H. J. de Jonge’s “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John” has a few issues that need to be dealt with.

Style

At the risk of going ad hominem, I must berate de Jonge’s style, especially in the opening paragraphs. I’m not sure if he needed to reach some kind of minimum length requirement, but the style of the opening section (prior to the examination of each chapter) is torturous. It is repetitive and juvenile sounding.

These paragraphs were tough to swallow, and, admittedly, left a bad taste in my mouth that may have affected how I felt about the rest of the article.

Assumptions

It’s always good to think about the assumptions (and categories) within which an author is working. de Jonge makes some assumptions that are worth noting:

1. The author is writing to and (therefore) for an immediate audience without too much regard for historicity.
2. This author did not dialogue with actual Jews (a troubling assumption).
3. The author’s immediate concerns are theological and christological.
4. de Jonge, I think, assumes that he needs to defend the Gospel of John from charges of anti-Semitism (in reality, “anti-Semitism,” is a 19th century invention—why should we defend John for something that really hadn’t been invented yet?)

My Issues

de Jonge infers from various evidence that John had no contact/dialogue with Jews. I find this conclusion troubling. One of his major pieces of evidence is the author’s treatment of “the Jews” as a homogenized group during the trial before Pilate. Surely, according to de Jonge, this group was more diverse than the author let’s on.

Let’s think this through. What if George W. Bush were brought before the Democratic National Convention. For sure, there would be democrats in the crowd who despise him. Additionally, there would be democrats who tolerate him. There will even be a few democrats who believe in him. Yet, the generally feeling of the assembly will be one of contempt. When writing about this event, I think any one of us would be inclined to use “the democrats” to generalize the crowd. Would we be guilty of over-generalization? Perhaps. (Incidentally, the above analogy works with John Kerry in front of the Republican National Convention—I’m not trying to get political here).

So, it’s not at all surprising that John talks about “the Jews” at the trial as a homogenized group.

de Jonge’s other evidence is more convincing. Since he believes that John is projecting his own opponents (Christians with a lower Christology) on to the Jews, de Jonge is able to show that “the Jews” have at least some level of acceptance of Jesus. Rather than dispute his works, “the Jews” are mainly concerned with whether or not he is equal to God. This is actually pretty convincing. Though, I think that historical Jews chatting with Jesus probably would have found his claiming to be God more blasphemous than his performance of miracles on the Sabbath.

I do appreciate de Jonge’s care in presenting his case chapter-by-chapter in a succinct, concise manner. I do wish his introduction hadn’t sullied his otherwise readable style.

What do y’all think?

Given the recent post on the availability of some works form Leiden/Brill. I have decided that it would be a good idea to read some H. J. de Jonge. The article is downloadable in PDF format here:

“‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John” by H. J. de Jonge

Happy reading! I’ll be back on Friday (16 February 2007) to talk about de Jonge’s article.

For this leap, I’ll use a 1992 article by David B. Batstone as a springboard:

In sum, apocalyptic was a dynamic medium of spiritual power and life in the social world of Jesus…It offered a way of looking at the world that rejected the dominant powers as the ultimate point of reference for the world and posited another horizon where justice may reign. (395)

Let’s start by understanding that “apocalyptic” does not mean some cataclysmic end of the world, necessarily. It simply comes from a Greek word (ἀποκαλύπτω) which means ‘to uncover.’ Apocalyptic, then, has to do with uncovering, or revealing.

For me, Jesus is most definitely an apocalyptic figure. Foremost is the fact that he is God, revealed in human form to us. That’s a huge, stunning revelation/uncovering. Second, Jesus reveals the Kingdom of God to us. The Kingdom of God is where I want to live (both in reality and for the rest of this post).

When Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, essentially, we see the world as we knew it coming to an end (there’s your Apocalypse!). As Batstone puts it, no longer are the earthly powers the ultimate point of reference. Mighty “your majesties” and rich folk no longer make the world go ‘round. Rather, in the Kingdom of God the poor become rich, and the servant becomes master.

This is an empowering thought. Social significance in the Kingdom of God has no regard for political or financial might. Rather, it is an assessment of one’s heart that forms the basis for worth. The dominant power is now God, whose system of justice is hitherto foreign to humanity.

Jesus, I think, represents the overturning of social hierarchies that had long dominated humanity. Believers are encouraged to forfeit their possessions, to serve their masters even if they are wicked, and to obey the commands of God even to the point of death.

For all of this, Jesus is our exemplar. He is both revolutionary and docile. He is both the friendly Jesus, and the fiery, apocalyptic Jesus.

I’m wondering: “Is this our call?”

At the risk of looking like some kind of liberation theologian, I wanted to look at Batstone’s article primarily to learn a little about apocalyptic. I was surprised to find that Batstone did a decent job of making generalizations about the statue of New Testament scholarship at the time of his writing (1992). Additionally, he offers an interesting definition of apocalyptic, a term that has been understood in a variety of ways over the years.

Pseudo-Summary

Batstone’s assessment of trends of “apocalyptic” thinking in New Testament scholarship fall under four different dichotomies:

• The Particular versus the Universal
• Time versus Culture
• The Individual versus the Sociocommunal
• A Spirituality of World versus an Aworldly Spirituality

Within each of these categories, Batstone discusses the traps into which some scholarship and modes of thinking have fallen. His hope is to create a picture of the social milieu in which Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God. For Batstone, this proclamation was not innocuous religio-speak. Rather, Jesus is revolutionary on both religious and political levels. Modern scholarship has confused its own contemporary categories and modes with those of 1st century Palestine, and this has ultimately led to our understanding of the benign Jesus.

At least, this is how I read Batstone.

Time to Take Issue

First of all, I do take issue with this whole idea of Jesus’ self-understanding (as I have noted in my recent review of an article by N. T. Wright). Batstone concerns himself with these notions of what Jesus thought about himself. I just don’t see how we can get there without resorting to psycho-analysis.

Akin to that particular problem, Batstone generalizes the thought-world of 1st century Palestine. While, in principle, I do think that we can say: “Notion X could not have been thought by people who had understanding Y.” For example: The notion that the planets orbit the sun in elliptical paths would not have occurred to people who understood the Earth to be the center of the universe. However, there is a lack of evidence for some of these thought-limitations that Batstone proposes.

How exactly do we arrive at the idea that time was not linear for the average Julius Q. Publicus of the Roman Empire? I don’t know. That being said, I am glad to see Batstone call out academics for applying modern categories to ancient situations.

Definition of Apocalyptic

One of Batstone’s goals is to redefine “apocalyptic.” I rather enjoy this rendition:

In sum, apocalyptic was a dynamic medium of spiritual power and life in the social world of Jesus…It offered a way of looking at the world that rejected the dominant powers as the ultimate point of reference for the world and posited another horizon where justice may reign. (395)

Too often we are seduced by the friendly Jesus. The New Testament, however, offers plenty of examples of the fiery, apocalyptic Jesus. In reality, this guy spoke with power, touching topics both social and religious. The Kingdom of God presented a total reversal from the norm—especially as presented in the Gospel of Luke where social reversal (e.g., poor supplants rich) plays such a prominent role.

Conclusion

Batstone has some interesting ideas. I think he’s barking up the right tree in wanting to re-examine apocalyptic. I don’t know his background, but I would assume that he is a theologian who dabbles in history. Though he is widely read, I’m not sure how well-read he is. This is not a knock on him, unless, of course, he is a historical-critic by trade.

Your thoughts?

This week’s article of the week is totally unfamiliar to me. So, we’ll learn together. Feel free to pick up your copy from this link:

Theology Today – Vol 49, No.3 – October 1992 – ARTICLE -
Jesus, Apocalyptic, and World Transformation

I’ll get back to you with my opinion on Friday (5 Feb 2007).

In this week’s Article of the Week, N. T. Wright made this simple, but important, point:

To the suggestion…that it might be yet another projection of Synoptic or Johannine Christology back on to Jesus, I make the response I made in [Jesus and the Victory of God]…what was thinkable for the early Jewish church must have been thinkable for the early Jewish Jesus. (p. 55)

Often we are confronted with accusations that the historical Jesus is drastically different from the Jesus of the Bible. Without a faith in the text, it is easy to make this leap, and so I understand why people might think in this way. I used to be one of them. There are all kinds of theories about how the texts were changed, some of them plausible, and that the real Jesus was just a Jewish preacher going about his business in the Galilee.

The very notion of the Jewish Jesus can be used by an apologetics ministry as justification for the idea that Jesus understood himself to be more than merely a carpenter/preacher. Wright’s point above cannot be understated: if it’s possible for first century Jews to think it, then it’s possible for Jesus (a first century Jew) also to think it—even of himself.

It’s so cleverly simple.

I love any article that has four introductions. In all seriousness, N. T. Wright’s 2002 article “Jesus’ Self-Understanding” is both beautiful and flawed.

The Flaws

Let’s get the dirt out of the way, and then move on to the good stuff.

Those who study Christology tend to study what later writers said about Jesus, and then try to find some way through the maze to arrive at an understanding of what Jesus thought about Jesus. I am prone to agree with Käsemann who showed that there is a historical barrier between us and the historical Jesus. I think its fun and occasionally worthwhile to consider “the historical Jesus,” but, in reality, the interpretations are far too varied. Everyone comes out with the Jesus that they wanted.

The biggest flaw in Wright’s argument is his assumption that we can say anything about Jesus’ self-understanding. As he correctly points out, we can’t psychoanalyze a figure that lived 2000 years ago. So what do we do? In light of the fact that we can’t get into a first century Jew’s mind (though, Wright seems to think we can), what does “self-understanding” mean?

The Beauty

The beauty of Wright’s argument can be summed up in one sentence: “[W]hat was thinkable for the early Jewish church must have been thinkable for the early Jewish Jesus” (p. 55).

This is a stunningly simple, yet important concept. Wright notes that so much of this quest for the historical Jesus has been focused on the Jewish-ness of Jesus. If it was possible for an early, mostly Jewish Jesus movement to conceive of Jesus in a way that we would characterize as “high Christology,” why is it difficult for us to believe that Jesus could have thought in this way? It’s (un)common sense.

From here Wright launches into a discussion of Jesus in light of Temple and Torah. I am onboard with this direction. Wright’s analysis of Jesus’ movement as anti-Temple is quite interesting, and I am inclined to agree. He refers to Jesus as the “Tabernacling Presence,” meaning that Jesus was “acting as a one-man Temple substitute” (p. 57) by offering the forgiveness of sins and restoration—Temple functions.

Wright’s discussion of Jesus in light of Torah/Wisdom is a bit more nebulous, shorter, and seemingly out of focus by comparison.

Conclusion

N. T. Wright makes a much-needed, simple statement—Jesus’ humble roots do not preclude Him from a higher christology. Further, moving in the direction of Jesus’ self-understanding being rooted in Temple and Torah feels like the way to go. However, the question of how we can really talk about a historical figure’s self-understanding is still open for discussion.

I decided that it would be a good idea to take advantage of the web/blogosphere and do some free reading! No trips to the library; no jaunts to the bookstore; no late nights at Amazon.com!

Each week I’ll post an article. Usually it will be available for free via the internet. You’ll have a couple of days to read it, and then I’ll post my thoughts on Friday.

This week’s article has been provided courtesy of Mark Goodacre over at the New Testament Gateway:

• “Jesus’ Self-Understanding” by N.T. Wright

Thanks to both N.T. Wright and Mark Goodacre. For their efforts, I’ll take this opportunity to push their books (aff links).

Mark Goodacre:

• The Case Against Q
• The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze

N.T. Wright:

• Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense
• Evil and the Justice of God
• Paul: In Fresh Perspective
• Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship
• The Millennium Myth: Hope for a Postmodern World

Both Goodacre and Wright:

• Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique