Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Allison-Seminar] Jesus and His Audiences

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Dear Prof. Allison, Thank you for your reply, and for the references. ... If your main point was only that Jesus spoke to unsympathetic outsiders in a
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:47 AM 3/25/2003 -0500, Dale Allison wrote:
      Dear Prof. Schacht:

      You ask about a hidden assumption, which is that Jesus always spoke to the same audience in the same way. You then suggest another possibility, which is that the sayings about judgment came later, after he encountered more resistance. "Even if Jesus himself did not change his views at all, he might still have changed his presentation in response to whatever patterns of resistance he experienced."

      I don't disagree with this at all; I think you're right. ...

      Dear Prof. Allison,
      Thank you for your reply, and for the references.

      Finally, how does all this affect my argument? I may be missing something, but at the moment I don't think it does. All my argument needs is the proposition that Jesus spoke differently to unsympathetic outsiders than to sympathetic insiders. It should make no difference whether this or that saying comes from this or that period of the ministry. I should probably observe somewhere that his words to outsiders may well have varied from this phase to that phase of his ministry, and that the judgment sayings reflect disappointment. But my main point would still stand, wouldn't it?

      If your main point was only that Jesus spoke to unsympathetic outsiders in a different way from sympathetic insiders, well of course I would not dispute that, and my counter-proposal would not affect that. However, if you wish to make a stronger case, that Jesus spoke to unsympathetic outsiders in certain particular ways, it is when we get into the details that my counter-proposal would make a difference. Let's start from the point of view of Jesus' sayings. You observe that we have some sayings of gentle persuasion and other sayings of judgment, and propose to explain these different messages by suggesting that the words of gentle persuasion were meant for sympathetic insiders, and the words of judgment were meant for unsympathetic outsiders. But if we take chronology into account, one might argue that *both* sets of sayings were intended for the *same* audience, but evolved, in the face of resistance, from gentle persuasion to irritated condemnation (or some such.)  So it is only when we get down to the particulars of which messages and which audiences that my argument might become useful.

      BTW, we have been largely ignoring, to this point, the framing of the sayings as evidence for the intended audience. Of course, as Crossan and others have demonstrated, the same synoptic saying can sometimes be found in different narrative frames, so that one is discouraged from making too much of the narrative frames in helping us reconstruct the audience of different sayings. How far would you want to go with that? All narrative frames are worthless in this regard? Or, how do we decide which frames might be historical and associated with the particular sayings we find in the text?

      Thanks again for your thoughtful responses to our questions.

      Bob
    • Dale Allison
      Dear Prof. Schacht: I think I can respond fairly briefly by making three points. First, my main point at the end of the article on Jesus and his Audiences is
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Prof. Schacht:

        I think I can respond fairly briefly by making three points.

        First, my main point at the end of the article on Jesus and his Audiences is simply that the guy who composed much of the sermon on the plain could also have said some seemingly harsh things about judgment. James Robinson's case to the contrary may not pay sufficient attention to a basic aspect of rhetoric. That's really it. I make the point because several people, not just Robinson, see a real antithesis here with which they can sort the original from the secondary. I'm doubtful.

        Second, you suggest that maybe my two audiences are really one, because you can envisage a change. Maybe a public that was sympathetic became unsympathetic. Well, I see the point. And I would have to pursue it if I were to do much more with this theme. But I think -- I'm tired this morning, so don't take my word about this -- that in the first part of my piece, I was arguing two things-- i. that Jesus did make demands of and say things to the group that moved around with him that he didn't demand of and say to others and ii. the question of audience is very important for interpretation. i. stands and isn't touched by your comments. Re ii: I think you're suggesting that, in making my case, I need to be more nuanced and careful in how I speak of Jesus' non-esoteric (if you will) audiences. You're right, and I'll have to go back and check my wording and also add comments showing that I'm aware of your observations. But of course, the real problem here is that we have an issue that usually can't be solved. I can in the abstract sort out the different sorts of audiences Jesus may have had, but it remains very, very difficult, and probably in most cases impossible, to figure out what saying originally went with which audience. I suppose my advice is that we should always ask ourselves, when we're interpreting this or that saying in the pre-Easter period, whether we're implicitly assuming a particular audience and what our justification might be. Usually we're in the dark, so we need to be aware that whatever we're saying might well be seriously effected were we to envisage one audience as opposed to another. In other words, and unfortunately, this introduces more uncertainty into our task.
        Third, you ask whether we can maybe trust what the tradition says about audience. You refer to Crossan. I'd refer to Bultmann, from whose work I learned form criticism as an undergraduate. I've always taken Bultmann as definitive about some things, and this is one; so I've never trusted what the synoptics say about audience. Now I'm not dogmatic here. I have tried to do T. W. Manson's contrary case justice; I'm just not convinced. I've also tried more than once to see if J. Arthur Baird's book on audience criticism has anything to it. Unfortunately, Baird is so complex that I can't figure out some of what he's saying--I indicate this in a footnote. (I said this yesterday with some things in Malina's work; maybe I'm the problem.) Maybe someone else will come along some day and show me I've been wrong. But I'm not holding my breath. In addition to Bultmann, Jeremias' discussion in Parables of how the tradition gives new audiences to parables has always stayed with me. In short, it's always been my habit to look at a saying while ignoring its setting in the tradition. Having said all that, the evangelists are right about one thing: they do know that sayings take their meaning in part from audience. They care about audience. Otherwise they wouldn't keep telling us what audience Jesus is speaking to. So while I don't trust them in the details, I do think their basic instinct correct: to understand something, you need to know to whom it was spoken. If my article helps us to be more conscious about that, then it's purpose is served.
        Hope this helps
        Best, Dale
      • Loren Rosson
        Dale, Thanks for the second round on Malina s ineffable essay. :) A question about asceticism. In your 98 publication you discuss the ascetic practices of
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Dale,

          Thanks for the second round on Malina's ineffable
          essay. :)

          A question about asceticism. In your '98 publication
          you discuss the ascetic practices of Jesus and his
          closest followers -- celibacy, poverty, fasting --
          and list the five functions asceticism can serve in
          millenarian movements:

          1. Dedication to a mission (as with Paul's advise that
          marriage "divides" a person's loyalty)

          2. Distance from the present world order
          (eschatological dualism encourages detachment from the
          present world)

          3. Rhetorical persuasion (giving up money, sex, and
          food is good evidence of one's sincerity)

          4. Sign of judgment (the medium being the message)

          5. Realized eschatology (living as one would live in
          the kingdom, where wealth/sex/food abounds for
          everyone -- or, alternatively, none of it is needed by
          anyone, which amounts to the same thing)

          On the point of (5), however, it seems to have been
          the realized dimension of Jesus' eschatology which
          enabled him to dispense with fasting and instead feast
          in the present (Mk 2:18-20; Q 7:31-35), precisely in
          anticipation of the kingdom's full disclosure in the
          near future (Q 13:28-29). You hedge your bet here,
          opining that "Mk 2:18-20 is not a blanket denial of
          the legitimacy of fasting...telling us little more
          than that Jesus, unlike the Pharisees and followers of
          John, did not set aside fixed days every week for
          fasting" (174). You suggest further that since the
          reference in Q 7:31-35 to Jesus' "eating and drinking"
          adopts the polemical language of Jesus' adversaries,
          it "should not be reckoned an objective description",
          especially since Jesus himself was known for using
          "eating and drinking" in a pejorative sense (as in Q
          17:26-30, Q 12:45, etc.). More recently, in The
          Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, you
          note similarly that "nothing contradicts the canonical
          picture of a Jesus who sometimes feasts and sometimes
          fasts" (p 15).

          But why would millenarians like Jesus and his closest
          followers "sometimes feast and sometimes fast"? Why
          would they be rigorously ascetic about sex and money,
          quasi-ascetic about food and drink? How exactly do we
          reconcile a Jesus who sometimes behaved like a "bon
          vivant" (a label used even by conservative John Meier,
          who, employing the criterion of embarrassment, notes
          that the early church would have hardly gone out of
          the way to fabricate mocking caricatures of its Risen
          Lord as a glutton/drunkard; Marginal Jew, Vol II, pp
          149-150) with a Jesus who disparages feasting
          elsewhere (Q 12:45, 17:26-30). Different audiences?
          Did he believe it was legitimate for the poor and
          disaffected (God's elect) to occasionally enjoy
          "messianic banquets" already realized in the present
          age, and consider the feasting of the rich oppositely
          as a sign of judgment on them (relating to the whole
          "reversal of fortunes" principle)? Or maybe fasting
          doesn't have the same rhetorical force or persuasion
          (3, above) as celibacy and poverty? I'd like to tease
          out some more of your speculations on this subject.

          Thanks,

          Loren Rosson III
          Nashua NH
          rossoiii@...


          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
          http://platinum.yahoo.com
        • Dale Allison
          Dear Loren You ask about asceticism and Jesus. This is a topic I very much enjoyed working on. It s one of those areas that makes modern NT scholars nervous.
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 31, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Loren

            You ask about asceticism and Jesus. This is a topic I very much enjoyed working on. It's one of those areas that makes modern NT scholars nervous. Or if it does not, it's because they're absolutely confident that Jesus could not have been an ascetic. It's a bit like eschatology--it's so foreign to us that we don't want to find it in Jesus. But I think it's there. Of course, as soon as I say this, it's a question of how we define asceticism. If it's a bed of nails and whips, then Jesus wasn't an ascetic. But I tried to define asceticism carefully in terms of deliberate deprivation for religiouis ends, and on that score Jesus fits. I've found very few who agree, although I think that Stephen Patterson's essay in Vaage and Wimbush, Ascticism and the NT, which I did not know when I was writing Jesus of Nazareth, is moving in my direction. This of course is esp. interesting given that Steve's Jesus is not apocalyptic. Anyway, here are some thoughts in an attempt to answer your questions.

            i. You write:

            A question about asceticism. In your '98 publication
            you discuss the ascetic practices of Jesus and his
            closest followers -- celibacy, poverty, fasting --
            and list the five functions asceticism can serve in
            millenarian movements:

            1. Dedication to a mission (as with Paul's advise that
            marriage "divides" a person's loyalty)

            2. Distance from the present world order
            (eschatological dualism encourages detachment from the
            present world)

            3. Rhetorical persuasion (giving up money, sex, and
            food is good evidence of one's sincerity)

            4. Sign of judgment (the medium being the message)

            5. Realized eschatology (living as one would live in
            the kingdom, where wealth/sex/food abounds for
            everyone -- or, alternatively, none of it is needed by
            anyone, which amounts to the same thing)

            On the point of (5), however, it seems to have been
            the realized dimension of Jesus' eschatology which
            enabled him to dispense with fasting and instead feast
            in the present (Mk 2:18-20; Q 7:31-35), precisely in
            anticipation of the kingdom's full disclosure in the
            near future (Q 13:28-29). You hedge your bet here,
            opining that "Mk 2:18-20 is not a blanket denial of
            the legitimacy of fasting...telling us little more
            than that Jesus, unlike the Pharisees and followers of
            John, did not set aside fixed days every week for
            fasting" (174). You suggest further that since the
            reference in Q 7:31-35 to Jesus' "eating and drinking"
            adopts the polemical language of Jesus' adversaries,
            it "should not be reckoned an objective description",
            especially since Jesus himself was known for using
            "eating and drinking" in a pejorative sense (as in Q
            17:26-30, Q 12:45, etc.). More recently, in The
            Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, you
            note similarly that "nothing contradicts the canonical
            picture of a Jesus who sometimes feasts and sometimes
            fasts" (p 15).

            This is all correct. Thanks for getting it right. I remember running across an essay by Tom Wright in which he asserted that I denied Jesus had festive meals. As you say, I'm suggesting a Jesus who sometimes feasted and sometimes fasted.

            ii. But then you've got a question--

            But why would millenarians like Jesus and his closest
            followers "sometimes feast and sometimes fast"? Why
            would they be rigorously ascetic about sex and money,
            quasi-ascetic about food and drink? How exactly do we
            reconcile a Jesus who sometimes behaved like a "bon
            vivant" (a label used even by conservative John Meier,
            who, employing the criterion of embarrassment, notes
            that the early church would have hardly gone out of
            the way to fabricate mocking caricatures of its Risen
            Lord as a glutton/drunkard; Marginal Jew, Vol II, pp
            149-150) with a Jesus who disparages feasting
            elsewhere (Q 12:45, 17:26-30).

            A general comment: this is what we do again and again. We see two things in the gospels that, in our eyes, stand in tension. Our general inclination is to say one thing goes back to Jesus, the other does not. We're regularly using the criterion of consistency, even when we don't name it. I won't repeat my discussion at the beginning of Jesus of Nazareth, but I'm always back with the fact that the perceived tensions are all in the sources themselves. So we've got Jesus being consistent, his followers inconsistent, or not perceiving the tensions we perceive. Isn't this just a hangover from the old theology, in which Jesus is perfect in all things, and if there are any problems, they've got to come from the disciples? On the matter at hand, it is simply the case that the synoptics at least do have a Jesus who feasts and fasts, so we should at least ask whether they could be right here.

            ii. Seems to me that my view is consistent with what we see elsewhere. Consider e.g. Christian practice throughout the ages. Right now, as for 2,000 years, the Eastern Orthodox, at least the good ones, are fasting for Lent. Come Pascha and the big celebration of the resurrection, they'll have a big feast. Heck, some places they'll drink and dance half the night. Now surely we'd never look at this and think, We'll what a contradiction! But when we see something like this in the gospels, we get unimaginative, wooden minds and espy tension.

            iii. You ask, Loren, whether different audiences might explain Jesus' different teachings here. No.

            iv. For what it's worth, if the tradition shows Jesus feasting, it also shows him fasting and his disciples hungry. According to Mark 2:23-28, the disciples were, on one occasion, so hungry that they bent a sabbath rule. The text, whether historical or not, presupposes genuine need. Isn't this consistent with the synoptic instructions for missionaries, in which Jesus sends out itinerants without food or money? Further, in Q Jesus exhorts followers not to keep worrying about what they are to eat or what they are to drink (12:22ff.). And why should he do this unless they are anxious about eating or drinking? Similarly, would the brevity of the Lord's Prayer permit a petition for daily bread (Q 11:3) is daily bread were never a real problem? It's entirely plausible that, just as Paul the missionary sometimes found himself hungry and thirsty (2 Cor 11:27), so similarly Jesus and his disciples, who relied upon the hospitality of others, were occasionally less than full. My point, then, is that going without food was probably a necessary correlate from time to time of moving around from place to place.

            v. You write Loren: Did he believe it was legitimate for the poor and disaffected (God's elect) to occasionally enjoy
            "messianic banquets" already realized in the present age, and consider the feasting of the rich oppositely
            as a sign of judgment on them (relating to the whole "reversal of fortunes" principle)?

            This makes good sense to me and fits with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. My one question is whether, however, some of Jesus' hosts were well to do. Mark 2 has him with a toll collector; soo too Luke 19. Did Jesus accept the hospitality of the well to do? Or were impoverished people putting him up and setting up feasts?

            vi. I wonder what we're thinking when we think of Jesus feasting. The gospels just don't have any details, do they? But we must have pictures in our minds. So what are we thinking? And why are we imagining something that involved people who couldn't on some other occasion fast? Surely Jesus wasn't an alcoholic! See James Robinson's critique of Vaage's view in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical, ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge.

            vii. You write:

            Or maybe fasting doesn't have the same rhetorical force or persuasion (3, above) as celibacy and poverty?

            Well, to the extent that fasting comes from poverty, they amount to the same thing, don't they?

            viii. My guess is that hungry people having a feast would have been for Jesus a perfect symbol of the kingdom. Isn't this in fact obvious? Certainly it's a better representation of "Blessed are you who hunger and thirst, for you shall be satisfied" than a bunch of otherwise full people just getting more of what they always get.

            Hope this helps--but I must say that so little has been done on this subject that I expect surprises await those who investigate it. E.g., point viii seems rather nifty to me, but has anyone thought about it before?

            Dale
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.