|
___ Paper ________________________________________________________ SOURCE CODE - The Paradoxical Teachings of the Historical Jesusby Dr. Cameron Freeman
ABSTRACTThis paper follows reveals a radical new insight into the mind of Jesus of Nazareth. By turning to the parables of Jesus that have been recorded in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), it is clearly demonstrated that the same linguistic structure – a stable pattern of “paradoxical reversals” (X is Y, as Y is X) informs all of Jesus' most memorable teachings on the Kingdom of God. In other words, the same “stable pattern” of paradoxical reversals underpins at least 30 of the parables of Jesus that have been recorded in the synoptic gospels, as well as his most well-known aphorisms. And by offering a simple formula for what is historically authentic about the many words that have been attributed to the historical Jesus, it is now possible to uncover a “source code” for the original teachings of the one who is confessed to be Christ and thereby re-activate the earliest possible memory of Jesus prior to his inscription in the Christian tradition proper. Key words: Jesus, Kingdom, paradox, reversals, authenticity SOURCE CODE: THE PARADOXICAL TEACHINGS OF THE HISTORICAL JESUSThe aim of this paper is to offer a new perspective on the synoptic gospels that can re-construct the “dangerous memory” [1] of the historical Jesus. By showing how to isolate the original Jesus from his inscription in the Church tradition proper, [2] this paper will disclose a scandal of world-shattering proportions at the heart of all of Jesus' most well-known teachings and uncover the forgotten truth of this 1 st century Jewish prophet that lies buried even now beneath the ossified religious structures of the institutional Church. And so, in the wake of the current fashionable trend of claiming to uncover the ‘real' Jesus [3] this essay will dig into the formative events that gave rise to the early Church and discover the original form of Jesus' provocative teachings in a way that recaptures the elusive language of this subversive wisdom teacher [4] from Nazareth. For by turning to the recorded teachings of Jesus, the primary aim of this paper is to unearth a formal structure that holds true for the all of Jesus' most memorable parables and aphorisms as recorded in the synoptic gospels. By way of a simple re-construction of the paradoxical reversals that underpin the deep structure of almost all of Jesus' more remarkable teachings, it will be argued that there is a coherent pattern of truth within the very origins of the Christian faith tradition that can provide an insight into Jesus' challenging vision of God's kingdom and access to the mind of the one who is confessed to be Christ. Put simply, by way of a simple structural analysis of almost all of the parables and the most well-known aphorisms in the synoptic gospels, I argue that a language of paradox provides a formal indication of the singular logic at work in the core teachings of the historical Jesus. And as such, I show that it is now possible to re-discover a source code for Jesus' teachings with the skillful use of paradoxical statements that perplex and disrupt our ordinary horizons of intelligibility with unexpected reversals of meaning. And in demonstrating that a language of paradox corresponds almost perfectly to those ‘criteria of authenticity' developed by the Jesus Seminar [5] to determine what is historically accurate about the teachings attributed to Jesus, I argue that the parabolic language of Jesus unhinges the binary categories of conventional wisdom in a way that can preserve the true meaning of the Christian faith while disclosing the revolutionary logic at the core of this Jewish prophets own awakening to the Kingdom of God. MODERN PARABLE SCHOLARSHIPTo begin, as much modern historical Jesus scholarship attests, there are at least two things about the figure of Jesus that are beyond historical doubt: 1) that he was crucified and 2) he spoke in parables. [6] And so irrespective of whether or not Jesus ‘rose from the dead' after the crucifixion it is generally accepted by all historical scholars (theistic and atheistic) that he was a teacher who communicated his message primarily by way of parables. For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew we read: ‘All this Jesus said to the crowds in parable s; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable.' [7] Coming from the Greek word parabole , the primary meaning of the word parable is ‘comparison' and it is well documented that the parables of Jesus were a teaching device that made comparisons between an eternal transcendent reality and the familiar everyday experiences common to the people of his day. [8] Nevertheless, while it is virtually uncontested that Jesus spoke in parables, it is also vital to recognize that none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the parabolic speech acts of the historical Jesus. For the parables that have been written down and handed onto us were originally oral texts that were created by Jesus for the immediate historical situation in which they were delivered. So while we have virtually no access to the exact words spoken by the historical Jesus, his more memorable teachings were ‘remembered, retold, and finally written down and circulated among the early Christian communities' [9] approximately 40 and 70 years after his death. And where no single written text of Jesus' parables represents less than 40 years of oral transmission and re-construction from within the socio-political situation of the early Christian communities, it will here be argued that the parabolic teachings recorded in the synoptic gospels are so distinctive in their underlying structure that it seems reasonable to conclude that they survived this process of oral and written transmission with their original linguistic form still intact. From the outset, then, it is agreed by virtually all parable scholars that Jesus of Nazareth is the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God. For not only do many of the parables begin with an express, or implied comparison, ‘The Kingdom of God is like…' but they clearly have the Kingdom of God as their ultimate reference point. [10] However, before going on to disclose the linguistic structure that inspired Jesus open invitation to the Kingdom of God, it is first necessary to describe the brush strokes of Jesus' style as a word artist and a teacher of parables, so that we may begin to distinguish between what might be the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus and what are post-Easter embellishments, insertions and additions from within the early Christian communities. There are a number of points in which the parables of Jesus show such originality and vividness that suggest to us that no one but Jesus could have created them. First of all we find such distinction in their ‘directness of address' to their audience. Jesus often begins his parables with challenging questions, such as ‘Which one of you?' or ‘What woman?' or ‘Who then is the faithful and wise one?' which by engaging his hearers and putting them on the spot, make them ready for a response. Furthermore, the parables are themselves front and center bearers of the message of Jesus, so much so that the parable itself is the preaching, a direct communication of Jesus' own experience of God that leaves little or no need to interpret, clarify of apply his teachings. For this reason, we find in the gospel accounts that he taught as ‘one having authority, and not as the scribes' [11] , which gives further indication of the unique character of Jesus' teachings. Another point of distinction is that the parables of Jesus are not used for argumentation, philosophical dialectics or Socratic dialogue, so much so that there is little previous learning that Jesus' hearers need to bring to the occasion of his teaching. And as we saw above, the parables are thoroughly theological or God-centered in announcing the coming of the Kingdom. Importantly, however, while being God-centered the parables of Jesus do not get involved in descriptions of God's qualities or attributes. God is rather an immediate and deeply familiar reality to Jesus, a reality is disclosed through the use of striking but common place metaphors in a much more powerful way than ordinary propositional language about the nature of God. And the final point of feature of merit in Jesus' teachings about the Kingdom is that there is always an element of surprise or discovery in the way that the ends, wherein the behavior described by the main players in the plot is almost always shocking, offensive or atypical. [12] In essence, then, for Jesus the parable was a window on this new world that he called the Kingdom of God. And as we will see, in his proclamation of the coming of God's kingdom, for Jesus the logic of life had been radically revised in order to bring about an altogether new figure of Reality in which our desire to control the mystery of God is regularly frustrated as our everyday expectations are turned on their head. [13] For Jesus spoke about the coming of the Kingdom in a language that virtually nobody - including his disciples of many occasions, could quite understand. In spite of this, however, the claim here is that with a simple elucidation of a dynamic pattern within the parabolic system as a whole, we can now reveal the true nature of Jesus' experience of the Kingdom [14] , where the love of God is the paradoxical center of a radically empty horizon. Before turning to this analysis of the deep structure of Jesus' parables, first we will summarize the more notable insights gathered by New Testament and historical Jesus scholars in modern times. The modern interpretation of Jesus' parables begins with the critical-historical insight that the authors of the synoptic gospels buried much of the parabolic teachings of Jesus beneath an overgrowth of moral allegory and hermeneutic application when constructing their literary narratives. And as such, by peeling back layers of tradition and exposing the ways in which the early church altered and reinterpreted the parables in various ways (allegorical, hermeneutic, moral, and political, etc), it has been argued by many prominent parable scholars that the original power and revolutionary force of Jesus' language has been lost and reduced to a series of moral or allegorical lessons, as Perrin states, “the parables are allegorized and moralized in the Christian traditions to a point at which one can live with them and draw helpful lessons from them.” [15] One of the more significant consequences of this ‘downward translation' of the original parables from the beginning of their oral transmission, is an emerging consensus amongst contemporary Jesus scholars such as Funk, Wilder and Crossan that practical advice and moral preaching is almost completely foreign to Jesus' authentic pronouncements on the Kingdom of God. [16] There is very little evidence in the parables of Jesus to suggest that he intended to give a series of moral maxims or lessons in living an ethical life, or that he offered a structured program for achieving ones worldly plans. So rather than speaking in objective and descriptive terms about the ways of God's kingdom, Jesus spoke obliquely or indirectly and consistently refused to be explicit about the advent of the Kingdom. [17] So while the uniquely creative language that Jesus fashions is enigmatic and open-ended, it ‘arrests the hearer by its vividness or strangeness… leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.' [18] In furthering this more modern approach to the original intent of Jesus' teachings, there is also an emerging scholarly consensus (Funk, Dodd, Wilder and Crossan) that maintains the parables are primarily poetic-metaphors , which means they are more than merely linguistic signs pointing to an objective referent. As Wilder explains, ‘a true metaphor or symbol is more than a sign, it is a bearer of the reality to which it refers.' [19] As a metaphor, then, the poetics of Jesus parables function as a linguistic symbol , and as Crossan states, a symbol ‘always partakes of the reality it renders intelligible.' [20] Accordingly, the original parables of Jesus ‘had the character not of instruction and ideas but of compelling imagination, of spell, of mythical shock and transformation' [21] by skillfully conveying a vision of what is signified. [22] Or again, as Perrin put it, ‘the parables of Jesus mediated to the hearer an experience of the Kingdom of God.' [23] And as such, Jesus' parables do not have a clear-cut message that conforms to our need for pre-given objective truths. Instead, as a harbinger of the Kingdom they ‘tease the mind into ever-new perceptions of reality; they startle the imagination' [24] and function like symbols in that they ‘raise the potential for new meaning' [25] and invite their hearer into a ‘new possibility of world and language'. [26] And so from this brief summary, modern parable scholarship confirms that the original form of the parable is to establish the fundamental expression of Jesus experience of God [27] in a form of communication that takes place outside the bounds of practical morality and outside the demand for objective truth that has largely determined our philosophical (and theological) discourse about questions of ultimate of meaning for millennia. [28] Arguably the most influential and important work on the parables of Jesus in recent decades has been carried out by John Dominic Crossan, who examines the ‘the vision and the challenge' of the parabolic language of Jesus within the gospel narratives, [29] and thereby seeks to identify the core elements of the parable. [30] For Crossan the first element, and one which is central to this essay, is paradox . The second is story. And the third is the correlation of these two ‘effected by a structural reversal of the expected story at its deepest levels.' [31] Hence Crossan takes his lead from Heinz Politzer in defining the parables of Jesus as ‘paradox formed into story', and is thereby able to distinguish them from other literary forms. [32] In breaking with the moral or allegorical interpretation of Jesus' narratives, Crossan observes that a structural reversal – or paradox takes the place of any rational maxim of right action or good behavior as it reveals an unforeseen mystery at the core of Jesus' parabolic teaching. The paradoxical dimension of the parables is also identified by Harold Toliver who maintains that ‘strange and paradoxical things happen in Jesus stories', there is ‘a radical leap beyond normal expectancy' in such a way that ‘the denouement breaks with deliberate reason' forming an ‘unpredictable crises and a basic discontinuity between now and then.' [33] Crossan goes on to enlarge the scope of this paradoxicality as widely as possible, in arguing that ‘that paradoxicality of Jesus' parables extends to their entire pragmatics, semantics, and synactics, and only against this wider background should any isolated item, or even all items, be stressed as extravagant, atypical, or paradoxical.' [34] In order to identify the specific nature of the paradoxical language of Jesus' parables Crossan relies heavily on the structuralist method of analysis, a scientific methodology that seeks the connections between the related parts of any given structure. In looking to discern the underlying patterns that connect the related parts of a whole system (textual, social, linguistic, etc) structuralism emphasizes intricate attention to the text itself in seeking arrangements that are not apparent on the surface level of the parabolic narratives. In this way Crossan employs the structuralist methodology to ‘penetrate beneath the surface patterns to disclose the deep structure that a particular story shares with other narratives.' [35] In some of his most innovative work Crossan takes this structuralist approach, and then analyses the binary opposites present in the ‘deep structure' of Jesus parabolic narration. In undertaking this project Crossan contends that many of the parables of Jesus reflect a concern for what he calls polar reversal , and he maintains that it is this reversal of polar opposites in the narrative structure that makes them bearers of the Kingdom. [36] The function of such structural reversals – or paradox - is to challenges the deep-rooted, self-evident façade of an audiences commonly accepted world and thereby break open the audiences horizon of expectation by introducing a world of new possibilities. Through a structural analysis of the more prominent parables of Jesus, Crossan concludes that such deliberate reversals of the expected narrative plot, what he calls a polar reversal or a ‘ paradoxical double ', is at the heart of the linguistic structure of Jesus parables. And in identifying the original form of Jesus' teachings with this structural commitment to the dynamic of paradoxical reversals, Crossan asserts ‘the term parable, then, should be used technically and specifically… for paradoxes formed into story by effecting a single or double reversal's of the audience's most profound expectations.' [37] In proclaiming the Kingdom of God by implementing such paradoxical stories, Crossan argues that paradox or ‘un-expected reversal' is so strong a theme in the parables of Jesus that it is axiomatic for the parables as a whole. [38] Consequently, Crossan argues that paradox is the ultimate structure of Jesus parables [39] and that given such structural reversals of our ordinary ways of living and thinking, the paradoxical teachings of Jesus demand a commitment to a God whose ways are remarkably different from our normal or habitual ways of thinking and acting. [40] And so in the rest of this study, we will expand significantly upon Crossan's early work on the parables and give a formal indication of how the authentic artistry of Jesus' most memorable parables consists in the effective use such paradoxical turns within the framework of a short literary narrative, thereby showing how to re-construct the original teachings of Jesus without relying on the traditional forms and structures of the institutional Church. THE PARABLES OF JESUSBy following the important insights of Crossan (and others), the aim here is to demonstrate that the structural logic of paradox, or what is also called a pattern of “bi-polar reversals” is clearly evidenced in all of Jesus' most memorable parables. That is, by way of a simple structural analysis it can be shown that there is a consistent pattern within the parabolic system as a whole that constitutes the radical core of Jesus' original teachings. And since almost all of the recorded teachings of Jesus display the same internally coherent pattern of connections, this paper goes on to argue that it is now possible to determine the historical authenticity of these remarkable teachings, while simultaneously disclosing to us the contours Jesus' own experience of the advent of God's kingdom. THE PRODIGAL SON, Luke 15:11-32 With the prodigal son gathering his inheritance, what at first appears to be a life of unmerited favor and luxury quickly becomes a life of poverty and servitude, while what appears to be a good reason to expect a life of poverty and servitude on his homecoming, is really an event that brings about the unmerited favor and luxury of the father's compassion with a joyful celebration that symbolizes God's unconditional love. In the same way, what appears to be a life of rebellion and corrupt living with the prodigal son is suddenly transformed into a celebratory homecoming with the unconditional favor of the father's feast, while what appears to be a life of unconditional favor with the dutiful son - who always lived in obedience to his father, is really the root cause of his rebellion and his corrupt refusal to share in the homecoming celebrations of the father's feast. Or similarly, while the younger son appears to be on the outside in self-imposed exile, he is really on the inside in homecoming, while the older son appears to be on the inside in loyalty to his father's home, he is really on the outside in self-imposed exile. Those that appear to be insiders are really outsiders, while those that seem to be outsiders are really insiders. THE GOOD SAMARITAN, Luke 10:25-37 The Jewish priest and Levite, who appear to be agents of holiness and divine favor, are really objects of religious scorn and derision in passing by a beaten traveler lying in a ditch, just as the Samaritan outcast, who at first appears to be an object of socio-religious scorn and derision is really the agent of holiness and divine favor in tending to the needs of the beaten man. Or again, what appears to be a privileged Jew traveling along the road to Jerico, is really a victimized outcast dying in a ditch - an untouchable in the eyes of his fellow Jews, while what appears to be an untouchable - a victimized Samarian outcast, is really the privileged agent of healing and a fore-most example of neighborly love. Those that appear to be upright are really degenerate, while that which appears to be degenerate is really upright. THE WORKERS IN THE VINEYARD, Matthew 20:1-16 With the laborers who spent all day in the vineyard, the hard work that justifies their expectations of favorable status and extra pay from the landowner is really the root of their sense of injustice and their lack of gratitude when they are paid the same as those who work just one hour. And at the same time, the apparent unworthiness of those who stood around all day - and the seeming injustice of their receiving equal pay for less work, is really the context within which God's unconditional favor is revealed. Or again, while the unmerited efforts of those who labored all day in the vineyard for the same pay as those who started last, is really the context within which they are reprimanded for being jealous and ungrateful in the face a seeming injustice, the apparently unfair judgment of the landowner in his allocation of equal pay to those who worked least, is really a sign of the unmerited graciousness of God. The first will be last, and the last will be first. THE FRIEND AT MIDNIGHT, Luke 11:5-8 While an initial refusal of a friend in need becomes a generous and unexpected acceptance, the reason for helping is not on the basis of friendship, but rather because of the troublesome persistence of someone more akin to a stranger. In other words, the refusal of a friend is really the acceptance of an annoying stranger, just as the seeming rudeness of an annoying stranger at the door is really the faithfulness of a friend. What appears to be annoying friend is really faithful stranger, while what appears to be annoying stranger is really a faithful friend. THE UNFORGIVING SLAVE, Matthew 18:23-35 What looks like is a good reason to expect the ruthless judgment of a king, actually becomes an unexpected expression of mercy as a slave is forgiven his un-payable debt, and what looks like good grounds for the same mercy and forgiveness to be extended in turn from the slave is in the next breath reversed into the fearless judgment of the sovereign King. So, what appears to be a cause for judgment is really an occasion of forgiveness, while what appears to be a cause for forgiveness is really an occasion of judgment. Or again, with the slave and his un-payable debt, what appears to be a show of powerlessness and servitude while begging for mercy is really the grounds for an unexpected favor and privilege wherein his debt is forgiven. And then, the ruthless and self-righteousness behavior of the slave who refuses to forgive his fellow servant also becomes the grounds for a return to servitude and the reinstatement of an un-payable debt. What appear to be grounds for humility is really a cause for exaltation, and what appears to be a cause for exaltation is really the grounds for humility. THE GREAT BANQUET, Luke 14: 16-24 Just as those privileged guests who are expected to accept the masters call are the ones who reject their invitation to the great banquet, what appear to be the underprivileged – the poor, the crippled and the lame, those who have no grounds for expecting an invitation to the banquet, are really the ones who accept the masters call. Or again those who expect to be included are excluded, just as those who expect to be excluded are included. The insiders are out, as the outsiders are in. THE PHARISEE AND THE TAX COLLECTOR, Luke 18:10-14 With the Pharisee, what appears to be a holy declaration of one's righteousness, is really a blasphemous refusal of God's grace, while with the Tax Collector, what appears to be a blasphemous declaration of ones degenerate tendencies, is really a condition for the holy acceptance of divine forgiveness and the boundless love of God. What appears to be upright is really degenerate, what appears to be degenerate is really upright. THE UNJUST JUDGE, Luke 18: 2-8 What appears to be a fearless judge is really a victim of the widow's persistent demands, while what appears to be the annoying pleas of a widowed victim, is really a fearless demand for justice. Or again, what initially seems to be the fearless refusal of a defiant judge is really the worn out delivery of a widow's justice, while what appears to be a worn out pleas of a widow for justice, is really the fearless stance of one who is defiant and refuses to back down. What appears to be strong is really weak, and what appears to be weak is really strong. THE TALENTS, Matthew 25:14-30 While those who risk losing everything by investing the little that they do have are really acting faithfully, and so gain more than what they started with, just as those who appear to act faithfully by preserving the little that they started with, really runt the risk of losing everything. What appears to be risking all is really preserving what has been entrusted, while what appears to be preserving what has been entrusted is really the risk of losing all . THE UNJUST MANAGER, LUKE 16:1-8 Just as the manager of a rich man is initially revealed to be a corrupt swindler who loses his master's possessions, the inventive behavior of this fraudulent swindler in his dealing with the rich man's debtors is really the grounds for his praise as the business manager is much admired for his shrewdness in worldly affairs. Or again, seeming shrewdness in worldly affairs is really a form of spiritual discernment, and so-called spirituality of the ‘people of the light' in the second part of this parable, is really dangerous naiveté in terms of the resourcefulness that is required for dealing with business in the world. What appears to be blasphemous is really holy, and what appears to be holy is really blasphemous. THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, Luke 16:19-31 Those who live in poverty and destitution while being looked down upon by the rich and powerful are really the first in the Kingdom, while those who are rich and powerful while looking down on those who live in poverty are really last in the Kingdom. The first will be last, and the last will be first. THE FAITHFUL AND WISE SLAVE: Matthew 24:45-51 (also see Luke 12:42-46) What appears to be service and obedience in the master's absence is really the secret to possessing all the master's riches, just as the apparent possession of all the master's riches in his absence, is really the path to bondage and servitude. The first will be last, and the last will be first. THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER, Mark 4:3-8 (also see Matthew 13: 3-8, Luke 8:5-8) While the seemingly abundant sowing of many seeds actually leads to wide spread destruction and scarcity, the apparent scarcity of sowing a few seeds in good soil leads to wide spread abundance. What appears to be abundance is really scarcity, and what appears to be scarcity is really abundance. THE RICH FOOL, Luke 12:16-21 What appears to be wise future planning with the building of bigger storage barns is really the kind of foolish hoarding that leads to an uncertain future, while what appears to be the foolishness of an unsettled and uncertain future, is really what happens when the wisdom of God breaks through our best made plans at the time we least expect it. Those who save their lives will lose it, while those who lose their lives will save it. THE WEDDING FEAST, Matthew 22: 1-14 Just as those who are initially invited to the son's wedding reject the invitation, those who are initially left out of the wedding plans are accepted as insiders at the wedding banquet. The insiders are out, and the outsiders are in. And again, while the uninvited guests are given unconditional access to the son's wedding, this unconditional acceptance is also reversed into a severe judgment, as a badly dressed guest is thrown outside the wedding feast. What seems to be rejection is really acceptance, while what appears to be acceptance is really rejection. THE FINAL JUDGEMENT, Matthew 25:31-46 While many of those who seem to affirm the Christ of glory on his heavenly throne, really end up being least in the Kingdom in that they do not serve the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and the imprisoned, those who stand in solidarity with "the least of my breathen" really affirm the glory of Christ in the ultimate consummation of God's kingdom. What appears to be the affirmation of heavenly glory is really a denial of it, while what appears to be a denial of heavenly glory is really the affirmation of it. THE FATHER'S GOOD GIFTS, Matt 7:9-11, Luke 11:11-13 What appears to be the suggestion of giving a false gift is really an affirmation of those who give their children good gifts, while what appears to be the affirmation of those who give good gifts to their children is really false compared to the boundless goodness of the Father's gifts. Those who seem to be evil really give good gifts, just as really good gifts are given even to those who are evil . THE TWO SONS, Matthew 21:28-32 What appears at first to be the acceptance of a father's call is really a refusal, just as an apparent refusal the same call is really an acceptance. The first will be last, and the last will be first. THE LOST SHEEP, Luke 15:4-7 What appears to be good reason for holding onto the multitude that are safe, is really an unconditional response to the losing of the one, while what seems to be a discovery of the one that was lost, is really a jubilant return to the multitude who are saved. Those who save their life will lose it, while those who lose their life will save it. THE PARABLE OF THE LEAVEN, Matthew 13:33 What appears to be corrupt (yeast/leaven) is really the seed of what is sacred. THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED, Mark 4:30-32 (also see Matthew 13:31-32, Luke 13:18-19, Thomas 20) What appears to be the smallest of all is really the seed of the greatest. THE TREASURE IN THE FIELD, Matthew 13:44 What appears to be good reason to take possession of a treasure discovered in a field, is really an occasion for letting it go and covering it over again, while what appears to be letting go of all one has, is really the occasion of taking possession of the treasure by buying the field. What appears to be finding/discovering is really loosing /hiding, and what appears to be loosing/selling is really finding/buying. THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, Matthew 13:45-46 What appears to be seeking through many is really a finding of the one, while in selling the many the merchant is really buying the one. THE LOST COIN, Luke 15:8-10 Similarly, what initially appears to be a good cause for holding onto the many coins that are safe is really an unconditional concern for the one coin that is lost, while what seems to be a discovery of the one that is lost is really a means for rejoicing with the many. THE SLAVE AT DUTY, Luke 17:7-10 What appears to be a time for grace is really a time for good works, and what seems to be the recognition of good works in the service of ones master, is really a confession of grace. THE WAITING SLAVES, Mark 13:34-37 (also see Luke 12:35-38) What appears to be ignorance of not-knowing when the master will return, is really the kind of knowing that keeps a constant watch, while what appears to be knowledge about when the master will come home, is really the ignorance of the one who is asleep when the master unexpectedly returns. THE WEEDS IN THE WHEAT, Matthew 13:24-30 What looks like a good reason to separate of the wheat from the weeds is really the condition for allowing them to grow together, while what appears to be the collection time of harvest when everything is gathered together, is really the time to separate the wheat from the weeds. THE WICKED TENANTS, Mark 12:1-12 (also see Matthew 21:33-46, Luke 20:9-19, Thomas 65-66) With the coming of the harvest, what appears to be a time for fruitfulness with the sending out of the master's servants is really a time of rejection, while what appears to be a time of rejection that leads to the violent death of the master's beloved son is really the time of fruitfulness, for “the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.” THE BARREN FIG TREE, Luke 13:6-9 What appears to be a time of fruitfulness is really a time of barren-ness, and what appears to be the conditions for a judgment of barren-ness is really the graceful favor of the landowner and another opportunity for fruitfulness. THE SEED GROWING SECRETLY, Mark 4:26-29 What initially appears to be a man at work scattering seed is really the effortless natural growth of the seed as it sprouts and grows, and what appears to be natural growth of the seed into corn, again becomes the human work of harvest. In summary, then, all of the parables just examined are recorded in the synoptic gospels and attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, the 1 st century Jewish teacher who is also confessed to be the Christ of the Christian faith tradition. And with a simple structural analysis of these sacred teachings, it is now clear that the same dynamic pattern of paradoxical reversals can be witnessed in at least 30 of Jesus' parables that are recorded in the New Testament gospels. THE APHORISMS OF JESUS To add further support to the depth and scope of these bi-polar reversals of meaning, this same paradoxical structure receives can also be witnessed in many of the historical Jesus' aphorisms and pithy sayings. One of the most well documented of Jesus aphorisms, ‘so whoever wants to save his own life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will save it' [41] virtually typifies the paradoxical reversals of his parabolic narratives. And again, we find the same structural pattern in the following saying: ‘Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.' [42] For here again, what appears to be the narrow path is really wide and leads to life, and what appears to be the wide path is really narrow and leads to death. Another paradoxical truism of the historical Jesus is the following aphorism, “why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank of wood in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” [43] And so here, what looks like a speck in the others eye, is really a plank in ones own, whereas removing the plank in ones own eye, results in the ability to see clearly the speck in the others eye, in another obvious example of Jesus topsy-turvy teaching style There are many more examples of this kind of paradoxical language in the teachings attributed to Jesus, including the virtual manifesto of Jesus on entrance to the Kingdom that is given in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3-12, Luke 6:20-26), witty sayings such as “you strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matt 23:24) as well as other non-canonical documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas. [44] So while the various instances of this characteristic form of paradoxical teaching could be multiplied through a more thorough examination of all the words that were reportedly spoken by Jesus, the purpose here has simply been to demonstrate that all of the most well known parables and aphorisms in the synoptic gospels employ the same formal structure. In other words, all of Jesus' teachings give voice to the same structural logic, a distinctive logic of bi-polar reversals that simmers in the paradoxical heart of his radical call to the Kingdom. Therefore, given the overriding significance of this paradoxical structure in the main body of Jesus teachings, we can now set out the formal logic of this study - what appears to be X is really Y, and what appears to be Y is really X ; where X and Y are virtually any pair of binary oppositions that are brought into play within the general framework of Jesus' recorded teachings: righteous/sinner, inside/outside, saved/lost, dutiful/rebellious, etc. So while there is indeed a structural logic that underpins the parabolic system of Jesus as a whole, it must also be said that it is a logic that looks downright absurd, ridiculous, and even mad from the perspective of worldly wisdom. For in the coming of God's kingdom, it looks like all hell has broken out, a holy hell that Jack Caputo likens to a s acred anarchy [45] wherein everything is turned upside down and inside out in flagrant disregard for our conventional horizons of expectation and breaking open the limits of what is normally considered possible or reasonable. For people can only enter the Kingdom if they don't expect to - if they are nothings and nobodies in the eyes of the world, while those claim its possession are sent away empty handed as the love of God makes a mockery of those structures of power and exclusion that rule in favor of the privileged few. There is, then, a kind of holy perversity in the paradoxical logic of the Kingdom, for again and again in the teachings of Jesus - the farther ‘out' you re, the stronger the trace of God and the more ‘inside' you are, the further away from God you become. [46] So with this simple formula for unpacking the original form of Jesus more definitive teachings, it may well be the case that a paradoxical logic can begin to open the way for a transformation and renewal of our increasingly irrelevant and hollow God-language by digging deep into the sacred texts of the Christian tradition and calling for a further unfolding of the radical truth that lies dormant in Jesus' revelatory teachings. ESTABLISHING AUTHENTICITY It is the contention of this paper that the structural logic of paradox holds true almost all of the recorded teachings of the historical Jesus. And furthermore, here I will argue that this formal logic can also be proposed as a criterion for what is historically authentic in regards to the parables and aphoristic sayings that have been attributed to Jesus. For if we turn to the findings of the Jesus Seminar - a controversial group of historical Jesus scholars stemming primarily from the United States, it can be clearly shown that the paradoxical reversals depicted here do in fact conform to their criteria of authenticity for the historicity of Jesus' teachings. And as such, we therefore have a simple methodology for sorting through the large body of written words supposedly spoken by the historical Jesus and identifying the unique voiceprint and the characteristic form of his language about the kingdom of God. In pursuing this task, the scholars of the Jesus Seminar put forward a number of distinct criteria for establishing the authenticity of Jesus' words [47] , the first of which is the ‘ criteria of offensiveness '. For one of the most distinctive features of Jesus' parabolic speech acts is that they subverted conventional stereotypes and so were deeply offensive to his listener's customary way of seeing the world. [48] And given that the paradoxical teachings of Jesus examined here “shatter the categories” (Perrin) by means of an a-moral reversal that renders obsolete established binary distinctions between sacred and profane, insiders and outsiders, etc there is a strong case to be made that the formal logic of paradox conforms to the criteria of offensiveness set out by the Jesus Seminar, while it also shows why this most extraordinary person provoked sufficient antagonism as to bring about his death. Another factor called upon by the members of the Jesus Seminar to determine the authenticity of the words of Jesus is the ‘ criteria of dissimilarity' . The criterion of dissimilarity was proposed in order to discriminate the voice of Jesus from the many voices that surrounded him in the social world of 1 st century Palestine, such as the message of his predecessors, like John the Baptist and other Jewish reformers, and from the message of his successors, like Paul and the Evangelists of the early Church. In this way, it is claimed that we can identify the genuine features of Jesus' speech by contrasting them with other sources of rabbinic teaching in the Jewish and Christian traditions around the same time. [49] And in this respect, one of the most distinctive marks of Jesus' parabolic language on the Kingdom of God, one of the features that distinguish his words from all the other wisdom teachings of his time, is just these paradoxical dynamics, and the bi-polar reversals of meaning that fly in the face of all conventional wisdom in being strikingly dissimilar to our habitual forms of discourse about truth and meaning. As Breech's study confirms [50] , there is simply nothing else that resembles such a provocative paradoxes and a-moral reversals in the surrounding social and religious landscape of Jesus' time. And since there are so few parallels in other types of Jewish wisdom literature both before and after Jesus, it is reasonable to conclude that the formal logic of paradox also conforms to the criteria of dissimilarity established by the Jesus Seminar to determine the authenticity of the words attributed to the historical Jesus. [51] Another important criteria of authenticity developed by the Jesus Seminar, and one that also supports of the central claims of this work is the ‘criteria of coherence' . This criteria looks to see whether or not there is either a seamless link or overlap between the different sayings attributed to Jesus, one that enables the different kinds of sayings to gel together in their distinctive style. The criterion of coherence therefore judges words attributed to Jesus to be authentic if they cohere with those judged authentic in terms of the other criteria. And while it has already been demonstrated that the parables and aphorisms investigated here are all coherent with each other in instituting the same formal structure, the distinctive logic of paradox again meets the criteria established by the Jesus Seminar for determining the historical authenticity of Jesus' teachings. [52] Therefore, given that the formal logic of bi-polar reversals set out here meets the criteria of offensiveness, dissimilarity and coherence, we can put forward the general proposition that any creative composition in the synoptic gospels stems from Jesus if it can be shown to conform to the criteria of paradoxicality . In this way, historical authenticity can be almost certainly guaranteed if words attributed to Jesus in the gospel narratives conform to the uniquely paradoxical dynamics set out here – X is Y, as Y is X. In other words, having established that paradoxicality is both offensive to commonsense and remarkably dissimilar to other forms of religious language, as well as being a coherent structure throughout the systematic body of teachings attributed to Jesus, it is now possible to form rules of evidence in order to distinguish the authentic teachings of Jesus, i.e. those that have a striking paradox in their narrative center, from what is derivative from the post-Easter allegory, moralization or interpretive translation within the early Church communities. [53] SOURCE CODEThis paper has argued that, in their original form, the parables of Jesus functioned as poetic-metaphors that offered an altogether new form of life to their hearers by confronting them with the paradoxical reversals of meaning that form the centerpiece of Jesus' proclamation on the Kingdom of God. And since it has been shown here that such paradoxes show up in at least 30 of Jesus' parables, as well as his most memorable aphorisms, this paper has argued that the deep structure of bi-polar reversals provides a simple but effective framework for legitimating the historical authenticity of the great body of Jesus' teachings on the Kingdom of God. In bringing the kingdom of God into language, [54] the parables of Jesus are an ‘event' with force and significance that open up a world of new creative possibilities, a moment of truth in which Jesus ‘guarantees his hearers an opportunity for decision.' [55] To understand his language, is therefore to encounter a language in which God's reign is inescapable, a language ‘in which God's reign happens as reality's true possibility.' [56] And in this sense, the paradoxical utterances of Jesus are self-authenticating, primarily because one finds them almost impossible to live with as they call the project of making a continuous whole out of one's existence into question, and jolt their hearer into a new judgment about the meaning of ones life. [57] As Crossan writes in The Dark Interval [58] , the authentic parables of Jesus are enigmatic, disturbing, and unnerving, as they radically undercut and de-legitimate the agreed upon myths of the commonly accepted world, while inviting their hearer into a participation in the reality awakened by their symbolic referent, the kingdom of God. [59] And since the paradoxical reversals of meaning depicted here are now seen to be determined by their author's creative composition, we can surmise that this distinctive logical structure can re-activate the authentic challenge of Jesus' teachings while also offering a direct insight into the mind of this enigmatic sage from Nazareth. For in the bi-polar reversals of meaning that establish the original form of Jesus' awakening to the Kingdom of God, our sense of reality is disturbed and shaken, as previously fixed binary distinctions begin to de-stabilize in a radical uncertainty that breaks open the power of the present and throws the established wisdom of the world into holy confusion. [60] And in outlining the historical authenticity of Jesus' passion for paradox, these revelatory teachings offer us little or no self-security, as they point to a Reality that exceeds the grasp of conventional logic and eludes the reach of our demands for objective certainty, as they remove our habitual defenses, put us on the spot and leave us exposed and vulnerable before an impossible decision that insists on a response. [61] By invoking a sense of risk and danger, as well as being marked by a capacity to tolerate ambiguity, the parables of Jesus shake the foundations of those institutions that lend the weight of God to our contingent and historically constructed prejudices [62] while simultaneously making us vulnerable to God's unconditional love with a heightened sense of paradoxicality that transmits the very heart of Jesus' own spiritual awakening. [63] And in this sense, Jesus is not so much the answer, but the place of the question [64] , a question that intensifies the passion of faith and points directly to the gate-less gate of the Kingdom by lifting the weight of the past and opening us to new possibilities of thought and action and an unforeseeable future where all we can do is expect the unexpected. For in the unexpected reversals of meaning that constitute the formal structure of Jesus' parables it has been shown that what appears to be sacred or holy in one context is ultimately revealed to be blasphemous, while what appears to be immoral or blasphemous in another context is ultimately revealed to be holy. For against all expectations to the contrary, it is the outsiders – the poor in spirit, the outcast, the bereaved, and the hungry who are welcome in the Kingdom in an event of God's incalculable graciousness, whereas this same Reality eludes the grasp of the insiders – the self-righteous, the powerful and the privileged, and therefore remains a baffling enigma in the face of worldly wisdom, and a radical mystery that falls continually outside the reach of our commonplace binary structures of human meaning-making. As the former president and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk confirms the subversive message of Jesus' radical teachings, It is becoming clear that Jesus infringed the symbol system of his religious tradition so that he modified the fundamental structure of the correlative semantic code. The system of oppositions on which every linguistic code depends goes together with the way the world, or reality, is apprehended. In short, the linguistic network is a kind of screen or grid through which one sees the world. As a modification of the semantic code, the parable and the aphorism became an event of language: a new tradition, a new code, with new polarities - and thus a fresh sense of the real, emerged. [65] In discovering the original form of Jesus' parabolic language-events in a simple formula that has been largely buried beneath the ossified institutional dogma that was erected in the historical unfolding of the Christian Church, we can therefore conclude that the formal logic of paradox can provide New Testament scholars with a source code for unpacking the original teachings of the historical Jesus – and we can do so without depending on the traditional authority of the institutional Church. And as a source code, the paradoxical structure outlined here is therefore the kind of discovery that can create new thought and re-configure out-dated forms of religious life. For by re-capturing the authenticity of the gospel message in a way that gives both depth and coherence to the main body of Jesus' teachings, it is now possible to communicate the mysteries of Christian faith by re-activating the revolutionary language this 1 st century sage from Galilee, a language that has been almost completely lost in the historical unfolding of the Christian Church. [66]
|