p. 1). 54 Ibid., I, p. 198. 55 “Primarily, Christian faith... adheres to this person... and only secondarily to ideas and affirmations about him” (Ibid., I, p. 198). 56 Ibid., I, pp. 198-199. 57 JACOBS, “The Relation between Jesus, Christ and Christian Faith”, p. 109.

2. The Connection between History and Faith

61

human history and went beyond its limits. We confess the person of Jesus, rooted in the specific context of 1st century Judaism and seen through what the early Christian community said about him. Widening the scope somewhat, we confess him as one who comes from God, in the announcement of his coming (the promise), in his humanity (the incarnation) and in his glory (the second coming). A line can be traced between the oldest Christological kerygma and the symbol of faith, which rests on the New Testament as also on the apostolic tradition handed down through the Fathers of the Church. Throughout the entire trajectory, a close link is maintained between history and faith. The pattern of the early centuries shows that an unbreachable separation between faith and history should not be created. Rather, continuity between the two should be re-established, based on a holistic understanding of faith, which has nothing to do with a facile harmonisation. Furthermore, this continuity corresponds to the very nature of the New Testament kerygma: Jesus the crucified one is the Christ, the resurrected one, the Lord.58 The gulf between history and faith, created by rationalistic thinking, needs to be bridged by reasoned thinking that is capable of rediscovering the approach to Jesus experienced by the early Church. It is plain that the criteria of historicity are the means with which to bring together Judaism, Jesus and the early community. In accordance with what has been said here, what is needed is to look for plausibility in the traditions about Jesus, in their impact on the early Church and in their contextualisation in the Judaism of the time. By doing this, it will be possible to determine just who Jesus was, through his message and through his life journey. Continuity is the hallmark of this rediscovery. The search for the historical Jesus cannot be carried out against Judaism and/or the early community, but in comparison with one and the other (looking at differences and similarities). For that reason, a search based on units of tradition (a saying, a parable, a miracle story) must take account of movement in both directions: from the early Church to Jesus and from Jesus to the early Church. The sub-criterion of the plausibility of impact needs to be carefully applied in that respect. In order to define the traces left by Jesus in the traditions of the sources and retrieve from them the historical person of Jesus, it is essential not to exclude the possibility of retrieving to some extent the original content of the material, especially of what Jesus said. One of the most striking examples is that of the parables. In

58 Mk 16.6; Lk. 24.5; Jn 20.27-28; Acts 2.32; Rom. 10.9; 1 Cor. 15.3-5; 1 Tim. 3.16; Heb. 1.3; Rev. 5.12. As Theissen wrote: “The whole story of Jesus (the historical Jesus and the Christ believed to have risen) is the foundation of Christian faith” (Jesus, p. 513). Post-Easter Christological reflection is an inconstestable proof of it. Cf. J.N. ALETTI, Jésus-Christ fait-il l’unité du Nouveau Testament? (Jésus et Jésus-Christ 61; Paris, 1994).

62

Chapter 1: The Search for the Historical Jesus

other instances (the miracles, for example), the search for the original core of the story can lead to meagre and disappointing results. With the New Quest were introduced the concepts of ‘implicit Christology’ and ‘implicit ecclesiology’. The latest refinements of the criteria of historicity can be useful for specifying what Jesus said about God, about himself, about the community of disciples, sinners, the kingdom… A flexible methodology that attempts to combine contradictory elements, such as that of Theissen, serves to free certain issues from a cul-de-sac (for example, the messianism of Jesus). The search for the historical Jesus, at times judged as a failure and at others viewed as a total success, must contribute to consolidating the foundation of the Christian faith. Historical scepticism, born in the century of the Enlightenment, has brought with it a mistrust of the sources concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which is sometimes confused with scientific rigour: the more sceptical one is, the more critical. However, a permanent attitude of suspicion can end up as a bias that contributes rather to a distortion of the results of research. Mistakes can be caused as much by an excess of critical thinking as by a lack of it.59 As far as the historical value of the four canonical Gospels is concerned, their witness should be accepted except where there is good reason to doubt it.60 The Synoptic Gospels and, in certain instances, the Gospel of John, did not deform the Jesus tradition in spite of the modifications that they brought to it.61 It is precisely the old Formegeschichte that has taught us to view the canonical Gospels as composite documents in which the traditions about Jesus were gathered and reformulated several times in the course of their growth. It is not out of place to adopt an attitude of trust as a starting point in the search for the historical Jesus.62 The agreements between the sources that are apparent in a certain number of cases should be a stimulus to research.

59

The onus probandi should not necessarily be placed on the side of the one seeking to demonstrate authenticity. The arguments of the opposite position should also be considered. As Hooker points out, “we are being no more ‘cautious’ or ‘safe’ in our procedure if we discard doubtful material than if we retain it” (“Christology”, p. 485). 60 Cf. C.S. EVANS, Historical Christ, p. 335. Evans comments that a text that is “heavy” with redactional elements can equally well contain elements of early tradition (ibid., pp. 337338). 61 The tradition about Jesus “was overshadowed, but not obliterated” (BROWN, “Jesus, History and Kerygma”, p. 491). 62 Note may be made of the statement by C.S. Evans: “There is just as much risk in a sceptical policy as in a more trusting policy” (Historical Christ, p. 339).

Chapter 2

The Birth of Jesus The evidence from the sources is unanimous about Jesus’ hometown: Nazareth. The sign or title placed above the cross seems to be decisive, as it is mentioned in each of the four Gospels. Indeed, it was placed there on the orders of the Roman authorities. Likewise, the name “Jesus of Nazareth” is found in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2.22; 3.6; 4.10; 6.14; and elsewhere). There is no doubting, then, the link between Jesus and Nazareth, his place of origin. Nazareth is described as “his own country” (Mk 6.1; Mt. 13.54), or his city, and “their own city (that of Joseph and Mary)” (Lk. 2.39), where his family lived. Nathanael, a Galilean like Jesus and a future disciple, asks ironically “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (Jn 1.46). Similarly, the crowds that accompany Jesus at his arrival in Jerusalem, a few days before the passion, declare: “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee” (Mt. 21.11). At the other extreme, the religious authorities in Jerusalem reply to Nicodemus, a Jewish leader who had dared to go and meet Jesus: “Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee” (Jn 7.52). Jesus’ name (Yeshu) in the Talmud is invariably qualified as ha-notsrí, “the Nazarene”. Despite their differences, the adjectives -.& and -/&
both confirm the link of Jesus with Nazareth as does the name -0
alongside the less common Greek form -1 . In the Talmud again, the usual name for Christians is ha-notsrim, “the Nazarenes”. This use is also seen in Acts 24.5 where Tertullus, speaking on behalf of the Sanhedrin leaders as he sets out their accusation against Paul to the governor Felix, refers to the “sect of the Nazarenes”. Faced with this amount of incontrovertible evidence, many authors have defended the idea, and with good reason obviously, that Jesus was born in Nazareth and, thus, that no distinction should made between his place of origin and his place of birth. There would appear to be little in favour of the alternative picture of the narratives of Jesus’ childhood both in Matthew (2.1) and Lk. (2.4, 6-7), which distinguish between the place where Jesus was born (Bethlehem of Judaea, Mt. 2.1; Lk. 2.4, 6-7) and the place where he was brought up (Lk. 4.16) and spent his childhood, adolescence, youth and a good part of adulthood, until he was, approximately, thirty years old, namely, Nazareth in Galilee (Mt. 2.22-23; Lk. 3.23). Obviously, there must have been rea-

64

Chapter 2: The Birth of Jesus

sons for presenting Bethlehem as the place of the birth of Mary’s son rather than Nazareth, his parents’ hometown.

1. The Differences between Matthew and Luke A straightforward reading of the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke reveals significant differences between the two. In Matthew, the report of the birth and the early years of the child Jesus links them exclusively to Bethlehem of Judaea (Mt. 2.1) and not to Nazareth, the town from which his parents came according to Luke. In fact, Matthew makes no mention at all of Nazareth in connection with the conception and birth of Jesus. Bethlehem in Judaea is the only place named, and it is in a “house” in Bethlehem of Judaea that the wise men from the East found Mary and her son Jesus (2.11). Furthermore, Matthew records that Herod had all the children of Bethlehem killed “who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men”. (2.16). This information suggests that the visit of the wise men took place some time after the birth of Jesus (two years?) and not immediately after it: the Greek participle 2  3& (2.2) does not, in itself, carry any indication of time. It is the mention of the “house” (2.11) that leads to the idea that Bethlehem is the town where Joseph and Mary were living at the time of Jesus’ birth. Indeed, implicitly, it seems to suggest that they were living there before Jesus was born.1 Is this a house belonging to Joseph, descendent of David and a member of the family of the great king of Israel? Or are Joseph, Mary and Jesus being accommodated by one of Joseph’s relatives, who, like him, belong to the Davidic dynasty? Later, during the persecution launched by Herod, Matthew records that Joseph, with Mary and the child, had to flee by night and to take refuge in Egypt. They would not return to Bethlehem: Joseph, learning that Arquelaus, Herod’s son, was ruling Judaea on the death of his father (2.22), was afraid to go back there and took his family to Nazareth, a small town in Galilee where they began a new life. The picture painted by Luke is somewhat different. Nazareth is the town where Mary lived and where she was visited by the angel Gabriel, announcing her pregnancy (1.31).2 At that point, Mary was the legal spouse of Joseph in 1 Note should be made in any case of the ambiguity concerning locality in Matthew 1. Mt. 1.20, 24 says that Joseph took Mary, that is, accepted her as his wife. This suggests that there was a marriage and that they began living together but no mention is made of these events. Likewise, there is no reference to a “house” or to “land” that Joseph may have owned. 2 At Lk. 1.28, it is said that the angel “went in to her (Mary)” ( 4  5 6& 7 8), which suggests that Mary was inside a building. Later, reference will be made to the “house” of Mary in Nazareth as the place where she lived (1.56: 6 9 7 &).

1. The Differences between Matthew and Luke

65

so far as she had been promised in marriage to him but they had not yet begun living together. This is apparent from Mary’s answer to the angel’s announcement of her pregnancy, when she says, “How can that be since I am a virgin (lit. I know no man)?” (1.34; cf. Mt. 1.18). The wedding of Joseph and Mary, following which they would live together, had not taken place when they set off to Bethlehem, meaning that Joseph and Mary had not lived under the same roof before their journey.3 As for Joseph, it is not stated explicitly where Joseph came from nor where he lived because, according to Luke, he had to go to Bethlehem of Judaea for the census and, for this reason, he had to go up with Mary “from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth” (Lk. 2.4), to register in “his city [of origin]” (2.3). Likewise, after Jesus’ birth, Joseph and Mary would return from Judaea to Nazareth, which is described as “their own city” (2.39). It seems then that Joseph had two hometowns: Bethlehem and Nazareth. In any case, Joseph is presented as belonging to the family of David, and, thus, Bethlehem, the city of David, was the place from where he originated. Is this irrefutable proof that Joseph was born in Bethlehem? And, if it is not, how many generations ago did the ancestors of Joseph leave Bethlehem and move to Galilee? Whatever the answer to those questions, according to Luke it seems that Joseph did not have his own house in Bethlehem, nor did anyone put them up even though Mary was heavily pregnant and about to give birth to a son whom Joseph acknowledged as his own: does this mean that, if Luke is to be believed, Mary gave birth in a stable, in a public caravanserail where the travellers would be sheltered overnight and where Joseph and Mary also tried to get a room for the night? A stable outside Bethlehem? After circumcising the baby eight days after his birth, as laid down by the Law of Moses, apparently in Bethlehem, they went to the Temple in Jerusalem to carry out the rite of purification of the mother 40 days after the birth, also in accordance with the Law of Moses (Lev. 12.1-8).4 From there, they did Note that Mary is presented as  1 3
(1.27, when the angel Gabriel goes to her) and :  1 7 ; (2.5, when she arrives in Bethlehem with Joseph), an expression that refers to the legal status of a Jewish woman who is married but not yet living with her husband. It can be translated as “betrothed” or, better, “promised in marriage”. 4 It is striking that without giving any details about the Jewish customs, Luke links the purification of Mary (Leviticus 12) with the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Exod. 13.2, 12, 15), producing the odd expression of Lk. 2.22, “their purification [of the mother and the son!]”. In fact, as F. Bovon points out, the presence of the child was not required for the mother’s purification; see F. BOVON, L’Évangile selon saint Luc (1,1-9,50) (CNT 3a; Geneva, 1991), p. 137. While the offering of a pair of pigeons or doves was obligatory for the woman’s purification (Lev. 12.8), it was also the sacrifice required from a man who had taken a vow of nazir and set himself apart for God, if it happened that he incurred ritual impurity (Num. 6.9-12). Perhaps that could explain the reference in Lk. 2.22 to the purification of both Mary and Jesus. 3

66

Chapter 2: The Birth of Jesus

not go back to Bethlehem but apparently went directly to Galilee, to Nazareth, the town from where they had travelled (2.39). Nazareth was the place where Mary seems to have been born and, probably, where Joseph lived when he made the marriage agreement with her and her parents and where the contract, the ketuba, was drawn up. The second point of divergence between Matthew and Luke concerns the legal situation of Joseph and Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth. As already indicated, Matthew and Luke agree in saying that when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb, she and Joseph were “betrothed”, i.e., legally they were husband and wife, but they were not yet living together (Mt. 1.18; Lk. 1.34). The question is precisely to find out when they started living together as a married couple. According to Matthew, this came about before Jesus was born. The angel of God told Joseph to “take” ( /) Mary as his wife (Mt. 1.20) and Joseph obeyed without delay (1.24). Mary and Joseph became husband and wife in the fullest sense, legally and, above all, socially, as they both now lived under the same roof (which accounts for the detail that they did not have sexual relations before the baby was born, cf. 1.25). Their situation is thus entirely in order, with presumably a full wedding ceremony unless, of course, Mary’s pregnancy meant a more limited celebration. However, according to Luke, when Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem and Jesus was born, it seems that they were still to be found in the same situation they were in when living in Nazareth. They were legally married, but, apparently, they were not yet living together (cf. Lk. 1.27 and 2.5, where the same expression is used to refer to Mary: :  1; see note 3 above). This implies a certain level of irregularity, at least from the point of view of the vox populi, as Joseph was to be the legal father of a child (the marriage agreement was valid in all its aspects!) without having begun to live with his legitimate wife and the mother of the child. Of course, it could be deduced that the concern of both Matthew and Luke is theological (Jesus, the Son of God, has to be born of a virgin!), but this is not the only possible reading of the information they provide: behind the factual events described by Matthew and Luke, there is a series of anomalies and inconsistencies concerning the conception of Jesus and his mother’s pregnancy which cannot be overlooked. Interestingly, neither in Matthew where Joseph and Mary’s situation is completely in order before the birth of Jesus, nor in Luke where there are still some irregularities, is there any mention of certain biographical details that could have been expected: the wedding of Jesus’ parents, the marriage feast during which the wife was solemnly taken from her house and introduced to the house of the husband. There is a strange silence in both Gospels, which concords with the disturbing nature of Jesus’ birth arising from its unusual circumstances. In point of fact, though the marriage customs varied slightly

1. The Differences between Matthew and Luke

67

between Galilee and Judaea, normally two ceremonies took place, the drawing up of the marriage agreement, the ketuba, and the wedding, which marked the onset of co-habitation. An interval of a year separated the two, during which time the wife set about gathering her dowry and making preparations for the wedding feast.5 If, during the course of this year, the man and the woman had sexual relations, this was not condemned by the rabbis, but, in social terms, it would have been viewed as out of order since it went against the customs and, indeed, it may have led to doubts or gossip as to who the child’s father was. In Jesus’ case, there were doubts, as can be seen from both Mt. 1.19 (on the part of Joseph) and Mk 6.3 (on the part of the people of Nazareth). Matthew says that Joseph wanted to avoid Mary’s public shame for people would have thought – apparently like Joseph’s first reaction – that Mary had committed adultery if it had become known that she was pregnant by a man who was not her legal husband. He therefore decided to undertake a legal action, though in secret, in order to annul the marriage agreement and free Mary from the stigma of adultery.6 Mk 6.3 uses the unusual expression “the son of Mary”, which shows precisely that people knew Jesus equally as Mary’s (only) child and as the son of Joseph. The reference to the mother reflects the unusual social conditions surrounding Jesus’ conception, since Mary had not yet started living with Joseph; it likewise conveys the ironic and somewhat disrespectful tone used by the people of Nazareth when discussing the whole affair, and left Jesus with a name that sounded like a stigma. In a remarkable tour de force, B. Chilton has attempted in recent years to construct a hypothesis to justify the information given by Matthew and Luke. The keystone of his solution is the location of Bethlehem, which he suggests was in Galilee and not in Judaea. As a matter of fact, there is a Bethlehem mentioned in the Bible (Jos. 19.15, cf. Jud. 12.8, 10), situated some 12 km to the west of Nazareth. According to Chilton this is where Joseph, a widower with children, would have lived and had a relationship with a girl much younger than himself, Mary from Nazareth. Mary would have had a child at Joseph’s house in Galilean Bethlehem, where Joseph would have taken her to avoid the gossip in Nazareth. Later, Joseph and Mary would have settled in Nazareth, with the children of Joseph’s first marriage.7 5

See A. PUIG I TÀRRECH, La Parabole des Dix Vierges (AnBib 102; Rome,1983), pp. 202-210. 6 The term “adultery” was applied in the tradition of Israel to a married woman (see, e.g., Lev. 20.10; Deut. 22.22) or to one promised in marriage (Deut. 22.23-24). Furthermore, it is clear that a woman was supposed to be a virgin when she married (Deut. 22.13-21). 7 See B. CHILTON, Jesus. An Intimate Biography (New York, 2000), pp. 5-22. Chilton believes that Jesus was a mamzer, one excluded from his own community. The reason would have been the fact that Mary was pregnant by someone from outside Nazareth, leading to the

68

Chapter 2: The Birth of Jesus

Despite Chilton’s attempt to reconstruct the story of Jesus’ conception and birth on the basis of two places in Galilee, Nazareth and Bethlehem, there is a lack of evidence, both in Jewish and Christian tradition, for this hypothesis. It is an interesting conjecture, based on a supposed topographical error. According to Chilton, early Christian tradition would have made use of the existence of two places called Bethlehem (the one in Judaea and the other in Galilee) to reinforce the Davidic ancestry of Jesus, connecting his birth with the place where David was born. The merit of his position is that it at least takes the reference to Bethlehem in both Matthew and Luke seriously. Many scholars assume that the mention of Bethlehem is simply a theological device to prove that the prophecy of Mic. 5.1 (cited by Mt. 2.6), linking the Messiah with Bethlehem in the “land of Judah”, was fulfilled with the birth of Jesus there.8 Thus, the question remains: was Jesus born in Nazareth in Galilee or in Bethlehem in Judaea?

2. The Similarities between Matthew and Luke Despite the differences between the accounts of Matthew and Luke, the two Gospels do agree on a number of points. The most obvious is, indeed, Bethlehem as the place of Jesus’ birth (Mt. 2.1; Lk. 2.4, 15). Both Gospel accounts attest this locality. In my opinion, the historicity of the information cannot be simply rejected in favour of viewing it as a statement with theological significance, intended to prove that Jesus was the Messiah because he was a descendent of David, born in Bethlehem.9 An explanation would have to be found to account for two distinct sources –which often differ from each other – give the same name. From where did they get this information? Is it supposed to be an apologetic detail designed to counter the Jewish objections to Jesus’ messiahship, arising from the fact that he was born in Nazareth? And if it were an invention to “prove” Jesus’ Davidic lineage, one created by the suspicion that there had been an illegitimate relationship since “it was virtually impossible for her to prove that he (Joseph) was the father” (13). 8 R.E. Brown sets out the various reasons for which caution is needed in treating the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem as a simple theological invention. Brown rightly points out that the anti-Christian polemic of the 2nd cent. focused on the question of Jesus’ origins (a legitimate child or a bastard) and not on the locality as such (unlike Jn 7.42): most people who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah in the 1st – 2nd centuries CE (as, for example, Bar Kokhba) were not born in Bethlehem without that being an obstacle to their cause. Account must be also taken of the information given by Origen concerning the concealment by the Jewish rabbis of the references to the origin of the Messiah in Bethlehem (cf. c. Cels. 1.51). See R.E. BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York, 21993), pp. 513-514. 9 The Davidic origin of Jesus is affirmed at Mt. 1.20; 2.6; Lk. 1.27, 32-33; 1.69; 2.4, 11.

2. The Similarities between Matthew and Luke

69

early community, why are there not more similar references in the writings about his childhood and, in particular, how does that account for the focus that Matthew and Luke place on Bethlehem? The second element that is shared by the two Gospels is the story of an eventful and laborious journey undertaken by the characters of the story (Joseph and Mary, and including Jesus) as part of the events surrounding the birth of Mary’s baby. In the case of Matthew, the journey takes the form of a flight, carried out in haste and at night away from Bethlehem, which had been the place where all three had so far lived, towards Egypt; the journey was prompted by the persecution of Herod and resulted in exile throughout the duration of Herod’s life. As for Luke, the journey had Bethlehem as its destination and was also brought on by a political event – the census decreed by the Emperor Octavian Augustus for the whole of the Roman Empire. This would have represented a difficult journey for the mother of Jesus, apparently at an advanced stage in her pregnancy, accompanying Joseph, her husband, from Nazareth where they lived, apparently separately. Once in Bethlehem, Mary gave birth, far from home and without any help from anyone. In the first scenario, Jesus was a refugee and an exile; in the second, he was a displaced person and an outsider. Bethlehem is in the middle of these events. Which of the two “journeys” is the more likely historically: that of Bethlehem– Egypt (Matthew) or Nazareth – Bethlehem (Luke)? It looks as if Matthew 1–2 depends more than Luke 1–2 on a theological concern to prove the Davidic origin of Jesus and therefore is not devoid of an apologetic purpose. The result is that Luke’s episode seems more reliable from a historical point of view, and it should be preferred over Matthew’s even though the latter should not be ignored altogether. The Lukan episode, despite the alterations and embellishments it has suffered in the course of its transmission, even at the hands of Luke himself, fits closely with the basic facts concerning the birth of Jesus that have been transmitted by tradition. The information that can be derived from the other two Gospels, Mark and John, is minimal. There is no allusion to Bethlehem in Mark. The first time that the narrative mentions Jesus, he is presented as coming from Nazareth in Galilee (Mk 1.9). This information is repeated in all four Gospels and should be treated as certain: Nazareth is the place of Jesus’ origin. And yet, I believe that the argument e silentio concerning the place of Jesus’ birth in Mark allows no conclusion to be drawn with regard to Mark on this question. As for John’s Gospel, the only relevant reference is at Jn 7.42. J.P Meier rightly points out the ambiguity of this verse:10 “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” If the sentence is taken at face value, the conclusion is 10

J.P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL; New York, 1991), I, pp. 214-216.

70

Chapter 2: The Birth of Jesus

that Jesus cannot be the Messiah since he was not born in Bethlehem. However, it is equally possible to understand it ironically, in which case those who utter it in fact affirm what they claim to deny: it only needs to be supposed that the readers were fully aware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that those who asked the question were not. Consequently, what was intended as a negative statement is transformed into a positive one, as a proof of the messiahship of Jesus. This would not, of course, be the only example of irony in John’s Gospel, where it is both sharp and abundant. Another example is the greeting of the soldiers when they mock Jesus and say, “Hail, King of the Jews!” – thus affirming what the readers know, while imagining they are denying it. The same can be said of the inscription above the cross (19.9). So Jn 7.42 cannot be appealed to as conclusive evidence that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, given that the enemies are often made by John to make statements that contradict their own opinions, and there would be nothing odd if Jn 7.42 in fact asserted that Bethlehem, the city of David, was the birthplace of Jesus. In view of the above, there is no problem with affirming as a basic fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, a place that Mary, who was pregnant, and her legal spouse, Joseph, travelled to in order to stay there temporarily. For reasons that are only briefly hinted at in Matthew and Luke, and that included the need to be registered in the census, they travelled together on a long journey of about 200 kms to Bethlehem. It is not clear how difficult were the circumstances of the journey in view of the imminent birth, for it is not known how advanced was her pregnancy when they left Nazareth or how long it was before her son was born. Whatever the case, after a stay in Bethlehem of Judaea, during which the child Mary had been carrying was born, the couple returned with the baby to Nazareth, possible after a stay in Egypt on account of the persecution of Herod. That would be the historical core of the story surrounding the birth of Jesus. This core, however, must be situated within the religious, social and political framework of the period at the end of the 1st century BCE and the beginning of the 1st century CE when Jesus was born.

3. A Roman Census Decreed by Augustus? Why would Jesus have been born outside Nazareth if his parents lived (and were probably born) in that town in Galilee? What could have prompted Joseph and Mary to travel from the town where they lived to Bethlehem of Judaea? Luke justifies Joseph and Mary’s journey with a “census” (