Jesus and "Family Values"

[poolerboy]

An excerpt from The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Fourth Edition:

One of the hardest things for modern people who are interested in Jesus to realize is that he lived in a completely different culture from ours, with a foreign set of cultural values and norms—so much so that people commonly claim that he did not (or rather could not) have meant what he said. Nowhere is this more clear than in the area known today as "family values."

Since the modern sense of family values seems to be so good and wholesome, it is only natural for people to assume that Jesus too must have taught them. But did he? It is striking that in our earliest traditions Jesus does not seem to place a high priority on the family. Consider the words preserved in Q: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple" (Luke 14:26; Matt 10:37). A person must hate his or her family? The same word is used, strikingly, in the saying independently preserved in the Gospel of Thomas: "The one who does not hate his father and mother will not be worthy to be my disciple" (Gosp. Thom. 55). If we understand "hate" here to mean something like "despise in comparison to" or "have nothing to do with," then the saying makes sense. Parents, siblings, spouses, and even one's own children were to be of no importance in comparison with the coming kingdom.

This may help explain Jesus' reaction to his own family. For there are clear signs not only that Jesus' family rejected his message during his public ministry, but that he in turn spurned them publicly (independently attested in Mark 3:31–34 and Gosp. Thom. 99).

And Jesus clearly saw the familial rifts that would be created when someone became committed to his message of the coming kingdom:

You think that I have come to bring peace on earth; not peace, I tell you, but division. For from now on there will be five people in one house, divided among themselves: three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother; a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law (Luke 12:51–53; Matt 10:34–46; independently attested in Gosp. Thom. 16).​

And family tensions would be heightened immediately before the end of the age, when "a brother will betray his brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against their parents and kill them" (Mark 13:12).

These "anti-family" traditions are too widely attested in our sources to be ignored (they are found in Mark, Q, and Thomas, for example), and suggest that Jesus did not support what we today might think of as family values. But why not? Could it be that Jesus was not ultimately interested in establishing a good society and doing what was necessary to maintain it? Remember: for him the end was coming soon, and the present social order was being called radically into question. What mattered were not strong family ties and the social institutions of this world. What mattered was the new thing that was coming, the future kingdom. And it was impossible to promote this teaching while trying to retain the present social structure. That would be like trying to put a new wine into old wineskins or trying to sew a new piece of cloth to an old garment. As any wine-master or seamstress could tell you, it just won't work. The wineskins would burst and the garment would tear. New wine and new cloth require new wineskins and new garments. The old is passing away and the new is almost here (Mark 2:18–22; Gosp. Thom. 47).

 

[Kulindahr]

I just have to post this before reading on:

there's no such thing as Q. It's a conjectured source (Q is for 'quelle", which means "source"), with conjectured content. There's no consensus whether it was written, or oral -- if it existed at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is probably the most important statement:

Parents, siblings, spouses, and even one's own children were to be of no importance in comparison with the coming kingdom.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer addresses that in his Cost of Discipleship. It's something many Christians ignore -- but a price others pay.

I think this is a stretch to make it about "family values", though: none of it is addressing a family which is all Christian, and therefore not in the position of being divided on account of Jesus.

 

[poolerboy]

I just have to post this before reading on:

there's no such thing as Q. It's a conjectured source (Q is for 'quelle", which means "source"), with conjectured content. There's no consensus whether it was written, or oral -- if it existed at all.

The Modified Two Source Hypothesis is the most widely held hypothesis by the majority of scholars of which the Q source is mentioned. Is it a hypothesis? Yes. Is it the best explanation we have to resolve the Synoptic Problem? Yes.

This is probably the most important statement:

Parents, siblings, spouses, and even one's own children were to be of no importance in comparison with the coming kingdom.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer addresses that in his Cost of Discipleship. It's something many Christians ignore -- but a price others pay.

I think this is a stretch to make it about "family values", though: none of it is addressing a family which is all Christian, and therefore not in the position of being divided on account of Jesus.

The point was simply to show the disparity of how contemporary Christians will hold to ideals and values they think derive from teachings of Jesus where in fact they were to the contrary. Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist.

 

[kallipolis]

The Modified Two Source Hypothesis is the most widely held hypothesis by the majority of scholars of which the Q source is mentioned. Is it a hypothesis? Yes. Is it the best explanation we have to resolve the Synoptic Problem? Yes.


The point was simply to show the disparity of how contemporary Christians will hold to ideals and values they think derive from teachings of Jesus where in fact they were to the contrary. Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist.

Now you are speaking on behalf of most scholars?

That would be your highly subjective conclusion.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Modified Two Source Hypothesis is the most widely held hypothesis by the majority of scholars of which the Q source is mentioned. Is it a hypothesis? Yes. Is it the best explanation we have to resolve the Synoptic Problem? Yes.

Granted. But you sort of made the same mistake that most proponents of evolution do: misleading language.

(I actually read a statement by a university biology professor that said, "This strategy of adaptation was chosen.... .)

The notion of some standard collection of Jesus' material is supported by the way itinerant rabbis of the time taught: they had set short statements, illustrations, lessons, and sermons that were repeated over and again for a whole variety of audiences (the 'Sermon on the Mount' and "Sermon on the Plain' are excellent examples). Short, pithy sayings and somewhat longer memorable ones would have been repeated over and over for every little audience, so they'd be remembered by more people and constitute a common source, even if oral, and would be a likely collection for the first things written down.

The point was simply to show the disparity of how contemporary Christians will hold to ideals and values they think derive from teachings of Jesus where in fact they were to the contrary. Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist.

You mean like trying to make everyone behave like their idea of a Christian by employing the power of the state through laws, instead of leaving the realms of Caesar and God separate?

 

[poolerboy]

Now you are speaking on behalf of most scholars?

I am doing no such thing. I'm merely reporting the popularity of the Jesus-apocalyptic view amongst biblical scholars.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now you are speaking on behalf of most scholars?

That would be your highly subjective conclusion.

Given the range of opinions from scholars, and the range of presuppositions (fishermen don't write things down; miracles never happen; there's no such thing as prophecy; etc.)... it's one conclusion, but not a great one.

Heck, I could refer you all to a scholar of the NT who is certain just where in the Holy Land Nathaniel was sitting when Jesus met him.

 

[poolerboy]

Given the range of opinions from scholars, and the range of presuppositions (fishermen don't write things down; miracles never happen; there's no such thing as prophecy; etc.)... it's one conclusion, but not a great one.

Heck, I could refer you all to a scholar of the NT who is certain just where in the Holy Land Nathaniel was sitting when Jesus met him.

Of course we will hardly find a full consensus on anything in scholarship, but we can at least agree that there are some ideas/hypothesis/theories/views that the majority of scholars will agree with because of their compelling nature/evidence, no? I'm not coming to any of you with absolutism nor did I imply it.

 

[kallipolis]

I am doing no such thing. I'm merely reporting the popularity of the Jesus-apocalyptic view amongst biblical scholars.

No you are not. You are presuming to speak for others. And offering us your personal opinion as the view of others.

 

[kallipolis]

Given the range of opinions from scholars, and the range of presuppositions (fishermen don't write things down; miracles never happen; there's no such thing as prophecy; etc.)... it's one conclusion, but not a great one.

Heck, I could refer you all to a scholar of the NT who is certain just where in the Holy Land Nathaniel was sitting when Jesus met him.

Yes, the spurious can so often masquerade, as scholarly thinking.

 

[poolerboy]

No you are not. You are presuming to speak for others. And offering us your personal opinion as the view of others.

I cited Ehrman in my initial post and only then offered my opinion of what he wrote in later posts (see above). Never did I impose the idea of apocalyptism let alone anti-family values onto any scholar's mouth, or in this case text. I don't see what is so controversial in acknowledging that a view is held by the majority of scholars. If I were to tell you the majority of Christians believe in the Trinity, would you say I am speaking on behalf of them? This makes little sense. I am, rather, acknowledging this fact. I could care less whether they hold to that view or a more Jehovah's Witnesses position on the matter. The fact that you could come up with anomalies misses the point, as I never intended (as I stated earlier) to claim that ALL scholars' views agree with X.

 

[kallipolis]

I cited Ehrman in my initial post and only then offered my opinion of what he wrote in later posts (see above). Never did I impose the idea of apocalyptism let alone anti-family values onto any scholar's mouth, or in this case text. I don't see what is so controversial in acknowledging that a view is held by the majority of scholars.

These are your words, that reflect your personal opinion. Nothing more. And I do not share your highly personal conclusion. :

"Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist."

 

[poolerboy]

These are your words, that reflect your personal opinion. Nothing more.

[...]

"Most scholars will agree that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist."

Here is one of many sources you can find just online alone to confirm this. I found this in less than a minute.

Most historians concur that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, most notably Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, and John P. Meier. E. P. Sanders portrays Jesus as expecting to assume the "viceroy" position in God's kingdom, above the Twelve Disciples, who would judge the twelve tribes, but below God.

I'm sure if you utilized Google more often you could achieve similar results. Happy browsing!

And I do not share your highly personal conclusion.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[kallipolis]

Here is one of many sources you can find just online alone to confirm this. I found this in less than a minute.



I'm sure if you utilized Google more often you could achieve similar results. Happy browsing!


Thanks for sharing.

I am sure that you are an instant Biblical expert, with the aid of Google.

Nevertheless I remind you that you made the statement that presumed to speak on behalf of most scholars.

I note your rapid withdrawal.

 

[poolerboy]

I am sure that you are an instant Biblical expert, with the aid of Google.

My knowledge on these issues was acquired through a university education. I'm only directing those less creative than myself on where they can begin even the most basic of fact-checking techniques.

Nevertheless I remind you that you made the statement that presumed to speak on behalf of most scholars.

If I did not construct my sentence in proper syntax so as to convey the meaning of what I intended to say then by all means expound on where I made the error.

I note your rapid withdrawal.

I'm not withdrawing the intention of what I meant to say; that the apocalypic view of Jesus is held by most scholars of the N.T.

I stand by it.

 

[kallipolis]

My knowledge on these issues was acquired through a university education. I'm only directing those less creative than myself on where they can begin even the most basic of fact-checking techniques.


If I did not construct my sentence in proper syntax so as to convey the meaning of what I intended to say then by all means expound on where I made the error.


I'm not withdrawing the intention of what I meant to say; that the apocalypic view is held by most academics of the N.T.
I stand by it.

Your comments are duly noted.

 

[poolerboy]

My, what a rapid withdrawl.

 

[kallipolis]

My, what a rapid withdrawl.

You really expected me to respond to your advice that you pursued a university education?

I remind you that you arrived on this forum as rabid, evangelical atheist attempting to convert theists to your religious pursuit of atheism.

Now you are a Biblical expert?

 

[poolerboy]

You really expected me to respond to your advice that you pursued a university education?

I didn't advice; I only clarified.

I remind you that you arrived on this forum as rabid, evangelical atheist attempting to convert theists to your religious pursuit of atheism.

Go to my profile and look up the first few posts I submit on religion (you'll have to skip over the one's on Archuleta to get there ). I fail to see what was "rabid" about them. Moreover, you'll note that I refuted points that others brought up with different points. You on the other hand from the first moment we spoke (I recall it was first in the Mother Teresa thread, unless I'm mistaken) decided to forgo this approach and go the way of subtle and indirect attacks to the person (perhaps as a loop hole to 'flaming'). I didn't have that problem with Kulindahr as I recall. In fact I rather enjoyed our encounters however frustrating his conclusions may have been.

Now you are a Biblical expert?

When did I claim I was? Simply because I cited experts? Again, like I already said, if my syntax was wrong then correct me on it, but you keep dancing around that without fully explaining yourself. Would you condescendingly refer to me as a "science expert" because I happened to cite a majority position that scientists agreed on (e.g. gravity)?