According to Mark 8:11-13 Jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign". Why? had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet? I propose (not original to me) that some early form of Mark (UrMark) or Q contained no miracles. i Cor 1:22 seems to have Paul renouncing the Jews for wanting to see a miraculous sign. This implies that the Pauline Jesus was not a iracle worker. In fact nowhere in the authentic Paulines do we see any miraculous signs performed by his Christ.
Notice tho that this bare statement in Mark gets used for apologetic purposes in Luke 11:29, Matt 12:38-40 and the doublet at 16:1-4. First note that the villification of the Jews and the fictionalization of Pharisee opposition in particular is secondary to the Jesus story. (another time). Note that the Jews in general are condemned as the"generation" that sought a sign in Luke 11 whereas the others all have the request coming from the Pharisees. This makes me feel the Mark originally was addressing the crowds and was later harmonised with Matt.
Note too that in Matt and Luke the addition of the comment about the "sign of Jonah". This possibly felt appropriate after the pubic resurrection appearances and the adoption of the 3 day death and life cycle was added to the story. Later yet the addition of countless healings and signs were added in the image of Apollonius of Tyana and OT prophets.
I realise this makes much of the pagan godman motif secondary, hmmmmm.
Jesus gave no signs
by peacefulpete 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
peacefulpete
-
Euphemism
Interesting hypothesis, Peacefulpete!
The idea of Jesus not being a miracle-worker, however, would seem like an odd background for the Pauline charismatic church. (E.g. 1 Cor 12:10, 14:22)
-
El blanko
What about healing the sick, casting out demons, creating huge amounts of food out of little, the resurrection etc ?
It is a matter of faith in the accounts of course, but I see you are not a man of faith by your words.
-
Narkissos
In Mark miracles are not "signs" (semeia, as in John), but lit. "powers" or "powerful acts" (dunameis, 6:5 etc., compare to the use of the singular e.g. in 5:30, "power had gone forth from him"). So the implication of Mk 8:11f is not that Jesus doesn't do miracles at all, but that he won't operate an ultimate, public, accreditation miracle (notice the use of "signs and wonders" in 13:22 about pseudo-christs and pseudo-prophets). Interestingly most of Mark's miracles are surrounded with secret ("don't tell anybody"). Anyhow, I doubt the hypothesis of a miracle-free proto-Mark (what would be left as the narrative frame for Matthew and Luke?)...
-
Leolaia
PP: What do you think of Price's theory that the historical Jesus was actually John the Baptist? I am referring to the following paper:
http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/pricejj.html
I find this hypothesis very compelling and explains a great many things (e.g. why Jesus is believed to be Elijah and/or John the Baptist "raised from the dead" in Mark 6:14-16 and 8:28, why the same preaching is attributed to Jesus in Mark 1:15 and John in Matthew 3:2, and other things), plus it would recognize a historical personage at the deepest layer of the tradition. On this view, the beginning of the gospel has Jesus being baptised in water and Holy Spirit (a metaphor for his death and being raised alive in the Spirit, Mark 10:38), and being adopted as the Son of God -- an event that otherwise was believed to have occurred at Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:32-33; Romans 1:3). This would elegantly explain, then, how later adoptionist christologies shifted the adoption event from the resurrection to the baptism. Identifying Jesus as the returned Elijah would also explain how Jesus was so easily seen as both heaven-sent and returning to Paradise after death (Elijah's former abode); it would also connect Jesus with the apocalyptic Son of Man who judges on the Day of Judgment (1 Enoch) since in Jewish tradition "the resurrection of the dead shall come through Elijah of blessed memory" (M. Sotah 9:15). In Mark, the first thing Jesus does after his baptism is approach Simon and Andrew at the Sea of Galilee and asks them to be fishers of men (in Luke after a great catch of fish), and this story has a direct parallel in John 21:1-19 and Gospel of Peter 14:60 where the fishing scene takes place after the resurrection. At the close of Mark's gospel, Jesus is said to meet his disciples in Galilee but the gospel then abruptly ends; the reader is then invited to turn back to the beginning of the gospel to continue the story. The resurrection appearances that Mark does not relate would then be understood as Jesus' earthly ministry, as he guides his disciples to proclaim that the Kingdom (expected as imminent by John the Baptist) has already come. The single event that would usher in the Kingdom would thus be John/Jesus' death and this would elegantly explain the shift from John's message to Jesus' revolutionary teaching that the Kingdom is already present. This is where the issue of miracles and signs becomes relevant. Josephus and all the gospels agree that John the Baptist was not a miracle worker. The gospels however do present the apostles as miracle workers, and Acts, John, and Paul all refer to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that follows Jesus' death and resurrection. Thus Acts 2:33 says that "he received from the Father the Holy Spirit, who was promised, and what you see and hear is the outpouring of that Spirit." It was traumatic event of the prophet's death that convinced his followers that the eschatological future has come into the present, bringing the promised gifts of the Spirit. The picture of Jesus the miracle worker thus would derive from the belief of the outpouring of the Spirit after Jesus' resurrection, and was manifest in the ministry of some of his disciples -- especially Peter who Acts presents as performing exorcisms and raising the dead like Jesus.
There are also a few weird things about Jesus and John I've noticed that Price did not go into. Luke 3:19-22 refers to Jesus being baptized after John the Baptist was imprisoned (bizarre if John is viewed as Jesus' baptizer but understandable if baptism is viewed as symbolic of John's death and resurrection). Another odd verse is Matthew 21:32 which says that "John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed in him." Here Jesus' ministry to the tax collectors and prostitutes is attributed to John. What we might see here is the view of the early Christian community, in their controversies with the Pharisee orthodoxy, as declaring that the John's gospel was later embraced not by those John directly preached to but the tax collectors and prostitutes who came to "believe in him" (a phrase strikingly similar to "believing in Jesus").
I got into thinking about this yesterday after replying to Narkissos on the matter of the body of oral Jesus sayings and how they have have preceded Jesus and at what point the parables came to refer to the Kingdom of God. The evidence suggested to me that this happened in the oral stage because how the often independent verbal formulations in the Gospel of Thomas refer to Kingdom of God (with some fluidity). Well, yesterday I was reading Josephus discussing John the Baptist and I was particularly struck by the following passage:
"But to some of the Jews, the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives [areten epaskousin], to practice justice toward their fellows, and piety towards God [ta pros allelous dikaiosune, kai pros ton theon eusebeia khromenois], and so doing to join in baptism." (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2)
The phrase "practice justice toward their fellows" reminded me specifically of the distinctive Jesus sayings on this theme, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan and didactic sayings on "loving your neighbor as yourself" and on forgiveness. This is the core of Jesus' message about the Kingdom and the Beatitudes, and Josephus attributes the gist of it to John. The critical word in this phrase is dikaiosune "practice righteousness" which shows up as a critical theme of John and Jesus in the gospels. In Matthew 21:32, John is said to come "in the way of righteousness [dikaiosune]," a phrase that also recalls the "Way of Life" in the Two Ways teaching in the Didache and Barnabas (which is characteristically Essene). In the Beatitudes, we read: "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness [dikaiosunes], for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven... For I say to you that unless your righteousness [dikaiosune] surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:10, 20). Matthew 6:33 also gives the core message: "But seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness [dikaiosunen], and all these things will be added to you." The theme of righteousness towards others is thus tightly connected to the concept of the Kingdom and salvation into the Kingdom. This makes it quite plausible in my mind that the sayings about the Kingdom and practicing justice towards other people, attributed to Jesus, were inherited through John the Baptist who the gospels present as preaching both the Kingdom (Matthew 3:2) and the "way of righteousness" (Matthew 21:32).
-
peacefulpete
Narkissos..your observation is correct that John referes to "signs" as miracles done by Jesus while Mark does not. This to me emphasizes the dependence of Luke and Matt upon the Mark passage. They use the expression as they found it. When adding the miracles to the story they used the new expression "powerful works". The fact that John sees the two terms as synonymous is consistant with the final form being dependent upon the Synoptics for this material. Luke 23:8 seems to use the term as John does. Perhaps because it was very late material.(the harmonizing of the traditions that Herod had Jesus killed with the P.Pilate tradition)
I see no need to alter my hypothesis.
Leolaia...I've read the John/Jesus speculation by Price. I also found it interesting. I wonder tho how much of Johnny B is OT midrash. The attributing of the devistation of Herod's army to his killing Johnny seems similar to the tradition that the destruction of the Temple was retribution for the stoning of James the Just. Tellingly neither tradition attributed these to the killing of Jesus! Only later Xtian writers shifted blame to the crucifixion of Jesus. -
peacefulpete
I'll just add this radical idea. Was John a historical person? Some think he was a creation to bridge the Jesus myth with the Jewish heritage to add respectabiity and the provision for theocratic governance of the proto-orthodoxy. This of course means Josephus has been worked over in this passage. I'll not try to defend this but just toss it out as possible.
-
A Paduan
The wicked (self-interested) generation (spiritually alike) seek for a sign (proof) so they may direct their work / effort to what is rewarded.
They do not believe (really identify with), but rather, are simply willing to work once they've seen the money .
And even today, these same see no signs - except, for the one of Jonah, and that's another story.......................
-
El blanko
Of course all of these fascinating insights are from secular sources and therefore have a certain prejudice against "The Son Of God" from day one.
The only way to prove true the Christian faith is by application within ones life.
-
Leolaia
I think it might be going too far to deem John mythical as well. Price's model would not work with both Jesus and John as theological constructs, Christian midrashic interpretation of John's role does not entail that John did not exist (any more than R. Abika's midrashic interpretation of the Balaam prophecy entail that Simon bar-Kosba did not exist), and deeming Josephus' references to John as an interpolation sounds very ad hoc to me: in particular, if they were Christian interpolations like the Jesus quote, why is there no mention of John as the one preparing the way (which occurs in all the gospels), and why is the description of his arrest and death at odds with the gospel account? Josephus showed strong interest in the Essenes, indicated himself as a follower of a teacher very much like John, so without going into any textual evidence on the matter, his statements on John do not strike me as inconsistent with Josephus. And his statement about how Herod's loss was divine retribution for John's death sounds a lot like how Josephus described the destruction of Jerusalem as divine retribution against the people.