Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Irish1975 »

Not sure whether this is being directly asserted, but FWIW I don’t see how the Jesus of gMark could be interpreted as “a teacher.” He teaches nothing, or rather, nothing that is not basic Judaism. He is a kind of anti-teacher. The parables are meant to keep the people in the dark. The disciples (μαθηταὶ, “learners”) learn nothing.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by mlinssen »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:50 am Not sure whether this is being directly asserted, but FWIW I don’t see how the Jesus of gMark could be interpreted as “a teacher.” He teaches nothing, or rather, nothing that is not basic Judaism. He is a kind of anti-teacher. The parables are meant to keep the people in the dark. The disciples (μαθηταὶ, “learners”) learn nothing.
Agreed. It is nothing short of a miracle to fit Mark onto Judaism, given the few things that Jesus does "teach". Of course, there is moralising in the explanation of the parables, but little more than "follow the leader" is not to be found anywhere

Have you ever looked up where the word μαθηταὶ comes from?
It's rather enjoyable, really; the verb is https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mo ... =1#lexicon
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:50 am Not sure whether this is being directly asserted, but FWIW I don’t see how the Jesus of gMark could be interpreted as “a teacher.” He teaches nothing, or rather, nothing that is not basic Judaism. He is a kind of anti-teacher. The parables are meant to keep the people in the dark. The disciples (μαθηταὶ, “learners”) learn nothing.
Hence, as you no doubt well know, many gems from Stevan Davies like this one:

When Sanders, standing in here for nearly all Jesus research scholars, says, “I do not doubt that he was a great and challenging teacher,” I am baffled. Mark doubts it (4:10-12, 8:17-21), neither Paul nor John pay any significant attention to those teachings, Luke cares little about the matter (taking Acts as representative of Luke’s bottom-line assessment). Scholarship, theological and historical both, is in a state of near conceptual chaos regarding the message of Jesus the Teacher: countercultural wisdom sage, peasant Jewish Cynic, Pharisaic rabbi, antipatriarchal communalist, eschatological preacher? If he had a coherent message and neither we nor his known near contemporaries know for sure what it was, he ought not to be thought, first and foremost, to have been a great and challenging teacher. -- Jesus the Healer p. 13

But there is another perspective, one that steps back from the Jesus figure within the narrative (where he often seems to cause fear and confusion as much as anything positive), and one that looks at how Jesus works for readers of the gospel. Mark 1:27 is confusing - the people are astonished and ask "What new teaching is this?" Within the confines of the narrative itself, Jesus has taught nothing. But I think there is a major teaching for the reader: Jesus is beginning to overthrow the powers of this world and introduce a new kingdom.

Currently I have been trying to catch up with the following works which possibly allow us to justify this viewpoint of whom the gospel Jesus is actually teaching and what he is teaching, especially the first, Yadin's:
The point made by these works (no doubt there are many others) is that Jewish exegetes understood Scripture itself as akin to a personified agent that teaches and saves those who engage with it. Yadin's work is especially relevant since his focus is on the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim from the late first and early second centuries.

Scripture was seen as a person, an agent. Even the Voice of God which could be "seen" at Mount Sinai, and which itself spoke to Moses in Numbers 7:89, was a kind of personified agent and mediator between God himself and Israel. We can disagree on that interpretation but that's how some early Jewish exegetes interpreted it -- and Scripture more generally.

All of Scripture -- even passages describing actions rather than speeches -- was a "teaching", and was in fact (somewhat) personified Scripture teaching those who read or listened to it.

Other passages can be understood as making the Word or Wisdom of God identical with the "Son" of God. Later Jewish "sages" themselves were said to embody, literally, the Scriptures, and not only every word they spoke but every action they were seen to perform were an expression of Scripture -- embodied or incarnate Scripture. Neusner places this development very late (post 700 CE) but there is a case to be made that it drew upon the same tradition that led to what became Christianity (and that was long resisted by other Jews within the Roman empire despite their common foundations).

If we think of the Gospel of Mark as being written in the same kind of tradition as other Jewish narratives, both canonical and extracanonical, that were interpreted by early Jewish exegetes as personified expressions of the Word and Teaching of God, then we have a scenario where a teaching from God can be not only words of wisdom but equally acts of power, healing, salvation, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Irish1975 »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:47 am Have you ever looked up where the word μαθηταὶ comes from?
It's rather enjoyable, really; the verb is https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mo ... i=1#lexico
Our source for "math," right?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Irish1975 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:53 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:50 am Not sure whether this is being directly asserted, but FWIW I don’t see how the Jesus of gMark could be interpreted as “a teacher.” He teaches nothing, or rather, nothing that is not basic Judaism. He is a kind of anti-teacher. The parables are meant to keep the people in the dark. The disciples (μαθηταὶ, “learners”) learn nothing.
Hence, as you no doubt well know, many gems from Stevan Davies like this one:

When Sanders, standing in here for nearly all Jesus research scholars, says, “I do not doubt that he was a great and challenging teacher,” I am baffled. Mark doubts it (4:10-12, 8:17-21), neither Paul nor John pay any significant attention to those teachings, Luke cares little about the matter (taking Acts as representative of Luke’s bottom-line assessment). Scholarship, theological and historical both, is in a state of near conceptual chaos regarding the message of Jesus the Teacher: countercultural wisdom sage, peasant Jewish Cynic, Pharisaic rabbi, antipatriarchal communalist, eschatological preacher? If he had a coherent message and neither we nor his known near contemporaries know for sure what it was, he ought not to be thought, first and foremost, to have been a great and challenging teacher. -- Jesus the Healer p. 13

But there is another perspective, one that steps back from the Jesus figure within the narrative (where he often seems to cause fear and confusion as much as anything positive), and one that looks at how Jesus works for readers of the gospel. Mark 1:27 is confusing - the people are astonished and ask "What new teaching is this?" Within the confines of the narrative itself, Jesus has taught nothing. But I think there is a major teaching for the reader: Jesus is beginning to overthrow the powers of this world and introduce a new kingdom.

Currently I have been trying to catch up with the following works which possibly allow us to justify this viewpoint of whom the gospel Jesus is actually teaching and what he is teaching, especially the first, Yadin's:
The point made by these works (no doubt there are many others) is that Jewish exegetes understood Scripture itself as akin to a personified agent that teaches and saves those who engage with it. Yadin's work is especially relevant since his focus is on the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim from the late first and early second centuries.

Scripture was seen as a person, an agent. Even the Voice of God which could be "seen" at Mount Sinai, and which itself spoke to Moses in Numbers 7:89, was a kind of personified agent and mediator between God himself and Israel. We can disagree on that interpretation but that's how some early Jewish exegetes interpreted it -- and Scripture more generally.

All of Scripture -- even passages describing actions rather than speeches -- was a "teaching", and was in fact (somewhat) personified Scripture teaching those who read or listened to it.

Other passages can be understood as making the Word or Wisdom of God identical with the "Son" of God. Later Jewish "sages" themselves were said to embody, literally, the Scriptures, and not only every word they spoke but every action they were seen to perform were an expression of Scripture -- embodied or incarnate Scripture. Neusner places this development very late (post 700 CE) but there is a case to be made that it drew upon the same tradition that led to what became Christianity (and that was long resisted by other Jews within the Roman empire despite their common foundations).

If we think of the Gospel of Mark as being written in the same kind of tradition as other Jewish narratives, both canonical and extracanonical, that were interpreted by early Jewish exegetes as personified expressions of the Word and Teaching of God, then we have a scenario where a teaching from God can be not only words of wisdom but equally acts of power, healing, salvation, etc.
Davies is excellent. I have the later version of that book, "Spirit Possession, etc."

Need some time to think about this other stuff. Has me thinking about Paul.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Mark 1:27 is confusing - the people are astonished and ask "What new teaching is this?" Within the confines of the narrative itself, Jesus has taught nothing.
Sorry, not following. At 1:21, after going to Capernaum with his companions,
and immediately on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught.
Then Mark tells (not shows, which is a possible grounds for adverse criticism*) that Jesus is what may fairly be described as "a great and challenging teacher,” (verse 22):
They were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.
Then comes the exorcism, which goes well, and the listeners get to speak for themselves** (verse 27):
They were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching? For with authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!”
Bottom line: Jesus does seem to have taught the speakers of verse 27.
-
* Although it can equally be argued that Mark isn't "about" Jesus alone, but rather "about" the reaction to Jesus of the other 100 +/- distinctly portrayed characters (or for a few of those characters, to John the Baptist - another "teacher" whom Mark chooses to present to us largely through his teachings' effect on others). In which case, Mark does indeed show as much tell what he wishes to convey at this point in the performance: the reaction of this audience.

** This verse introduces the theme of Jesus's listeners asking one another questions instead of asking Jesus, even when Jesus is presumably available to be asked. This becomes a plot and character point in Mark, as the disciples do it repeatedly. It is also relevant to the assessment of Jesus's prowess as an instructor, although how much he is responsible for this behavior is debatable.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am Sorry, not following. At 1:21, after going to Capernaum with his companions,
It is the total absence ("deafening silence" one might even say) about what was taught that baffles the naive reader. If a teaching is so astonishing and if we are talking about the story world itself, then we expect to read some key points of that "astonishing" teaching.

The teaching astonishes -- but is completely out of hearing/reading to the reader of the gospel.

What amazes people -- what the reader of the gospel is left with to understand -- is that the people are godsmacked with amazement at his authoritative manner of teaching that is accompanied by power over the demon powers of the world.

There is no teaching content, there is nothing that is actually taught here -- no words the reader reads to see what was taught. All the reader reads is a figure overpowering by his teaching (without any reference to content of that teaching) and his power over demons. He has authority over men and demons.

That all fits the pattern of what became the model sage in later Judaism -- all his words have the authority of Scripture; all his acts are the acts of Scripture; Scripture is embodied, or incarnated, in the sage; Scripture, the Voice, the Word of God is God, and it is God incarnate in the sage.

Later evangelists tried to find some noble things for Jesus to teach (or they thought they found them in Q, maybe) but they miss Mark's point. It is not any specific content that is astonishing; it is the act of Jesus speaking, and then acting, that overpowers them with astonishment.

It makes no sense as narrative -- few things do in Mark -- but it does "teach" the reader about God/Scripture incarnate in Jesus.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

I'm reminded of listening to preachers who "taught with authority" and how all I remembered afterwards was how they shouted and roared a lot and imposed a black and white dogmatic world of "awe" -- but, um... what was the message and was it so different from anything that couldn't have been delivered even more effectively some other way.

Maybe Mark meant that Jesus shouted and ranted a lot but no-one could remember what it was he actually taught?

Or maybe for Mark it was the act of Jesus teaching that was the message for his readers -- he spoke as one would expect an emissary from God to speak -- with the authority of God himself (that would sort of be something that a reader of Mark could appreciate, speaking with the authority of God as opposed to just shouting a lot. (No doubt Pharisees could shout, too, when they wanted.)

The Gospel of John interprets Mark in a way I sometimes think is closer to Mark's text than the other synoptics: John understood Mark's Jesus was the Word made flesh. As personified Scripture taught, so did Jesus, with authority; as God drove out demons, so did Jesus. That was what the astonishment was about, I suspect.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:20 am Having skimmed much of the book so far I can say it is a welcome breath of fresh air in a room too long stale with the stench of assumption that the Gospel and Acts narratives are gateways to historical events.

Walsh demonstrates what others have also shown in the past -- though I think Walsh's addition is her placing of the authors more solidly in the literary world and engaging with that literary world primarily, thus leaving models of authors writing on behalf of communities that are imagined on the basis of the biblical narratives themselves to one side as inadequate explanations.
First, I would like to add Jacob Berman's interview with Robyn Walsh at History Valley and Brent Nongbri's review of her book.

Second, I have to sing a late hymn of praise about Robyn Walsh ;) My impression from the book reviews and commentaries was that, in the main point, Walsh is not saying anything entirely new. Others have already suggested something similar. Neil specifically mentioned Thomas Brodie.

However, it is often not that important to say something completely new, but rather to highlight some news as a headline. That's exactly what Walsh did. The gospel writers were intellectual men of letters. It changes the image that mainstream scholars, especially German scholars, had made of the evangelists over the past 250 years :tombstone:
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:46 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:20 am Having skimmed much of the book so far I can say it is a welcome breath of fresh air in a room too long stale with the stench of assumption that the Gospel and Acts narratives are gateways to historical events.

Walsh demonstrates what others have also shown in the past -- though I think Walsh's addition is her placing of the authors more solidly in the literary world and engaging with that literary world primarily, thus leaving models of authors writing on behalf of communities that are imagined on the basis of the biblical narratives themselves to one side as inadequate explanations.
First, I would like to add Jacob Berman's interview with Robyn Walsh at History Valley and Brent Nongbri's review of her book.

Second, I have to sing a late hymn of praise about Robyn Walsh ;) My impression from the book reviews and commentaries was that, in the main point, Walsh is not saying anything entirely new. Others have already suggested something similar. Neil specifically mentioned Thomas Brodie.

However, it is often not that important to say something completely new, but rather to highlight some news as a headline. That's exactly what Walsh did. The gospel writers were intellectual men of letters. It changes the image that mainstream scholars, especially German scholars, had made of the evangelists over the past 250 years :tombstone:
Yes, Robyn Walsh presented one of the best (IMHO) papers at the New Quest for Historical Jesus. The focus was on Mark and (as memory serves), how Mark creates a sense of spiritual immediacy. My memory of it is twisted in the direction of my blurry memory of her answer to my question which I sent via chat. I asked if Mark's use of εὐθέως was integral to his creation of a sense of spiritual immediacy. She said it was a good question and she agreed. She expanded on the topic by recalling how her teacher, Stanley Stowers said that εὐθέως has Jesus appearing here than there like a blinking light.
Post Reply