Final Exam Essay prep for Gospels course

The Criterion of Embarrassment

One of the key components in the method of historical Jesus research is the criterion of embarrassment. Define the criterion of embarrassment and present three events or teachings in the gospel traditions that are considered to meet this criterion. For each item, be sure to explain in detail how and why it meets the criterion.

With all four gospels, there are no original copies of what the evangelists wrote by their own hands, and with each successive copy there is the chance a scribe could redact or change material in order to make it sound “right” according to their community’s post-easter beliefs. Since no photographic or video evidence exists of the events of the Gospels, it is always possible that some traditions are made up. There are indeed places where material is likely to have been added to make things more palatable, like with the ending of Mark (16:9-20), so that makes it hard for scholars to determine what was likely originally written by the evangelists or what the evangelists were using as source material. The criterion of embarrassment, though, can help determine authenticity. It rests on the idea that embarrassing details are more likely to be original than details that align with what we know the early, organized church would have heartily agreed with (determined from their writings). It is more likely that a story would be amended to make an important figure for a religious movement appear in a better light than for a quirky, noncoherent detail to be added. Thus, for any description in the gospels, it is wise to ask the question: does it make sense in the light of standard Christian beliefs that developed later? If a later Christian reader might be embarrassed by the detail, then the story as we have it likely was not made up by a similar, later Christian scribe.

Embarrassment plays a key role in the study of which gospel came first, as Mark tends to have more embarrassing details than the other two. One prominent example is with the rich young ruler parable, where Jesus asks, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18). Mark’s version implies that it is incorrect to call Jesus good, going against later Christian theology that Jesus is the perfect Son of God and lived an exemplary life. Jesus goes a step further and implies in his second statement—“No one is good but God alone”—that he is not even God, which also goes against later Christian traditions that Jesus and God are one. This saying by Jesus is likely to not have been fabricated by later Christian scribes because it would not make sense for Jesus to say something against their cherished beliefs. If we compare parallel versions of the same story in the other Synoptics, an interesting case can be made that this was indeed embarrassing because the other evangelists change the wording. In Matthew, Jesus responds with “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good” (Mt 19:17b). In this version, the question of goodness is not about Jesus as a person but about “good” in general. This could be a random change of wording in how the oral tradition remembered it, but since the problem is solved so conveniently there is doubt thrown on the smoothed-over Matthean version. Luke interestingly keeps the Marcan version of the parable (Lk 18:19). The more embarrassing version is more likely to have been uttered by Jesus himself, and it is likely people knew that Jesus said something like this since Matthew and Luke both kept some version of the saying and didn’t entirely exclude it.

Another example in the gospels where the criterion of embarrassment can be applied is with the parable of the cursing of the fig tree. Mark writes that Jesus saw a fig tree and “found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (Mk 11:13), proceeding to curse the tree causing it to wither away by saying, “May no one ever eat from you again” (Mk 11:14). Applying the criteria of embarrassment, the story is logically troublesome since Jesus seems to punish a tree for no reason. A deciduous tree in winter will not have leaves, so why expect a fig tree out of season to produce figs? This story may have been troublesome to later Christian readers who believe Jesus is infallible—and fits this criterion for embarrassment—since it seems a bit petty and trivial for Jesus to use his miraculous power this way. Matthew alters the wording in Mt 21: 18-19, as there is no mention of “for it was not the season for figs.” This makes the story logically consistent since Jesus would have a reason for the cursing. Luke’s parallel to the parable entirely forgoes Jesus cursing a fig tree himself, instead incorporating the motif into a parable of Jesus in Lk 13:6 about an owner who demands “Cut it down!” (Lk 13:7) after the tree bore no fruit for three years. Since the story is embarrassing and two of the three synoptic gospels lessen the embarrassing nature of the parable in their versions, it seems likely that Matthew and Luke were working with copies of an earlier Mark story of what occurred. However, it must be said that it can also be the case that Mark is working from an earlier copy of Matthew and added the “for it was not the season for figs” line to somehow make Jesus appear more human, like to show that he did things on the whim and out of frustration.

A final example of embarrassment can be seen in the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Any association between Jesus and John the Baptist would be troublesome to later Christians who saw Jesus as a unique Messiah figure that didn’t evolve out of some other movement’s ideas. A story so closely associating Jesus and John the Baptist is embarrassing, and indeed evidence of redaction are present. Mark writes that John proclaimed “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mk 1:4) and that Jesus “was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Later Christians believed that Jesus was sinless, the perfect lamb of God that died for the sins of the world, so Mark’s version is slightly embarrassing because it seems like Jesus is being baptized because he needed to repent for his own sins (why else is John baptizing people?). Matthew’s version meshes with later Christian traditions much more smoothly, omitting “for the forgiveness of sins” and instead having John say, “Repent, for the kingdom of God has come near” (Mt 3:1). While this still implies that Jesus needs to repent, Matthew adds later explanatory dialogue: “John would have prevented him, saying ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’” (Mt 3:14). Luke similarly adds dialogue and has John saying Jesus is “more powerful than” himself (Lk 3:16), which softens the embarrassment of having an all-powerful Jesus be subservient to a mere man. Thus, this pericope likewise fits the criterion of embarrassment.

The Kingdom of God

Historical Jesus theories agree that the Kingdom of God was an important component of Jesus’s mission but disagree on the timing and nature of the Kingdom. Present evidence for the validity of this tradition and discuss at least two contrasting views of the Kingdom of God within historical Jesus research.

The word “kingdom” appears 53 times in Matthew, 18 times in Mark, 43 times in Luke, and 3 times in John, showing how frequent the term is used. Mark has the theme (1:14) as well as John (3:5, 18:36). However, John’s use of the kingdom of God (3:5) is similar to a Matthean phrase (Mt 18:3), so there may just be one independent use of kingdom in John. Regardless, Paul’s teaching features the kingdom of God five times in 1 Corinthians (4:20, 6:9, 6:10, 15:24, 15:50) and in other undisputed Pauline letters. Special L material also has kingdom of God references, as in Luke 17:20. This shows at least four likely independent attestations that Jesus was talking about the kingdom of God. The universal idea of a kingdom of God (and not just around Israel) likely comes from Psalms 145 where all-inclusive language like “all your works” (v. 10) is used in reference to an “everlasting kingdom” (v. 13). Therefore, it is likely the historical Jesus was referring to the kingdom of God in his teaching, but the nature of the kingdom is less clear. One can see the ambiguity in a pronounced way in the Lord’s prayer. In Luke, there is an idea of a future kingdom with the wording “your kingdom come” (11:2). Matthew’s version, on the other hand, involves the notion of a present kingdom, saying “your kingdom come…on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10). There seems to be good support for both interpretations of the temporality of the kingdom.

Mark, the earliest gospel, is full of future kingdom references, like when Jesus says, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near” (Mk 1:14). The view of a future kingdom is taken by the apocalyptic prophet model more so because apocalyptic prophets are concerned with eschatology and a future age of peace and justice. For example, in Mark 9:1 Jesus says, “…there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power,” which says that the kingdom is something that people have to wait for and hopefully experience before they die (sometime in the future). In the Olivette discourse, Jesus gives a list of signs that hint at when an apocalyptic “boom” was going to happen in the future (Mk 13:3-8), including “rumors of wars,” “earthquakes,” and “famines.” These signs are framed in the context of a “Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (13:26), which is certainly in the future tense and is very apocalyptic in nature with the Son of Man likely referring to Daniel 7. In Daniel, the Son of Man “gain[s] possession of the kingdom” (Dan 7:22) and represents the transition of power on earth from the chaos beasts to him. However, a problem is that if Jesus was predicting a future kingdom only then he would have been a failed prophet, since he argued there would be a boom within the generation (and this didn’t happen).

Other scholars take the position that Jesus is referring to a present kingdom, possibly beginning in John’s movement and becoming increasingly separate from his apocalyptic ideas. This would be the view of someone who holds the view that Jesus was a magician or miracle worker, as the miracles would be evidence that the kingdom has come. Indeed, this seems to be the evidence Jesus gives when people asked Jesus whether he was the Messiah when he replied, “…the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them” (11:5). These are all events in the here and now, as would fit with the metaphor that “everyone tries to enter it by force” in Luke 16:16. Paul’s use of the kingdom is largely about inheriting the kingdom in l Corinthians, but in Romans he says, “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17). This seems like the kingdom is partly here and now, and this is also present in the independent gospel of John in the Nicodemus conversation where Jesus conflates being born again in the here and now with the kingdom of God (3:5). Therefore, with much evidence supporting either side, some people take a middle ground and argue that Jesus was preaching a realized eschatology like Paul seems to do.

Tax Collectors and Sinners

Historical Jesus theories agree that Jesus likely spent significant time with the social class of “Tax Collectors and Sinners” but disagree on the precise reasons for this. Present evidence for the validity of this tradition and discuss the role of “Tax Collectors and Sinners” in at least two different historical Jesus theories.

Much evidence exists to suggest Jesus was friends with many tax collectors and sinners. Using the criterion of embarrassment, these traditions are likely authentic because it is not entirely positive for Jesus to be hanging out with the riff-raff of society (and therefore the traditions aren’t likely to have been fabricated). Sinners seem to be largely a blanket term for those outside the people of God, like Gentiles, but can also apply in the concept of covenantal nomism to be about people who don’t follow Torah (prostitutes and tax collectors, for example). In Mark 2:16-17, Jesus “eat[s] with tax collectors and sinners” and says that he has “come to call not the righteous but sinners.” Matthew and Luke may stem from Mark, so while they also contain mention of these people it is wise to see if the independent John does, and indeed in John Jesus heals sinners (9:7) and is called one himself (9:16), so people were associating him with the lower classes. Jesus also didn’t denounce the sinners like he does the religious leaders, but why does he do this?

In the “Jesus as apocalyptic prophet” model, he told the news of the coming or present kingdom to people who are the most receptive—the societal “losers.” Part of his unique prophecy is that tax collectors and sinners would be most willing to participate in the present or future kingdom. However, it is not entirely clear whether they are the only ones that can be a part of the new kingdom. When Jesus says, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Mk 2:17), it is implied those who are doing well are already in the kingdom but that Jesus is bringing in the sick as additions. As an apocalyptic prophet a major goal of his would be to get people to repent and change, so it makes sense for Jesus to go to the most morally “sick” and in trouble when they new age comes—the outcasts. In other places, though, a complete flip flop seems to be the idea, where tax collectors, sinners, lepers, gentiles, and the like are “in” and the people who at the time presumed to be “in” are actually “out.” Jesus indeed says, “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first” (Mk 10:31), which shows a future element where societal lunch lines will be swapped. This reversal is likely to take place in the eschaton that an apocalyptic prophet would be concerned with.

In the Jesus as magician or miracle worker model, Jesus is flipping the social structure around by hanging out with tax collectors and sinners and performing magic outside of the legitimacy of the Jewish religion. The subjects of Jesus’ healing miracles are not the rich but the poor. Jesus heals a blind man whom the Pharisees called a “sinner” and assumed was born in sin (Jn 9:2), and in healing ten lepers (Lk 17:11-19) he was giving outcasts an opportunity to be “made clean” in a ritual purity sense. Because ritual purity, and not just physical purity, was the main driver for a lot of Jewish thought, like with washing your hands before meals (Mk 7:2-4), Jesus was giving these outcasts a chance to reintegrate into the normal chaos-free society and not have to focus on “keeping their distance” from people all the time (Lk 17:12). Similarly, Jesus gives the boy with seizures who “foams and grinds his teeth” a chance to reintegrate into society again, and this story is used by scholars advocating that Jesus was mainly a miracle worker because Jesus corrects the disciples on their technique, saying, “This kind can only come out through prayer” (Mk 9:28). If disability in society is a result of sin, then Jesus saying, “your sins are forgiven” (Mk 2:5) after the healing of the paralytic man means you can be integrated back into society without a disability. However, one must ignore Paul’s idea that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23) in order to take this view. Jesus’ kingdom would be totally egalitarian if he was a miracle worker or magician, with the physical manifestation of faith in some cases being the willingness to break social boundaries and go into a Pharisees’ house to anoint Jesus’ feet (Lk 7:37-50).

Jesus’s Miracles

Historical Jesus theories agree that Jesus was known for working miracles but disagree on the purpose of the miracles within Jesus’s mission. Present evidence for the validity of this tradition and discuss the role of miracles in at least two different historical Jesus theories.

There are 8 distinct nature miracles, 6 distinct exorcism stories, and 17 distinct healing periscopes, of which 3 are resuscitations from the dead, so Jesus is likely to have been known to perform miracles. The criterion of embarrassment comes to validate that Jesus was doing miracles since in the healing of the hemorrhagic woman Jesus’ power requires a transfer object—closely associating him with traditional magicians—and he was unaware of “who touched [his] clothes (Mk 5:30), casting him in a negative light since he was ignorant of what happened.

Why does Jesus do miracles? In the apocalyptic prophet model, Jesus does them in order to align himself with Elijah and Elisha. Elijah was able to resuscitate a child (1 Kings 17:22-23), as was Jesus with Lazarus (Jn 11:42-44), and Elijah was able to multiply flour and oil (1 Kings 17:14-16), as was Jesus with the bread and fish (Mk 6:30-44). Elisha was able to heal Naaman and Gehazi from leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-27) which is analogous to how Jesus healed lepers (Mk 1:40; Mt 10:8). Thereby, since Elijah and Elisha were such important prophets in Judaism and were able to make predictions about coming events, like with how Israel would someday defeat Aram (2 Kings 13:19), Jesus would want to be thought of as similar to them in order to make himself legitimate.

However, in Géza Vermes’ “Jesus as magician or miracle worker” model, Jesus’s miracles are manipulations of the invisible realm that people are normally unable to access apart from the temple. The invisible realms could explain visible phenomena that are puzzling to people, like miracles, so magicians are the ancient equivalent of computer hackers that have the source code to the “computer program” of the world. In this theory Jesus may have been inspired by Elijah and Elisha’s miracles but was probably more inspired by miracles that Moses did, such as when he turned Aaron’s staff  into a snake in front of Pharaoh (Exod 7:10). However, in this “sanctioned” and legitimate miracle by Moses (because he was using the God of Israel’s power), there is a non-sanctioned equivalent, as the Egyptian “magicians…did the same by their secret arts” (Exod 7:11). This hacking into the invisible world apart from God is forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10: “No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an auger, or a sorcerer.” Like the miracle worker Eleazar whom Josephus wrote about, Jesus also uses transfer objects. Often he is the object since he sometimes needs to touch people to heal, but in some cases his clothing functions as a way to channel the power. Eleazar used a ring to draw out a demon through someone’s nostrils (Josephus Antiquities VIII 2:5) and Jesus used his cloak to channel power in the healing of the hemorrhagic woman (Mk 5:27-29).

The Parables

Historical Jesus theories agree that Jesus taught in parables but disagree on the purpose of the parables. Present evidence for this tradition and discuss at least two contrasting views of the meaning of the parables within historical Jesus research.

There is multiple independent attestation of Jesus using parables. While appearing many times in the Synoptics (Mk 4:21-23; Mt 13:1-23; Lk 10:29-37), the gospel of Thomas even has parable parallels in saying 9 (Mk 4:3-9) about a farmer sowing seed and reaping exponentially more and in saying 65 (Mk 12:1-9) about tenants. There are several types of parables: riddle, example, and challenge parables. A riddle parable is one that shows how knowledge is important to you, as in Mark 4:24: “the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given to you.” The meaning of this is not entirely clear, and its purpose may be like some modern art where the whole point is to show the audience something unexpected. Another type of parable is a challenge parable, where a world is described that is different than the actual world and something happens that challenges your expectations. An example of such a parable might be Jesus’ Good Samaritan parable (Lk 10:29-37), where you would expect the priest to be the hero but instead are surprised when the Samaritan is the “good guy.” A third category of parable is an example parable, and these are more varied than the previous two categories. There are two methods of interpretation of example parables, and each stem from different historical Jesus views.

In the apocalyptic prophet model, the example parables are allegories for the coming kingdom, usually with a father or master character representing God. For instance, the parable of the tenants in Mark 12:1-9 is a direct allegory for how Jesus came to earth, how the tenants (Israelites) killed him, and how the owner of the vineyard (God) would “come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard being to others” (Mk 12:9b). In this, the vineyard is the right to be in the people of God and the “others” that the vineyard will be given to is likely the Gentiles. This parable is apocalyptic because it talks about a judgement-like event—where the owner would “destroy” the tenants—that would occur near the beginning of some eschaton. Another apocalyptic allegory can be seen with the parable of the wedding banquet. This story is paralleled in the gospel of Thomas (saying 64) and is in Matthew 22:1-10 and Luke 14:16-24. In this wedding banquet parable, there seems to be a specific meaning where the “king” (Matthew’s wording) or “master” (Thomas and Luke’s wording) represents Jesus or God and that the banquet people should attend is the kingdom of God. The slaves appear to be Jesus’ disciples (interesting terminology since it connects to Paul’s idea of being a slave of righteousness) and the apocalyptic tag that Luke adds—“none of those who were invited will taste my dinner” (Lk 14:24)—implies a moment in time when the dinner starts (the boom). Allegories in an apocalyptic prophet lens have just one meaning, which is different than another way one could interpret the example parables.

If Jesus is viewed as primarily a teacher, an example parable functions in a narrative world to share multiple practical lessons, often with metaphors derived from nature as in the parable of the sower (Mt 13:1-23). Nature references help create narrative worlds in which readers can identify with multiple characters and learn a multitude of different lessons from one story. In the parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11-32), for example, one can construct various meanings of the parable depending on how you look at it, kind of like a sandbox-style video game. From the point of view of the son one can learn that you shouldn’t try and cut yourself off from your family, but you could also take home the message that if you do mess up really bad in life then it is okay to come back to your parents and ask for help and acceptance again. From the point of view of the father, one could learn that forgiveness is best. So, either takeaway seems equally valid, and Jesus as teacher would be creating these narrative worlds with his parables to give a simplified view of a complex world and allow some more flexibility in meaning.