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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: comments please

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; WSW In Response To: Bob Schacht On: LXX and Literacy From: Bruce Jeffrey Gibson had asked: May we presume that Jesus (and his disciples)
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 14, 2008
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG; WSW
      In Response To: Bob Schacht
      On: LXX and Literacy
      From: Bruce

      Jeffrey Gibson had asked: "May we presume that Jesus (and his disciples)
      knew the LXX?" I think that we can better dodge some of the points Bob
      raised in response if we frame it this way: "Would the intended audience (of
      Mk, Mt, Lk, whatever, and perhaps those questions should be separated) have
      been more likely to recognize and relate to an OT quotation if given in its
      LXX form, or as a new translation from, and closer to, the Hebrew?" (The
      question may not really relate to Jesus, but more closely to those writing
      persuasion tracts for the Jesus movement; see further below).

      To some of Bob's other points:

      Bob: If Jesus really was a cousin of J the B,

      Bruce: Not claimed until gLk (#3), and therefore late in Gospel history.
      Since that passage is exiguous in gLk, and thus belongs to the gLk rewrite
      and not to the primitive gLk, we should code it #3b.

      Bob: . . . and therefore a relative of a priest, perhaps he was literate and
      had access to the LXX.

      Bruce: If a relative of a priest, would it not be even likelier that he was
      exposed to Hebrew?

      Bob: The gospels do . . .

      Bruce: I think it is a great, if seemingly also frequent, methodological
      mistake to lump the Gospels together and then draw indiscriminately from the
      resulting pool for evidence on a given point. Sources of different date
      should not be mixed at the beginning of an investigation.

      Bob: . . . describe him as reading from a scroll of Isaiah,

      Bruce: In gLk (#3), and if the truth be told, in the rewrite of that passage
      in gLk; hence #3b.

      Bob: . . . and writing in the sand,

      Bruce: In gJn (#4), and that story is notoriously loose in its textual
      placement, which probably indicates a post-Gospel addendum (#5).

      Bob: . . . so it is plausible that Jesus himself knew some of the LXX, but
      the evidence is rather scanty.

      Bruce: You left out the 12-year old Jesus, Prodigy of Scriptural Learning
      (gLk, #3; oops, 3b). After adding that piece to the pile, I would still
      agree that the evidence is scanty, but I would think it still better to say
      that the evidence is consistently late. We may in fact have here a Jesus
      Literacy Trajectory.

      Let me add, for those who have not yet sought out the local theology
      library's well-thumbed copy of The Original Analects (Columbia 1998), that
      such things are not unheard of in perhaps comparable traditions. The period
      of directly documented early Confucianism ran from 0479 (death of Confucius)
      to the fall of Confucius's state Lu and the end of his successor school
      (0249). It is not until the late middle of this 230-year span that newly
      written "sayings" of or about Confucius depict his disciples as memorizing
      texts, or as writing down Confucius's words. The larger context is that
      literacy, and its accompanying phenomenon, textualization, increased in the
      environing society over this same period, being attributed (in various
      texts) first to elite persons (in the 04th century), and then to slaves (in
      the 03rd). So the indicated summary statement is not "the disciples were
      literate" but rather "Jesus, and by implication his disciples, tend to be
      portrayed in the successive Gospels as commanding whatever resources of
      memory or text production were considered standard at the time, for persons
      of that social level."

      Though textualization as such was well established in Israel by the period
      of our present interest, it seems possible that the degree of diffusion of
      access to texts changed between the date of gMk and that of gJn, and that
      the image of Jesus in the several Gospels is being adjusted to keep it
      current with reader expectations. No?

      Bob: The reputation of his brother James also suggests literacy.

      Bruce: Aha, the perennial red herring, Brother Jacob. The tales about him
      that I can call to mind at this moment suggest an extreme form of top-down
      rote Temple piety, far less radical philosophically and politically than his
      older brother. But literacy? I don't remember that part. Reference
      appreciated.

      Excursus 1. If one son in a pious but not rich family was to be given the
      advantages of contact with the high tradition, would it not most likely have
      been the eldest, namely Jesus? Thus perhaps beginning the break that seems
      at one point to have arisen between him and the rest of the family: the
      seminarian versus the more fundamentalist and uncritical folks back home. It
      seems not impossible, though as earlier noted, the positive evidence for it
      is apparently absent in the earliest sources. So here too, I would have to
      think that the cautious inference would rest on the earliest sources, and
      that the notably different picture drawn by the latest sources should
      probably be ascribed to the reinvention of Jesus in later decades, and not
      to the historical person.

      I note in parallel that the Gospels themselves, and here perhaps is yet
      another Trajectory development, all rely, but taken as a series, at least
      within the Synoptics, *increasingly* rely, on validation by resonance or
      prediction from the OT. If the authors gradually outstrip their subject in
      virtuosity with the OT, isn't an image gap likely to develop between them,
      one which could be relaxed by attributing to the subject more of what his
      chroniclers themselves know? If someone has counted the number of times
      Jesus refers to an OT text, especially as a forecast of his own actions and
      fate, I would be interested in seeing the resulting numbers.

      Excursus 2. Here is another way a gap could have developed. gLk is exposed,
      nay, committed, to Gentile Christianity, and thus, in something like a
      comprehensive way, to Greek culture in general. As the previous image of
      Jesus moved out into that larger arena, and was used for persuasion purposes
      therein, might it not reasonably have seemed, to those in charge of the
      image department, that the image could do with a bit of brushing up? Think
      of Paul in Athens. Paul himself was moving in educated circles, at some
      points only once removed from such luminaries of light and learning as the
      Roman writer Seneca. Paul's own learning seems to have counted positively in
      helping him make a good impression on these functionaries. Might not certain
      aspects of the Lukan and post-Lukan picture of Jesus then be due to image
      refurbishing, rather than to historical memory?

      [Note, by the way, that Paul's expert acquaintance with Hebrew learning
      under Gamaliel does nothing to diminish his parallel expertise with the
      Greek language. It is not necessarily an either/or situation. Sometimes
      people who are good at one language are good at languages, period].

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.