I’ve now read through chapters three and four – which focused on the historical Jesus that can (or can’t) be found in letters written by “The Odd Man Out Among the Apostles,”[i] – Paul. For Vermes there can be very little of historical value about Jesus in Paul’s writings because he was “the odd man out,” the apostle who never actually met Jesus. “He had no contact with the earthly Jesus; he did not hear his teaching or experience his spiritual presence and influence.”[ii] And this is true. Paul was the “odd man out,” the “untimely born…least of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15). And it is also true that Paul gives very few details about the life of Jesus, but to say, as Vermes, that there can be nothing of historical value (read “true”) about Jesus in Paul’s writings is saying too much (and not letting Paul say enough.)
For example:
Paul’s public speech in
Antioch recorded in chapter 13 of the book of The Acts of the Apostles contains
some historical details of Jesus’ life.
In that speech Paul grounds Jesus in history by connecting him with the
ministry of John the Baptizer, by describing the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem’s
failure to understand him as the predicted Messiah, by describing their inability
to find a just cause to execute him, and by describing Pontius Pilate’s role in
Jesus’ death. These are details that
could be used to describe Paul’s understanding of the historical Jesus but they
are summarily dismissed by Vermes. For
him, they are the inventions of the “not always reliable author of the Acts of
the Apostles.” [iii] And, here again, I have to agree – sorta’.
The speeches and
perhaps some of the narrative recorded in Acts probably were invented by the
author of that book. But that’s simply
how historians worked. Historians “have to make things up” because our memories are faulty and
imprecise. “In fact, we all do this. Every time we ‘remember’
the past we are in a sense inventing it, not out of whole cloth of course, but
by filling in portions, leaving things out, etc., in keeping with what we think
(often unconsciously) is “called for by each situation.”[iv] Yes. The author of Acts has probably invented this
dialogue somewhat but that doesn’t mean we should arbitrarily dismiss it as completely without historical value.
In dealing with the "authentic" letters of Paul[v],
Vermes reminds me of the Jerk. Not a
Jerk, mind you… but Steve Martin in the movie The Jerk.
“I don’t need any of this. I don’t need any of this stuff and I don’t need you. I don’t need anything. Except this…this ashtray and that’s the only thing I need, is this. I don’t need this or this, just this ashtray…and this paddle game. The ashtray and the paddle game, and that’s all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game the remote control, that’s all I need. And these matches. The ashtray and these matches and the remote control and the paddle ball…and this lamp. The ashtray, the paddle game and the remote control, and the lamp, that’s all I need. And that’s all I need too! I don’t need one other thing! Not one… I need this. The paddle game and the chair and the remote control and the matches for sure! Well, what are you looking at? What you think I am? Some kind of a jerk or something?”[vi]
Over and over and over
again Vermes insists that there is nothing of the true, historical Jesus to be
found in Paul’s writings. There are no
details about the earthly Jesus’ life except that he was Jewish, but that’s it…nothing
else except that he was from the linage of David. He was Jewish and from the line of David, but
nothing else, except that he was crucified…that’s an important one. He was Jewish, and he was crucified but that’s
it – except the resurrection. Just those
things… he was Jewish, and he was born of a woman, and he was crucified and
resurrected, but that’s all the detail Paul knows…
I exaggerate, to be
sure… but I found it funny.
But Vermes goes even further. In his interpretation not only does Paul know none of the historical details of Jesus’ life (except this ashtray and this paddle game…) but Paul has deliberately rejected the historical Jesus. “In fact everything seems to suggest that in order to emphasize the paramount importance of the Jesus revealed in visions, Paul deliberately turned his back on the historical figure, the Jesus according to the flesh…”[vii]
But Vermes goes even further. In his interpretation not only does Paul know none of the historical details of Jesus’ life (except this ashtray and this paddle game…) but Paul has deliberately rejected the historical Jesus. “In fact everything seems to suggest that in order to emphasize the paramount importance of the Jesus revealed in visions, Paul deliberately turned his back on the historical figure, the Jesus according to the flesh…”[vii]
The Jesus that Vermes
finds in Paul is nothing like the Jesus that Vermes finds in the gospels. And Vermes says that Paul made it all
up.
Vermes also believes that
Paul’s letters (which predated the written gospel accounts of Jesus’ life) have
influenced the way the gospels were written.
It is his opinion that Paul’s description of the Eucharist meal became the synoptic gospel's description of the last supper. “…there is a good chance that the eucharistic
interpretation of the communal meal was due to Paul, and that the editors of
Mark, Matthew, and especially Luke, who follows Paul most closely, introduced
in into their respective accounts in the Synoptic Gospels.”[viii]
But… if Paul’s writings
were so influential to the authors or editors of the gospel, then why doesn’t
the Jesus of the gospels look more like the Jesus Vermes credits to Paul? I think that this is another case of Geza Vermes over-exaggerating the differences.
[i]
Vermes, Geza The Changing Faces of Jesus, Viking Compass, New York, NY,
2001, page 63
[ii] Page
71
[iii]
Page 85 Vermes deals with book of Acts specifically in the next chapter…
[v]
And Vermes accepts only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians,
Philemon, 1 and probably 2 Thessalonians (apart from occasional additions and
glosses). Page 64
[vi]
Steve Martin – in The Jerk 1979
[vii]Vermes,
Page 75
[viii]
Page 74
No comments:
Post a Comment