Ridley Hall, Cambridge

Resources: Biblical Studies Bulletin 15

Vol 15: Mar 2000

TV Review: 'The Real Jesus'

During the Christmas holidays, Channel 4 aired 'The Real Jesus', a provocative documentary arguing that Christianity as we know it is essentially the product of the apostle Paul, and that had the early church in Jerusalem produced its own gospel, its picture of Jesus would have been very different.

This thesis of course is nothing new. In the nineteenth century, F C Baur attempted to drive a wedge between the conservative Jewish faith of Jerusalem Christianity and the law-free Gospel of Paul. What is new in 'The Real Jesus' is the confidence with which the programme makes sweeping assertions with little or no evidence.

Certainly the early Christians in Jerusalem were more conservative in their attitude towards the Law than Paul; that much is clear from Galatians, Romans and Acts (especially Acts 11, 15 and 21). It is another thing altogether to claim that all of the NT writings reflect a Pauline perspective that 'hijacked' the original movement, so that the 'real' Jesus was totally hidden from view.

Nothing much was unusual about the 'real' Jesus, apparently. His birth (in Nazareth) was completely normal. He was married to Mary Magdalene, and taught by John the Baptist. Since he grew up in a politically charged environment (Galilee), he must have been a political revolutionary. Apparently he did heal some people, although the presentation of miracles in the gospels is 'total disinformation'. What made him somewhat different was his preaching about the kingdom of God. Exactly how Jesus considered himself to relate to that kingdom (in it, outside it, under it, over it?) is not explored, but he certainly did not think of himself as divine.

On this reading, the real miracle is how anyone could possibly have ever ended up worshipping Jesus. But then, according to the programme, the early church in Jerusalem didn't worship him. They just thought he had come back to life after death and would some day return.

An agenda of the programme is to shift any possible blame for the death of Jesus away from Jews. Even Judas is absolved; the betrayal is a fiction because the idea would have reflected badly on the other disciples themselves; the 'Pauline' gospel writers chose 'Judas' because the name means 'Jew'. Never mind that the gospels are full of things that reflect badly on the disciples, and 'Judas' is an incredibly common Jewish name, applied both to another disciple and to a brother of Jesus.

The experts called upon to support the thesis included three Jewish scholars (Hyam Maccoby, Robert Eisenman, and Geza Vermes), a former co-chairman of the Jesus Seminar (John Dominic Crossan), a brilliant atheist (Michael Goulder) and his unconvinced protégé (Mark Goodacre, whose disagreement with the basic stance of the others was edited out), and an unknown author of an obscure book on Mary Magdalene (Sandra Rushing). At least one other scholar was interviewed in the making of the programme, but his opinions, which would have contradicted the theory, were judged unnecessary.

Those aware at all of the breadth of NT scholarship will know the weaknesses of the many unargued assertions in 'The Real Jesus'; sadly, most folk will not. N T Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God offers a more realistic assessment of the evidence, but it's quite a meal for the uninitiated. How about it, readers? What have you found helpful? For a sensible and searching response to Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, those with access to the internet may want to look at Richard Hays' review of a book produced by the group ( http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9405/revessay.html ).

Humour: Stop Sign Hermeneutics

Suppose you're travelling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.

1. A post modernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist refuses to stop because he sees the stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeois use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers in the east-west road.
3. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
4. A highly educated Catholic rolls through the intersection because he believes he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretative community and tradition. In the absence of an interpretative community, he passes through in peace.
5. An average Christian doesn't bother to read the sign but he'll stop the car if the car in front of him does.
6. An educated evangelical preacher might look up 'STOP' in his lexicon of English and discover that it can mean:
   (a) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain;
   (b) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers.
   The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where the traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. An Orthodox Jew does one of two things: (a) take another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law; or (b) stop at the sign, say 'Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop,' wait three seconds according to his watch, and then proceed. Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: Rabbi Meir says: 'He who does not stop shall not live long.' R. Hillel says: 'Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding.' R. Simon ben Yudah says: 'Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.' R. ben Isaac says: 'Because of the three patriarchs.' R. Yehuda says: 'Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says, "Be still and know that I am God."'
8. A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes that the passage 'STOP' undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself because being the progressive Jew that he was, he would never have wanted to stifle people's progress. Therefore 'STOP' must be a textual insertion belonging entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
9. An Old Testament scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the expression 'STOP'. For example, 'ST' contains no enclosed areas and five line endings, whereas 'OP' contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author of the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the 'O' and the 'P'.
10. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar amends the text, changing the 'T' to 'H'. 'SHOP' is much easier to understand in context than 'STOP' because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because 'SHOP' is so similar to 'STOP' on the sign several streets back, that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area. If this is true, it could indicate that both meanings are valid, thus making the thrust of the message 'STOP (AND) SHOP'.
11. A 'prophetic' preacher notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters S-T-O-P (sigma-tau-omicron-pi, in the Greek alphabet), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by four (the number of the world: north, south, east, and west) equals 666. Therefore, he concludes that stop signs are the dreaded 'mark of the beast', a harbinger of divine judgement upon the world, and must be avoided at all costs.

Comments on Commentaries

An assessment of commentaries on a book of the Old & New Testament to keep you up to date with what will help in preaching and teaching in the local church.

OT: Exodus

Finally the long-prevailing scholarly preoccupation with source criticism in the Pentateuch has given way. Whilst the nature, scope and dating of the sources has been fascinating and illuminating for the study of Exodus, there is now wider interest (and opinion) in the way in which the differing materials have come together into the present book. If there ever was a source-critical consensus, then it has passed, and so have the commentaries that seek to find it - A H McNeile (Westminster, 1908; 3rd ed 1931), S R Driver (Cambridge, 1911), J P Hyatt (NCB, 1971; 1980 rev ed) - hallelujah!

Meanwhile, the debate has moved from source criticism to form criticism and on to the new literary criticism. The magisterial commentary of B S Childs (OTL, 1974) has become a landmark: not only in the study of Exodus but in the style of commentaries. This satisfies the demand for an exegesis that is both rigorous in its use of critical tools and committed to a discernment of the theological dimension of the texts. The heavy shelf need heave no further if you would own just one serious commentary.

Equally serious though more geared to the needs of the preacher is T E Fretheim (Interpretation, 1991). This attempts to do justice to both realities in Exodus - to our knowledge of its pre-Christian roots and to our experience of hearing it as a genuinely Christian word - without necessarily forcing the two-step process of 'description-application'. Given the kerygmatic nature of Exodus, the two worlds merge naturally. Fretheim also enjoys the structure of the whole, noting various verbal, thematic and literary links. Not many commentaries make a good read - as opposed to a good reference - but this is certainly one of them.

Other 'general' recommendations would include R E Clements (Cambridge; CBC, 1972), H L Ellison (DSB, 1982) and J I Durham (Word, 1987). These are good and thorough, but not exciting: they tend to represent basic information in traditional ways. One last recommendation, which is exciting, would be G Larsson (Bound for Freedom, Hendrickson, 1999) who fruitfully brings together Jewish and Christian interpretation: you will not forget his exposition of God's giving of the law at Sinai.

NT: 1 & 2 Thessalonians

Unless Galatians is dated early, Paul's letters to the Thessalonians are the first epistles we have from him and the oldest writings in the NT. Most continental scholars and a slowly growing number of others doubt that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians on the grounds of supposed differences in eschatology and yet striking formal similarities between the letters. Alternatives to Pauline authorship, however, have as many if not more difficulties than the traditional view they replace.

Among the older works, G F Findlay (Cambridge; CGT, 1904) and J E Frame (ICC, 1912) stand out as offering helpful discussions of the Greek text, although their contribution in other respects is limited. The next significant commentaries took almost half a century to appear. The conservative scholar L Morris produced in quick succession a short volume (TNTC, 1956) and a longer version for the NICNT (1959). Revised but only slightly changed editions of the two appeared in 1984 and 1991, respectively, and an exposition for the Word Biblical Themes series in 1989. Morris's commentaries served as evangelical standards for a generation, but they have not been characterized by ground-breaking originality.

The year 1969 saw the appearance of D E Whitely's slim but insightful contribution in the New Clarendon Bible series, and A L Moore's larger but less valuable volume in the New Century Bible. Shortly afterwards, E Best produced what remains today probably the finest critical commentary in English on the two letters (Black's NT, 1972). Not an evangelical, Best nonetheless favours the authenticity of the second letter and provides a lucid exegesis with good discussion of important interpretive alternatives.

In 1982 the moderate evangelical F F Bruce published his thorough critical treatment of the letters in the Word Biblical Commentary. Bruce's strength, as always, was in his grasp of the historical background material; otherwise, apart from his excursus on the 'Antichrist', I've not found his volume that helpful, partly because of the dense format of the Word series.

I H Marshall's thin but important commentary in the New Century Bible series (1983) offered a robust rebuttal to the German scholar W Trilling's case for the pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians. Marshall's work has particular value as a verse by verse response to Trilling's exegesis of the second letter, although the apologetic focus of the book meant less space to devote to exposition.

C A Wanamaker's valuable exegesis of the Greek text offers a breakthrough by incorporating insights from rhetorical criticism (NIGTC, 1990). Wanamaker offers a novel, if unconvincing, case for reading our 2 Thessalonians as Paul's first letter to the church; his exegesis is particularly valuable for those who can handle Greek.

J R W Stott's exposition is more traditional but helpful for preachers (Bible Speaks Today, 1991), and D J Williams provides a thin paperback in his NIBC contribution (Hendrickson, 1992). A different perspective altogether appears in the feminist readings by L Fatum and M A Beavis in Searching the Scriptures. Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary, edited by E S Fiorenza (SCM, 1994).

M J J Menken reads 2 Thessalonians as pseudonymous in his NT Readings commentary on that book (Routledge, 1994), as does the Roman Catholic E J Richard in his book on both letters for the Sacra Pagina series (Liturgical Press, 1995). I have not used B Gaventa's exposition in the Interpretation series (John Knox, 1998) and cannot comment, except to say that she too rejects Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians.

More helpful is M W Holmes' recent offering in the NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan, 1998), which gives us sensible exegesis and suggestions for preachers. I'm increasingly impressed with this new series (despite book covers that put me off it), and particularly with the practical concern reflected in the 'bridging contexts' and 'contemporary significance' discussions for each passage.

In summary, my picks would be Best and Wanamaker for detail and Holmes for preaching ideas; massive tomes by K P Donfried and A J Malherbe are on the way.

Computer Corner

• Dr Chris Forbes (lecturer at Macquarrie University in Australia) has made available materials from his course 'The New Testament in its Times' at his webpage ( http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/cforbes/default.htm) . Some readers may find the bibliographies particularly useful.
• Dr David Brewer at Tyndale House now offers to send email updates from time to time on helpful computing resources for biblical study. Any readers who would like to receive these updates may request them through an email addressed to David (Technical@Tyndale.cam.ac.uk). Occasionally David includes tips on web sites of wider interest.
  For some time David has been working on a book on divorce and remarriage, and now he has made his progress thus far available to be read at his web page ( http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/divorce.htm ). Specialists will be particularly grateful to David for putting on his web page a database of over 170 documents which represent every published Greek, Roman and Jewish marriage contract and divorce deed, from the 4th c BC to the 4th c AD. David concludes that New Testament teaching allows divorce and remarriage after abuse, neglect or adultery.