What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Craig B]

... The reason that I brought all this up is that the poster who I was originally responding to was telling the story in a deliberate way to make Jesus seem greedy or something. I don't see it like that and that the "gift" was theologically important and not jesus with his hand out for pay-offs.

I think you're right, that the story is not intended to make Jesus appear covetous or indifferent to others. And in fact no more than you do I read it that way. If you want that sort of thing, read Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:3-12.

 

[Ethnikos]

I think you're right, that the story is not intended to make Jesus appear covetous or indifferent to others. And in fact no more than you do I read it that way. If you want that sort of thing, read Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:3-12.

Paul is saying that he has a right to do those things, if he wanted to, but doesn't because he would rather work for his living so that people don't think that he preached the Gospel so that he could receive those benefits.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Oddly enough, that particular quotation was one that tipped the balance for me.

Oddly enough, whatever may have happened there (Ethnikos's objection duly noted), may have also been what tipped the balance for Judas. In the other 3 gospels it's more elaborate about Satan entering him and whatnot, but in Mark the very next verse after Jesus spouts that self-serving line, is Mark 14:9: "Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them."

Could it be that Judas had just had enough of following a charismatic con artist that loved to be spoiled with such gifts? We'll never know either way, but just a random alternate-history thought.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Three of the Gospels agree that there was an incident of this kind. Luke has the presence of mind to lose it.

Luke does have a similar story that connects the Mark version with the John version, though, at Luke 7:36-50. I won't quote it all, but to show that it has elements from both:

36. When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.

37. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume.

38. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.​

I guess it's possible that it's a completely different incident than the one John talks about, but then it means more than one woman was washing Jesus's feet with her hair. And I don't think it makes it better, tbh.

Incidentally, in the next verses it turns out the Pharisee is called Simon, so there's one more connecting element to Mark there.

Interestingly enough, here it's made the clearest of all versions that it could have been prevented (e.g., he could have stopped her by the time she was washing his feet with her hair) Jesus is just laying back and letting her do that. In fact the Pharisee's objection is precisely that Jesus doesn't react.

And Jesus's answer to the Pharisee also makes it pretty clear that Jesus thinks he's entitled to that:

44. Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.

45. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet.

46. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.

47. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”​

I mean, not only is he okay with it all along, but he actually imputes to his host that he didn't humiliate himself towards Jesus too. He actually imputes to the Pharisee, "You did not put oil on my head". He's not just ok with having expensive oil put on him, but actually imputes to his host that he didn't.

Also it indicates that it had been going on for a while: "but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet." I mean, it's not just a one off kiss that might have surprised him. But there he's lounging while a woman keeps kissing his feet, and not only he doesn't stop her, he seems to think he's entitled to that kind of show of self-humiliation before him.

Incidentally, it's also funny that he complains that the Pharisee didn't kiss him. I'm surprised that that verse doesn't get slung at the homophobic bible bashers all the time.

The most specific report is the last, John 12: 1-11.

The woman in question is Mary of Bethany, and the location is her family home. She is grateful that Jesus fetched her prematurely buried brother out of his tomb. God only knows what would have happened to poor Lazarus if Jesus hadn't come along.

Duly noted, though for the purpose of trying to reconstruct a plausible historical Jesus, I'd be somewhat wary of an explanation that involves a miracle as a reason. Which really is what John introduces there.

Mark doesn't seem to have heard of any reason why a nameless woman from Bethany (which is a symbolic name too, as it means "house of misery" or "house of the poor". Or in modern vernacular, it happens in Poor Town) gets some expensive perfume and pours it on Jesus's head, much less a miracle. In fact, as Ethnikos said, in Mark this happens in the house of Simon the Leper, whoever that was. There's no mention that he'd gotten raised from the dead too.

Also John changes the story a bit. In John, she pours the oil on Jesus's feet and wipes his feet with her own hair. Which actually makes it a little more wth for me that Jesus would lay back and enjoy such a spectacle of a woman humiliating herself extremely before him.

Plus in Mark it's easier to imagine some ninja woman who surprised Jesus from behind with that oil pouring, while in John surely Jesus would have noticed that someone is crouching at his feet to the extent where she can wipe his feet with her hair.

The critic is Judas. His outrage at the incident and the unsatisfactory answer Jesus improvises form the rational basis of his cooperation with the authorities soon afterwards. Judas' interest in the poor is portrayed as insincere; he would have stolen the proceeds from selling the oil, according to John.

Again, this is a detail that appears only in John. The original version in Mark, on the contrary, would have more than one person ("Some of those present") find the event indignant.

But ok, given that Judas immediately changes his mind about Jesus, it's quite plausible that he'd be one of those who objected.

I'd add though that John's adding that explanation is interesting, because it basically counters exactly the kind of objection that Ethnikos posted. If Judas thought it had been possible for him to get that money, it indicates that the situation could have been prevented.

Jesus baits his disciples, and anybody else who'll listen to him, throughout the Fourth Gospel. He whines about how he's going to die quite a bit. It's no surprise, then, that he would reach here for a speech based on the dual use of oil, not only for sex but also for death. It's all very French.

To be fair, Jesus repeatedly "prophecises" his own death in all four gospels, not only John. He's more upfront about that and generally being the messiah to strangers in John, as opposed to the "sshhh, don't tell anyone" Jesus of Mark, but to his own disciples... yeah, all four gospels agree about his telling them all over the place that he's the messiah and he's gonna die.

In the bigger picture, a great deal of Jesus' "teaching" consists of him talking his way of tight spots. Judas has him by the short curlies here, since Jesus has gone "off message" big time. The self-serving BS about the poor is quoted from Deuteronomy 15: 11. The Devil isn't the only one who can cite scripture to his own ends.

Ironically, the meaning in context of the original passage is not to flip off the poor, but to be mindful of them always. It is more than possible that Judas knows that. In the story, he doesn't get mad, he gets even.

Agreed.

I don't want to be overly critical of Jesus. I have to admit that if a hot young woman who thought she owed me one approached with a bottle of body oil, then I would be heedless of the poor for a few minutes, too.

Heedless of the poor, maybe. But I'm pretty sure that if anyone did such a gesture of extreme humility before me, I'd go, "wait, seriously, rise, no need to do that," rather than lay back and enjoy. And I don't claim to be the model of good guy and messiah.

Especially in Luke's version, I find it abject that someone would lay back and let a stranger humiliate herself before him for enough time for that conversation to go as it did, and not only try to stop her, but give an answer that indicates he thinks he's entitled to that.

It is interesting to speculate how much world history might be different if, instead of playing the wounded rabbi, Jesus had just said, "Sorry, Jude, I was thinking with the little head there for a while. I'm only human, you know."

I guess we'll never know.

 

[Belz...]

Why are we discussing the feet washing thing, now ? Aren't we at the point where we don't have any evidence that there was a Jesus in the first place ?

 

[davefoc]

Why are we discussing the feet washing thing, now ? Aren't we at the point where we don't have any evidence that there was a Jesus in the first place ?

Well, for one thing I found the discussion a bit interesting and of course the purpose of this forum is to entertain davefoc so that was pretty much enough to justify the digression.

I disagree, a bit that there isn't any evidence for an HJ. Perhaps it depends on what one means by the term, evidence, but there is evidence of an HJ, but I agree that there isn't proof of an HJ.

The issue is what to make of all the various bits of evidence that suggest the existence of an HJ and all the bits of evidence that suggest an HJ didn't exist if one is attempting to make a reasoned guess about whether there was or wasn't an HJ.

I do agree with you that analyzing bits and pieces of the Gospels as a way of determining the nature of an HJ isn't likely to result in probative information about the existence of an HJ. Since it is obvious that a lot of the content of the Gospels is fictional it isn't that big a leap to just assume it all is. For me, the issue is simply whether an individual existed whose life story initiated the fashion of creating Jesus fiction or some other mechanism served to kick it off. If you read the Carpetbaggers, you might make a guess that the novel was inspired by the existence of a real individual, but you couldn't figure out by reading the Carpetbaggers and nothing else whether Howard Hughes existed or not.

 

[Craig B]

Paul is saying that he has a right to do those things, if he wanted to, but doesn't because he would rather work for his living so that people don't think that he preached the Gospel so that he could receive those benefits.

Maybe, but his view of the material rights appertaining to a religious teacher, whether he chooses to exercise them or not, are very different from those attributed to Jesus.

 

[Ethnikos]

Maybe, but his view of the material rights appertaining to a religious teacher, whether he chooses to exercise them or not, are very different from those attributed to Jesus.

I don't think so.
I think Jesus gives instructions to the 70 disciples to go out to towns to preach
and to stay at homes where people offer to put them up,
and not to take any money with them.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why are we discussing the feet washing thing, now ? Aren't we at the point where we don't have any evidence that there was a Jesus in the first place ?

Well, of course there still isn't any evidence that any of that happened.

My continuing point though is that even IF there was A guy that Paul's hallucination is based on (and it's a big and unsupported IF indeed), we don't really know what that guy was like. People cherrypick a set of pericopes and go, "that's the historical Jesus". My point is that it's possible to cherrypick several Jesuseseses, who are not all like the peacenik proto-hippie Rabbi, so we still don't know which of them might be the historical one.

Here we have one of the few stories which is in various variants in all four gospels (Luke's being the most different), which is a pretty rare thing. If I were to put my DOC thinking cap on and pretend that the bible is evidence, then this is one of the best attested (by the bible) stories.

And yet it paints the image of a pampered messiah pretender with severe delusions of entitlement. One who can not only lay back and let a woman humiliate herself before him to get her unspecified sins forgiven, but possibly if you believe Luke (the great historian, heh) he actually borderline berates his gracious host for not doing the same.

 

[Belz...]

various variants

I think you meant various varying variants.

 

[pakeha]

Oddly enough, whatever may have happened there (Ethnikos's objection duly noted), may have also been what tipped the balance for Judas. In the other 3 gospels it's more elaborate about Satan entering him and whatnot, but in Mark the very next verse after Jesus spouts that self-serving line, is Mark 14:9: "Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them."

Could it be that Judas had just had enough of following a charismatic con artist that loved to be spoiled with such gifts? We'll never know either way, but just a random alternate-history thought.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Even today, a charismatic con artist will go just too far and the resulting 'wake-up call' will motivate a former disciple to contact the police.

...And yet it paints the image of a pampered messiah pretender with severe delusions of entitlement. One who can not only lay back and let a woman humiliate herself before him to get her unspecified sins forgiven, but possibly if you believe Luke (the great historian, heh) he actually borderline berates his gracious host for not doing the same.

Said gracious host was a leper, IIRC.

 

[IanS]

I disagree, a bit that there isn't any evidence for an HJ. Perhaps it depends on what one means by the term, evidence, but there is evidence of an HJ, but I agree that there isn't proof of an HJ.

.

It's evidence of something alright. But from an objective point of view it only seems to be evidence that certain people wrote about belief in a deceased Jesus who had once been the prophesised messiah.

Though afaik there is no evidence that those written beliefs were actually true.

It might be asking a lot, perhaps asking too much, to find more objective independent evidence now 2000 years after the events, especially for a preacher who was perhaps very little known in his own lifetime. But unfortunately, whether it's asking too much or not, that does not change the fact that there really does not appear to be any evidence outside the highly unreliable, and largely impossible, stories in the gospels and in Paul's Letters.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Said gracious host was a leper, IIRC.

Depends on who you ask. Mark has him be a leper, and Martthew dutifully copies that story almost word for word from Mark. In Luke he's a Pharisee, so I'd guess a rabbi or scribe? Of course, I suppose he could be both. In John, as eight bits mentioned, it's not a Simon at all, but Lazarus.

Not that it would make the episode any better, IMHO. Rebuking a leper for not grovelling before him and not pouring expensive perfume oil on Jesus too... I don't think that would make Jesus more endearing, would it? I mean, that guy already has a crappy deal. It's not like a leper could even afford such oil.

 

[pakeha]

Depends on who you ask. Mark has him be a leper, and Martthew dutifully copies that story almost word for word from Mark. In Luke he's a Pharisee, so I'd guess a rabbi or scribe? Of course, I suppose he could be both. In John, as eight bits mentioned, it's not a Simon at all, but Lazarus.

Not that it would make the episode any better, IMHO. Rebuking a leper for not grovelling before him and not pouring expensive perfume oil on Jesus too... I don't think that would make Jesus more endearing, would it? I mean, that guy already has a crappy deal. It's not like a leper could even afford such oil.

It's late here, but even so.
Two gospels have the gracious host being Simon the leper.
One, a Pharisee.
One, Lazarus.

It's difficult to imagine why this incident is taken seriously at all.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, more accurately, ONE version of the story has Simon The Leper, one has a Pharisee named Simon, and one has a guy who was just resurrected after being dead for days as the host. I wouldn't really count Mark and Matthew as different versions of the story, since Matthew copied Mark's version almost word for word, so it's not really a different version of the story.

Why the story is taken seriously, well, mostly because if someone wants to believe that the bible is true, then they'll find some way to believe it is true. Nevermind that whether the host is a leper or not is only the beginning of the problem with reconciling the three stories, particularly for those who maintain that the gospels literally happened as told. Even making it a leper rabbi (which by itself is rather unbelievable), still doesn't get it in sync with John, for a start. But they'll pull some "explanation" out of the ass, if they have to.

The story has actually been interpreted for example as actually two or even three nearly identical episodes of Jesus being anointed, all in Bethany, all with nearly the same participants, and all by some woman. With some months in between them. (Which in turn doesn't explain how Judas sells Jesus twice in at lease such a configuration. Wouldn't the priests remember they already bought Jesus a couple of months ago? I guess Judas was a Ferengi or something.)

For me that would only make it worse, because it has Jesus was touring through Bethany regularly and allowing people to humiliate themselves before him every time. You'd think a decent human being would wise up after the first time or two and not be caught by surprise by ninja women with alabaster jars every time

 

[Craig B]

I don't think so.
I think Jesus gives instructions to the 70 disciples to go out to towns to preach
and to stay at homes where people offer to put them up,
and not to take any money with them.

Luke 10

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you ...

You are saying the above passage is the same message as the following, from 1 Cor 9. I am simply saying that it's not.

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

Yes.

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?

No.

For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Anyway I don't believe the story of the seventy or seventy two preachers. Verses 12 to 20 of Luke 10 are not only rather obnoxious, they are highly improbable too. Verse 19, about standing on scorpions, looks as if it has escaped from the last twelve verses of Mark, now generally admitted to be interpolated. Seventy is the number of Gentile nations according to Jewish lore, just as twelve is the number of Israelite tribes. Jesus may have preached to the Twelve, but I don't believe he sent out large missions to the Seventy.

 

[eight bits]

Belz

Why are we discussing the feet washing thing, now ? Aren't we at the point where we don't have any evidence that there was a Jesus in the first place ?

Because we are examining whether the tradition of a foot washing incident is related to a tradition that Jesus was betrayed after a dispute with a disciple. The topic is "What counts as a historical Jesus?" We are embarked on hypothesis formation and refinement, rather than evaluation of the evidence for whatever hypotheses might emerge from our discussions.

I am in agreement with Hans that a historical Jesus who "counts" should be an actual person about whom Paul records having had visionary experience(s). I disagree with Hans about some other points, of course.

Paul believes that "his" Jesus was "handed over" (1 Coronthians 11: 23), and so incidents pertinent to that handing over are reasonable candidates for inclusion in the profile of a historical Jesus who counts. Unlike Hans, I don't see the immediate relevance of the woman who washed Jesus' feet in Luke, after Jesus' host had refused him this unremarkable courtesy. I believe that this is a different tradition than Jesus speciously quoting Deuternonmy 15: 11 in a vain attempt to justify his only too remarkable sumptuary behavior. Mark 14:9-10 and John 12: 1ff seem to agree that that occasion influenced the man who did the "handing over."

As told by John, that incident is well integrated into the story, part of a subplot otherwise missing from Mark, which adresses other features of a "counting Jesus" familiar to us. Maybe Paul knew about these features, maybe he didn't. Those include Jesus having a reputation as a miracle worker, as somebody who was familiar with Jewish scripture, and as somebody who lived as a traveler but preached quite a bit in Jeursalem.

I think a Jesus with dirty feet would "count" just as much as a Jesus with immaculate feet, and regardless of who washed his tootsies for him. A Jesus who wasn't betrayed isn't Paul's Jesus. A Jesus who didn't preach Jewish scripture at least sometimes in Jerusalem, thus being gruesomely killed and entombed there, and who had no reputation at all as a miracle worker wouldn't count nearly as much for nearly as many people.

 

[pakeha]

...

I am in agreement with Hans that a historical Jesus who "counts" should be an actual person about whom Paul records having had visionary experience(s). I disagree with Hans about some other points, of course.

Paul believes that "his" Jesus was "handed over" (1 Coronthians 11: 23), and so incidents pertinent to that handing over are reasonable candidates for inclusion in the profile of a historical Jesus who counts. Unlike Hans, I don't see the immediate relevance of the woman who washed Jesus' feet in Luke, after Jesus' host had refused him this unremarkable courtesy. I believe that this is a different tradition than Jesus speciously quoting Deuternonmy 15: 11 in a vain attempt to justify his only too remarkable sumptuary behavior. Mark 14:9-10 and John 12: 1ff seem to agree that that occasion influenced the man who did the "handing over."

As told by John, that incident is well integrated into the story, part of a subplot otherwise missing from Mark, which adresses other features of a "counting Jesus" familiar to us. Maybe Paul knew about these features, maybe he didn't. Those include Jesus having a reputation as a miracle worker, as somebody who was familiar with Jewish scripture, and as somebody who lived as a traveler but preached quite a bit in Jeursalem.

I think a Jesus with dirty feet would "count" just as much as a Jesus with immaculate feet, and regardless of who washed his tootsies for him. A Jesus who wasn't betrayed isn't Paul's Jesus. A Jesus who didn't preach Jewish scripture at least sometimes in Jerusalem, thus being gruesomely killed and entombed there, and who had no reputation at all as a miracle worker wouldn't count nearly as much for nearly as many people.

That's an interesting take.
You focus on the foot-washing aspect of the thrice-told storyand others focus on the spikenard anointing and drying with tresses part. As well as the ambiguity of the host's identity.

Speaking of spikenard ointment, you can even buy it on-line
" Many people do not initially like the scent of the pure spikenard oil as it can be very over powering to the senses. However, as the Holy Spirit begins to touch their heart about the true meaning of pure love, surrender and sacrifice a miraculous change occurs in the heart of the believer. They find they are no longer repulsed by the scent but instead drawn by the beauty of the scent.
Our Spikenard Ointment ~ Spikenard Anointing Oil is made using only extra virgin olive from Israel and organic spikenard oil in a specific ratio given to us by the Holy Spirit in prayer. Many describe this beautiful aroma as warm, sweet, spicy, and musky. It can be used as anointing oil or for cosmetic purposes."
http://www.victorie-inc.us/anointing_oil_spikenard.html

HansMustermann wrote
"...The story has actually been interpreted for example as actually two or even three nearly identical episodes of Jesus being anointed, all in Bethany, all with nearly the same participants, and all by some woman. With some months in between them. (Which in turn doesn't explain how Judas sells Jesus twice in at lease such a configuration. Wouldn't the priests remember they already bought Jesus a couple of months ago? I guess Judas was a Ferengi or something.)

For me that would only make it worse, because it has Jesus was touring through Bethany regularly and allowing people to humiliate themselves before him every time. You'd think a decent human being would wise up after the first time or two and not be caught by surprise by ninja women with alabaster jars every time "

Dunno, Hans.
According to that on-line source, the smell of that spikenard ointment grows on you.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Well, my emphasis is on the dubious scriptural quotation, since it appears to advance the plot in both Mark and John. It is noteworthy, I think, that such a remark is altogether missing from the self-described "orderly" narration by Luke, who also omits any earthly influence on Judas at all when time comes for the "handing over," except money.

Your point about the smell is apt. There is nothing in John's account about anybody else witnessing Mary and Jesus' moment together, unlike Luke 7, where the moment is public and commented upon in the woman's presence.

In John, the smell of the oil fills the house, and the two participants would plausibly have matching scents about their persons long afterwards. There is also a nice literary contrast with Mary's sister Martha's earlier concern about the smell of opening her brother's tomb, which is then rounded off by Jesus' remarks about his own tomb. John is a fine prose stylist, IMO.

For some reason I imagine a scene like a famous moment from the iconic TV comedy Taxi. Latka (played by Andy Kaufman), who is married to Simka (played by Carol Kane), has had sex with a woman passenger, when they were stranded in a snow storm, alone together. Latka encounters Simka before he has had a chance to shower. Simka immediately announces

You did it with another woman!

ETA: There we are, at 2:00 into this video,

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z4iL-3KfPY

I suspect John had read Luke, and borrowed the latter's phrase about drying Jesus' feet with a woman's hair as an image of uninterrupted kissing. Jesus does use a towel when he washes feet on an industrial scale later in John, but in the absence of a need to conserve time, I would think air drying would work fine for the much-kissing woman in Luke. I don't see the image as anything literal in either book, although I freely admit that I haven't ever tried to mop up either water or oil using human hair.

 

[pakeha]

And yet another question for our experts!
Was the spikenard poured poured over Jesus' feet or head?