Antilanguage in the Synoptic Gospels: A Sociolinguistic Inquiry

Antilanguage in the Synoptic Gospels: A Sociolinguistic Inquiry by Rev. Justin R. Woods A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Master of Arts in New Testament Studies Regent University Virginia Beach, VA December 2012 UMI Number: 1522061 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 1522061 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106­1346 ii School of Divinity Regent University This is to certify that the thesis prepared by: Rev. Justin R. Woods entitled ANTILANGUAGE IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC INQUIRY Has been approved by his thesis advisor as satisfactory completion of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Dr.{5ale Coultfefr^FhcsiS^dvTsor School of Divinity Date Dr. Matthew Gordley, Associate Dean of Academics School of Divinity Date iii ANTILANGUAGE IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC INQUIRY ABSTRACT This work explores the early discourse of the Jesus movement as an antisociety recorded from the synoptic authors Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This work squarely places the Jesus movement in the midst of a first century Palestinian Jewish milieu ever struggling to retain its unique identity within the overwhelming syncretism of a Hellenistic parent culture. The synoptic authors tell of a Jesus who demonstrated Messianic claims and resocialized his disciples in the countercultural praxis of God's kingdom proclamation. The sociolinguistic methodology of this work uncovers the Jesus movement's antisocietal tendencies as recorded in the synoptic material in order to dissect the early years of the Jesus movement from a social perspective: why it spawned, what it stood for, what sociological direction it took, and why it left Palestinian Jewish audiences heads rattling between the extremes of either blessing God, or killing Jesus. iv Table of Contents INTRODUCTION: ANTILANGUAGE, AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS 1 HALLIDAYAN MODEL OF "ANTILANGUAGE" FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY 3 CHAPTER 1. THE JESUS MOVEMENT'S HELLENISTIC PARENT CULTURE 8 1.1. Greco­Roman Cultural Environment of Palestine 9 1.2. First­Century Palestinian Jewish milieu 20 1.3. Greek of the Synoptic Gospels: A Semiotic Realization of the Confluence 23 CHAPTER 2. THE JESUS MOVEMENT AS AN ANTISOCIETY 25 2.1. Social Identity in the Synoptic Gospels 26 2.2. Evidences of a Foregrounded Social Hierarchy in the Synoptic Gospels 35 2.3. Evidences of "Relexicalization" in the Synoptic Gospels 45 CHAPTER 3. ANTITHETICAL ETHOS OF THE JESUS MOVEMENT 51 3.1. Social­Semiotic Ethos: Self­Definition in a Judaistic & Greco­Roman World 52 3.2. Evidences of "Resocialization" 54 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 67 APPENDIX I THE MESSIANIC SECRET AND ANTILANGUAGE 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY 72 1 INTRODUCTION: ANTILANGUAGE, AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS Modern sociological inquiries have recognized that the "Jesus movement"1 in first­ century Palestine began as one Jewish sectarian "political faction" , within a "milieu" of similar "revolutionary"3 movements adjacent to it that manifested countercultural elements toward the dominant culture in which it was embedded. It is the presupposition of this thesis that Christianity possessed characteristics with parallel movements—as a countercultural antisociety—which realized its own "antilanguage" as a "conscious alternative"4 to the more "widespread ... socially conditioned" norms of its original first­century Palestinian Jewish setting.5 To say, therefore, that Christianity might fit this model requires that one not only identify the criteria for an antilanguage, but also uncover to what extent the Jesus movement satisfies these criteria as its own countercultural group using socially conditioned "antilanguage" as its in­group correspondence. This study evaluates the synoptic gospels as a template of such correspondence, as Gerd Theissen has rightly asserted that the "synoptic gospels are the most 'Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 31­77. See also Ekkhard Stegemann, and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Dennis C. Duling, "The Jesus Movement and Network Analysis," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce Malina, and Gerd Theissen (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002), 301­332. 2 Bruce Malina, "Social­Scientific Methods in Historical Jesus Research," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 1­26; cf., Robin Scroggs, "The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement," in SocialScientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, ed. David Horrell, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 69­92. See also, Norman Beck, Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation, vol. 1 of Westminster College Library of Biblical Symbolism (New York: Peter Lang, 1997); K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, "Political Religion, God's Reign, and the Jesus Movement," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Conflicts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1998), 155­159. 3 W. J. Heard and C. A. Evans, Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic ed., ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), s.v. "Revolutionary Movements, Jewish," n.p.; cf., W. J. Heard, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. by Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), s.v. "Revolutionary Movements,"688. 4M. A. K. Halliday, "Anti­Languages," American Anthropologist 78 (1976): 570­584; idem, Language as Social Semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning (London: Edward Arnold, 1978), 164. 5 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 3. 2 important sources for the Jesus movement."6 In order to establish these criteria, I will first analyze M. A. K. Halliday's model of "antilanguage," extrapolate a brief criteria according to its key elements, and finally evaluate the synoptic material according to it. This study engages a sociolinguistic inquiry of the NT synoptic material (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as "a behavior that follows socially generated and commonly understood rules for how messages are to be produced and received."7 The synoptic material represents purposeful social discourse within its own historical situation, which a detailed linguistic analysis may demonstrate that it betrays, as Halliday has identified: Language has to ... relate what is being said to the context in which it is being said, both to what has been said before and to the 'context of situation'; in other words, it has to be capable of being organized as relevant discourse, not just words and sentences in a grammar­book or dictionary... Language is the ability to 'mean' in the situation types, or social contexts, that are generated by the culture.8 This study regards the synoptic text as manifesting a deliberate authorial strategy within its discourse and, therefore, reflective of the historical situation that prompted its use. Porter's application of register analysis toward the Gospel of Mark using Halliday's template proves insightful for illuminating the fact that it is a "reciprocal process" that exists between the historical environment in terms of a linguistic context of situation that constrains textual choice."9 This study, then, inquires of not only those 'types' of potential social causative agents which may have catalyzed the Jesus movement's in­group correspondence amidst the first­ 6 ibid. 7 See Richard Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Eugene: Cascade, 2007), 45. 8 Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, 21­22, 34. cf., also Stanley Porter, "Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Application with Reference to Mark's Gospel," in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts, 209­229; cf., also R. A. Hudson, "2.4 Registers," in Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed.; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 43­45. 9 Porter, Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts, 210. 3 century's turbulent cultural scene but also to move beyond this to inquire two inevitable consequences which would have resulted from such discourse: 1) how their communication functioned as a semiotic "identity marker par excellence" to establish "solidarity"10 within the original Jesus movement, and 2) how this identity conditioned their interactions with others who existed on the periphery of their in­group boundaries, a fundamental concept to sociological climate of Palestinian antiquity." HALLIDAYAN MODEL OF "ANTILANGUAGE" FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY M. A. K. Halliday's materials on "systemic linguistics" in recent years have made quite an impact on biblical scholarship and particularly in the field of linguistic research as applied to New Testament Greek. 12 In terms of first­century Christianity comprising a social­semiotic realization of "antilanguage" he simply states, "The early Christian community was an antisociety, and its language was in this sense an antilanguage."13 A statement that certainly piqued the interest of this biblical scholar and which represents the type of study that has become a frequent topic in 10 Richard Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 179. See also R. A. Hudson, Sociolinguistics, who has several key sections on these issues: "The Social Nature of Speech," 106­109, "Speech as a signal of social identity," 120­132. 11 See Bruce Malina, and Stephan Joubert, A Time Travel to the World of Jesus, electronic ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1997), n.p.; idem, "Group­Oriented Personality," in The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 65­73; Richard Rohrbaugh, New Testament in CrossCultural Perspective (Eugene: Cascade Books 2007), 140­141; 177­179; Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 70; Jerome Neyrey and Eric Stewart, eds., The Social World of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 260­261. 12 See Gustavo Martin­Asensio, "Chapter 1: Hallidayan Functional Grammar as Heir to New Testament Rhetorical Criticism: The Case of Foregrounding," Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach to the Lukan Perspective (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 1 ­49; S. E. Porter, "Dialect and Register in the Greek of the New Testament: Theory," in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation, JSOTS 299, ed. M. D. Carroll R. (Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000), 190­208 and 209­29. 13 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 575; idem, Language as Social Semiotic, 171. 4 recent New Testament research.14 Although using the term, "antilanguage" itself may not necessarily be terribly widespread in circles of biblical scholarship specifically, analysis and recognition of those underlying social pressures that would have driven its countercultural nature from the "social location"15 of Jesus' movement within the first­century Palestinian environment are pervasive throughout NT studies. It is this countercultural nature that Halliday understands as the psychological and social 1 17 drive for what he calls the "relexicalization" of any key "linguistic item" in the current language system of the mainstay culture that might serve as the "central protest of the subculture 18 and which distinguish it most sharply from the surrounding society." This relexicalization does not seek to build new vocabulary per se, but takes on new definitions of any already in common use. The term "linguistic item" is preferred over the term or "word" simply because Halliday identifies that the change can and does occur on any level of linguistic realization: phonological, morphological, lexicogrammatical, and/or semantic.19 Halliday includes a chart of these elements with an annotated list identifying the various elements on which this change may occur. He offers as an example the criminal antilanguage of the Bengali compared to its standard 14 Antilanguage research as applied to the Gospel of John, Revelation, or the Qumran documents, see Norman R. Petersen, The Gospel ofJohn and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1993); Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); William M. Schniedewind, "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage," ed. Jouette Bassler, JBL 118 (1999): 235­252. 15 Stephen Finamore, God, Order, and Chaos: Rene Girard and the Apocalypse (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 163; cf., Wayne Meeks, Moral World of the First Christians (Westminster: John Knox, 1986), 32; Douglas Oakman, "Social Location: Jesus," in The Social World of the New Testament, 123­140. 16 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 571. 171 owe this term and its application to Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 43; cf., Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 577. 18 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 571; Rohrbaugh, New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 177. 19 Ibid., 577. 5 language. Besides using different linguistic items to say the same thing, such as dokan for kodan for the meaning "shop," there are occurrences where the new linguistic items can have no semantic equivalent in the original language, for instance: ghot (i.e. to swallow a stolen thing to avoid detection) derives from the word dhok (i.e. swallow). The opposite is also true: any one linguistic item in the original language can have multiple items for it in the antilanguage, a phenomenon called over-lexicalization. Predominantly, however, antilanguages tend to prefer a form of "metaphorical variant" where the common metaphors which are normally spoken in any language (i.e. grammatical metaphors20) are not what makes the antilanguage unique (though they do occur), but that the 1 antilanguage actually becomes a "metaphor for an everyday language" itself in order to embody the protest. What distinguishes an antilanguage is that it is itself a metaphorical entity, and hence metaphorical modes of expression are the norm; we should expect metaphorical compounding, metathesis, rhyming alternations and the like to be among its regular patterns of realization... To be able to interpret the real significance of an antilanguage, we need to have access to its conventional patterns: texts will have to be collected, and edited, and subjected to an exegesis that relates them to the semantic system and the social context. Only in this way can we hope to gain insight into the characterology (to use a Prague School term) of an antilanguage — the meaning styles and coding orientations that embody its characteristic countercultural version of the social system.22 This redefined set of linguistic items reconstructs for its membership what Halliday calls a '"second life' social hierarchy"23 that develops alongside, and in some respects mirrors, the dominant culture representing an alternative social stratification identified among its own 20 Halliday, "Grammatical Metaphor," Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. (London: Arnold, 1994), 342; see also George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 21Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 578. 22 Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, 177. 23 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 572, 579; cf., idem, Language as Social Semiotic, 166. 6 members, i.e. a "^socialization of reality"24 (emphasis original) where conversation—via this antilanguage—serves as its primary vehicle of countercultural identity, social organization, and experience. Here Halliday quotes at length Berger and Luckman's classic work, The Social Construction of Reality, which examines the philosophical connection between an antisociety and its antilanguage that "ongoingly maintains, modifies and reconstructs" the subjective reality that constitutes it and, thereby, calling upon "legitimating strategies" to institutionalize the resocialized reality over and against the dominant culture's attempts to sow "doubt" to disrupt it (i.e. "deviant" phenomena).25 This illuminates the motivation behind an antisociety's "relatively greater... emphasis on interpersonal hierarchy"26: its founder(s) knew best their own legitimating strategies and the closer in relations a follower can draw to them, the higher in the power structure one can reach. Halliday's analysis fits well with the acknowledged "collectivist cultures" within Herodian Palestine27 which the Jesus movement of the synoptic gospels reflects: JO • intergroup conflict toward acceptance and honor in the midst of competing social identities, in that it fits well the sort of collective activity toward which a rising movement in this region ?Q would likely have been prone to engage. In summary, these represent the three criteria of antilanguage: 1. It is realized among a group subsumed within a parent culture, 24 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 574­575; idem, Language as Social Semiotic, 171. 25 Berger and Luckmam, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 172­173. 26 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 579. 27 Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 64; idem, "Ethnocentrism and Historical Questions about Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 31; Jerome Neyrey and Eric Stewart, eds., The Social World of the New Testament, 257. 28 Philip Esler, "Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict," in Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 186­187; cf., Berger and Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality, 174­175. 29 Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 178. 7 2. It demonstrates "relexicalization" of linguistic items of that culture 3. It embodies an antithetical (i.e. countercultural) ethos toward the dominant culture as a semiotic which is indicative to the in­group identity. To the extent that the synoptic gospel materials manifest these criteria, in turn, so too antilanguage. An antilanguage realized within its dominant, Hellenized culture. 8 CHAPTER 1. THE JESUS MOVEMENT'S HELLENISTIC PARENT CULTURE The Jesus movement was not unlike its social or cultural surroundings, but more the result of it. This section will extrapolate the dominant Palestinian culture that would have existed in the immediate surroundings of the early decades of the Jesus movement (A. D. 30­60). First the study will examine the larger geopolitical embedding in Rome at this time, then move with greater specificity toward the Jesus movement in Galilee. On the broadest level of macrosociological observation, due to "its geographical position, Palestine was constantly involved in the big­power politics of the ancient Near East." As a result, the predominant social conditions of this time period were marked by political and 3• i economic instability, a "chronic state" of war, and social upheaval. W. J. Heard summarizes the social unrest. The causes of this unrest were many and varied, but the following factors contributed to a milieu ripe for revolution: foreign military occupation, class conflicts, misconduct of Jewish and Roman officials, Hellenization, burdensome taxation and the Samaritan situation.32 Socioeconomically, the Palestinian region was largely a "subsistence economy"33 where "agriculture was the primary focus of production in Roman Palestine ... 80­90 percent of the populace in Jesus' day engaged in agricultural work."34 (cf., Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.60). Far from the economic picture of today, scholars consider modern vocabulary surrounding issues of 30 John Stambaugh and David Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 20­21; cf., Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 86. 31 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 11. 32 Heard, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Revolutionary Movements," 688. 33 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 10; cf., Hobbs, "The Political Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 251; Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 71. 34 Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 103­104; Malina and Rohrbraugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 7. 9 "economy" as inappropriate expressions for understanding the situation of antiquity.35 Primarily, the economic structure itself promoted social division. One of the primary catalysts instigating social division was the "enormous gap"36 between those of the neglected "lower class"37 (i.e. >o• peasants and slaves) which constituted nearly 98% of the Palestinian population (with whom JQ• Jesus proved most sympathetic ) and the others who represented the social elite (predominantly of the urban areas, i.e. the polis) seeking patronage of superiors, particularly those of Rome. This was considered "the natural order." (Aristotle, Politics 1.5) Over this, however, was Rome's "massive army" that exercised a ubiquitous, inescapable, and absolute power over Palestine's commoners that insured the "centers of communication and control"40 (both politically and economically) remained entirely consolidated within the social elite among the urban areas.41 1.1. Greco­Roman Cultural Environment of Palestine With the metropolitan centers of the Greek city states having already set the Palestinian region with ready­made epicenters of sociopolitical activity upon their Roman occupation, Diaspora Judaism's ease with planting synagogue communities in each of them carried with it a deep 35 See Stegemann and Stegemann, "The Economic Situation of Ancient Mediterranean Societies," in The Jesus Movement, 15­47. 36 D. F. Watson, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Roman Empire," n.p. 37 T. Raymond Hobbs, "The Political Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 256. See Hanson who includes "bandits" in this category ("Jesus and the Social Bandits," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 285). 38 See Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Westminster: John Knox, 1993), 92­93. 39 Douglas Oakman, "Was Jesus a Peasant? Implications for Reading the Jesus Tradition," in The Social World of the New Testament, 125; Hobbs, "The Political Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 257. (cf., Matt 19:23­24; Mark 10:25; Luke 13:32; 16:23; 18:23; 25) 40 Hobbs, "The Political Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 256­257; 262­264. 41 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 20­21. 10 cost—what Theissen terms the "crisis of identity within Judaism."42 The forced mix of Diaspora Jews and their Hellenistic gentile neighbors generated a great deal of tension both socially and religiously43 as "intensification and relaxation of norms" regarding Torah observance became a greater necessity as the Greco­Roman influence found itself "gradually expanding" even within Palestinian borders.44 One fanatical group renounced all contact with Hellenistic cities "so that no one had to go through a gateway with a statue on it." (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 9:26) Indeed, Hellenism reverberated throughout much of Mediterranean life and even found its way penetrating directly into Palestinian Judaism which would have been contemporary to Jesus himself on nearly every level of experience45: over thirty Greek cities had infiltrated Palestine, 20% of Jews now spoke Greek, the Jewish Scriptures were now in Greek, and even the synagogues themselves "passed decrees that echoed the format and phrasing of official decrees of Greek cities."46 Not even the sacred Jewish traditions of theology proper could escape. As Yahwism became immersed in the "aotpia" wisdom tradition of the Greeks, Yahweh began to take on a "female consort" representing "a feminine principle that ordered the cosmos." (cf., Prov. 8:1­3; Wis. Sol 6:17­20; 8:1; Sir. 24:3­7,8)47 Incredibly, there were even some Jews who 42 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 78; W. T. Wilson, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Hellenistic Judaism," n.p.; Stambaugh and Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, 50. 43 Stambaugh, and Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, 51­52; Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 64. 44 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 78­79. Cf., also Wilson, "Hellenistic Judaism," n.p.; Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), s.v. "Religious Syncretism in the Hellenistic and Roman World," n.p. 45 R. B. Edwards, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, s.v. "Hellenism," 312­317; cf., also Luther Martin, Hellenistic Religions: An introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 107­111. 46 W. T. Wilson, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Hellenistic Judaism," n.p. 47 Martin, Hellenistic Religions, 108. 11 came to equate Zeus—head of the Greek pantheon—with the God of Israel himself! (Letter of Aristeas 15) It is Little wonder why the Jesus movement itself picked up Pagan sources of influence.48 1.1.1. Greek Polis The city­states of the Mediterranean were a "unique invention of the Greeks"49 that were positioned throughout each of the conquests of Alexander the Great by the third­century B. C. Though the Jewish segments of Palestine remained resistant to Hellenism at first, the omnipresent influence of the Grecian cities became far too enveloping to fend off. The Greeks had taken every point of the compass surrounding the Palestinian area by the time of its Roman occupation. Hellenism completely surrounded Palestine. To the south lay the powerful kingdom of the Ptolemies, who ruled over it for a century; those kings, along with their officials and soldiers, were Greeks or Macedonians with the Greek language and culture. To the east and south­east, on the edges of the desert, lived the Nabataeans, a strong Arab tribe, who controlled the trade routes from southern Arabia to Egypt. As excavations have shown, Hellenism exerted its influence even in that distant region. To the north, all along the Mediterranean coastline, were the Phoenician cities, whose coins and inscriptions yield evidence of how rapidly they changed into Greek poleis. They adopted the Greek political structure, participated in international Greek athletics, held their own athletic meetings, built gymnasia, theatres, and running­tracks and exchanged their traditional life for a Hellenistic one.50 Originally they embodied an open democratic establishment with a formally enrolled citizen body, the demos, a town assembly, ekklesia, and a governing body of laws, nomoi,51 and all 48 See J. D. Charles, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Pagan Sources in the New Testament," n.p. 49 Meeks, Moral World, 20. 50 J. L. de Villiers, "Cultural, Economic, and Social Conditions in the Graeco­Roman World" in The New Testament Milieu, ed. A.B. du Toit, Guide to the New Testament (Ukiah: Orion Publishers, 1998), 2: n.p. 51 Meeks, Moral World, 20. 12 designed to be unified under Alexander's "one world culture" of Hellenism. It ended up pressing on its people a greater level of conflicting personal loyalties as the cultic, legal, political, and economic streams that constituted personal life collided through the years.53 Two of the most fundamental of these sociological sensitivities consisted of, on the one hand, a widening divide between the social groups influenced by Palestine's developed cosmopolitanism, and on the other, the initial animosity within the Jewish/gentile divide. Somehow, the Jesus movement found its influence superimposed onto both. 1.1.2. Palestine's Socially Divided Cosmopolitanism54 The establishment of urban environments forced a sharp bifurcation of social classes upon the native populations which developed "no middle class at all."55 On the lower end, there were those of the aforementioned "lower class", which themselves consisted of both rural (i.e. villagers and bandits outside the cities) and urban flavor (i.e. craftsmen, merchants, slaves and beggars)56, and on the higher end, there were those for whom everyone labored beneath consisting of the "high­status" elites in the urban areas (i.e. mainly wealthy absentee landowners). These occupied the administrative and religious institutions which came to inundate many of the cities of Palestine. In this environment, not only was "social mobility... 52 de Villiers, "Cultural, Economic, and Social Conditions in the Graeco­Roman World," n.p.; cf., Sean Freyne, Jesus, a Jewish Galilean : A New Reading of the Jesus Story (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 14. 53 See Meeks, Moral World, 20­22; Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 68. 54 Theissen, Sociology of Palestinian Christianity, 47,51. 55 Malina, The New Testament World, 92; cf., Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 156; Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 67­68. 56 Malina, The New Testament World, 92. For the inclusion of "bandits," in the peasant category, see Hanson and Oakman, "Figure 3.8 Social Banditry," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 89 which directly delineates why bandits held the same social origins and interests as the peasants but were considered a separate crowd to deal with. 13 nearly nonexistent", but so far removed from our modern rags­to­riches stories was Palestine of this era that "a person would experience a serious loss of status if found to be socializing with groups other than his own."57 In this light, one can easily see the rift Jesus would have caused with his befriending of "tax collectors and sinners." (cf., Matt 9:10; Mark 2:16; Luke 15:2) /.1.3. Intersection of Hellenistic Religions In spite of these rigid sociological boundaries, surprisingly, the religious affiliations of this time period had became muddled. Religious syncretism had been previously established among the people as the consequence of degrading social, political, and national borders subsequent to the death of Alexander the Great: Gods that once kept national identity intact were now embraced by the multitudes, and the oppressive social and political conditions of Roman rule motivated the impetus for supernatural remedy. CO Interaction with the Hellenistic religions, then, would become a sociological ineluctability59 which those of the original Jesus movement were grudgingly forced to accept. This progression is well explained by the sociological issues within which the Jesus movement would have struggled as symptomatic of countercultural movements in general: the more rejection they experienced among their Jewish peer groups (i.e. the parent culture), the more they would have to turn to the outside, accepting gentile populations for survival. Hence, the Jesus movement of this period became embraced by the very people it had no initial interest in renewing: the Gentiles of the Hellenistic religions.60 There exists a clear progression of this 57 Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 150, 159. 58 See J.L. de Villiers, "Religious Life," in The New Testament Milieu, n.p. 59 See A.B. du Toit, "The Jewish milieu of the New Testament," in The New Testament Milieu, n.p. 60 See Malina, "Social­Scientific Methods," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels," 8. 14 growing sociological tension as recorded by the synoptic writers which Matthew paints especially vivid in several sections (cf., Matt 6:32; 10:5, 18; 12:18; 18:17; 20:19), but Mark includes only briefly (cf., 7:26; 10:33), whereas Luke seems to paint as just the opposite—as though Jesus were actually sent to the Gentiles as their "light" of revelation from God (cf., Luke 2:32). The synoptic writers paint this gentile problem as a passing issue that would, only in hindsight, be increasingly accepted as God's original work after all. The "renewal" aspect of the movement would then need to take on a different form—it would have to embrace a more universal social semiotic expression in order to establish the necessity of new and more inclusive group boundaries which we see little­to­no hint of in Matthew's dualism that derides "the nations" whose "end will come" with the Messianic gospel proclamation (Matt 24:14). We see some semblance of in Mark's Jesus who merely extends his prayer and hand toward "the nations" (cf., Mark 11:10, 17), and finally see full­blown in Luke's portrayal as a hearty missional confession that Jesus actually came "to seek and to save the lost." (Luke 19:10) The simple dualism of Jewish and non­Jewish social boundaries became obsolete forms of expression. Gradually the perspective of the nations as "out there" had become a more inclusive vision of God's people "in here" who desperately needed a social form of "legitimation" if they were to stay together, a strategy to which Luke's gospel has been recognized as attending.61 The impact of this meant that many of those practices more exclusively ascribed to their Jewish self­definition to which the disciples had so desperately clung (e.g. Sabbath observance, circumcision, purity codes, clean/unclean foods, tithing62) could not carry over as a semiotic 61 Philip Esler, "The Socio­Redaction Criticism of Luke­Acts," in Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, 141­149. 62 See Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 142­144 . 15 defining the Jesus movement. Indeed, a progression also exists with the synoptic reference to these practices and just how often Jesus and his disciples where seen as violating them. For instance, the synoptic authors have 39 references in regard to Sabbath observance (most of which speak of its violation according to Palestinian Jewish authorities), nearly half of which used by Luke alone (18 times) writing later than the other synoptic accounts. This could reflect the Jesus movement's growing hindsight for the need to separate from its more exclusive Jewish practices out of accommodation for a wider audience. The shift to accommodate these group boundaries to accommodate those of the Hellenistic religions could not be avoided (which later served as open doors for proselytizing64) and, thus, the synoptic accounts depict Jesus himself speaking of his second return (parousia) in terms of "revolutionary apocalyptic rhetoric" that would have resonated well even among those of a particularly Roman religious background, i.e. "sun... moon... and stars."65 (cf., Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24; Luke 21:25) 1.1.4. Roman Occupation of Palestine The occupation of Rome in the cities of Palestine brought with it a political economic structure the context within which Jesus proclaimed his theocratic "alternative" rule of God. As it turns out, this represented a common proclamation that enticed the peasant audiences of this period66 because of the oppressive structure of Roman rule. This section will examine two dimensions of 63 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 20; Meeks, Moral World, 110. 64 John Gager, "Christian Missions and the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," in Social Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, 181. 65 John Kenneth Riches, and David C. Sim., The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, JSNTS 276 (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2005), 138. 66 Cf., Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 126­127; Malina, "Social­Scientific Methods," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 7­8. 16 the impact of Roman occupation: 1) the installation of client­kings, and 2) the revolutionary movements spawning out of this exploitative governmental structure. 1.1.4.1. Client-Kings It is important to note that Roman governmental structure was nothing like Western, American, checks­and­balances, popularly elected, democratic­republic government.67 Rather, the client­ kings of Roman Palestine were just as close to the opposite as could be imagined. Not permitting a strong "native aristocracy,"68 client­kings were Roman appointed, imperial representatives who passed on their position primarily by hereditary means. The Roman Palestinian time period surrounding the Jesus movement ("between 30 B. C. and A. D. 60") had as its civic rulership the Herodian family69 to whom the synoptic writers are no strangers (cf., e.g. Matt 2:1; 14:1; 22:16; Mark 3:6; 6:14; Luke 3:1; 9:7). It was their influence that determined the top­down hierarchical structure that shaped the society in which they were given charge. Appointments such as these solely determined the social location of the people in the hierarchy of Roman Palestinian culture70 which, consequently, also predetermined the flow of resources that was required both to obtain and to retain power and privilege. Stambaugh and Balch confirm that the allocation and distribution of goods and services tended to flow to and through this "entourage" created inside these aristocratic relations which they portray as Roman 67 See Hanson and Oakman, "Figure 3.1: Comparative Governmental Forms," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 66­67. 68 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 66. 69 See H. W. Hoehner, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Herodian Dynasty," 317­325. 70 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 63; cf., Stambaugh and Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, 63; Meeks, Moral World of the First Christians, 33. 17 Palestine's nearly impenetrable social and "financial pyramid."71 Thus "patronage" became an immanently critical issue which affected every area of life, to include issues such as socialization patterns that determine your loyalties, personal loyalties that determine daily activity and obligations (many times encompassing "life­long" commitments), and many economic factors T) such as "means of production, major markets, and centers of society." Even inheritance patterns for not only the ruling family but also those of their "fictive" kinship became effected by these relationships.73 One can see the terrible necessity to obtain honor in such societies: "concern for honor permeated every aspect of public life in the Mediterranean world. Honor was the fundamental value, the core, the heart, the soul."74 Many major rhetors of antiquity highlighted its criticality. Aristotle called it "the greatest of all external goods," (Aristotle, Nic. Eth., I) and some even went so far as to consider it the defining characteristic between humanity and animals. (Xenophon, Hiero, 7.3) It is natural to assume that many would have been left out of the loop for various reasons and being left out of the loop would have left them in economic turmoil, if not ruin. Although the advent of these city­states brought with it many advancements which enhanced the people's economic productivity via construction projects (e.g. roads helping both local and foreign trading routes, transportation technologies), coinage, and technologies like those improving the plow,75 the more the people produced, the more the administration demanded through levies, taxes, rents, 71 See John E. Stambaugh, and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Westminster: Westminster Press, 1986). 72 Hanson and Oakman, "Figure 3.5 Patronage/Clientage," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 72. 73 Ibid. 74. 74 Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 31. 75 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 21. 18 and debt payments.76 Debt meant confiscation of land, and confiscation of land in an agrarian economy meant financial disaster that often led to banditry.77 Conversely, debt forgiveness meant freedom in the truest, practical sense: "The abolition of debt was frequently encountered as a revolutionary slogan of the disenfranchised, usually accompanied by a demand for the 70 redistribution of land." Hence, it is easy to see why Jesus would have spoken against an alignment with "Mammon," as tantamount to turning from God (cf., Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). Meeks offers his analysis of how the synoptic writers depict Jesus pointing out aspects of this exploitative system of governing economic crisis for the peasant: distant landowner (Matt 21:33 par.), unemployed workers (Matt 20:3), exhausted slave who fixes supper (Luke 17:10), and the 79 beggar dying at a rich man's gate (Luke 16:20). As an exploitative system such as this Rfl frequently drove resistance movements within the peasantry. Even the Jesus movement could not avoid this characterization as he likely converted many of these bandits who were already accustomed to the kind of "social rootlessness" his form of discipleship demanded.81 1.1.4.2. Revolutionary Movements 76 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 63; Oakman, "Jesus and Agrarian Palestine: The Factor of Debt," in The Social World of the New Testament, 68; Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 119. 77 Hanson and Oakman, "Figure 3.8 Social Banditry," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 89. 78 Oakman, "Jesus and Agrarian Palestine: The Factor of Debt," in The Social World of the New Testament, 66. 79 Meeks, Moral World, 104. 80 Oakman, "Jesus and Agrarian Palestine: The Factor of Debt," in The Social World of the New Testament, 66; Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 119­120; Meeks, Moral World, 104­405; Riches, and Sim, The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, 67. 81 Jesus, 87. Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 97; Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of 19 The nature, extent, and social impact of these revolts proved to be a widespread phenomena across first­century Roman Palestine and thus, scholars have conducted many studies as an effort to analyze each of them using various sociological paradigms such as: resistance, revolution, rebellion, or deviance, in order to identify and differentiate their motivations with greater precision.82 Nearly all of which draw their direct association to the peasantry, and, by extension, to the Jesus movement itself since the peasantry proved to become Jesus' "primary audience."83 Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the followers of the Jesus movement would have likely viewed his efforts from the perspective of some type of resistance against the established regimes. The Scriptures themselves seem to verify this through the consistent, and deliberate assignment of political nomenclature assigned to Jesus (i.e. "King of the Jews") from manger to the grave and from the testimonies of both friends and enemies alike.84 This trend proved wider than the Jesus movement, however; theocratic optimism drove political zealotism as a prevailing religiopolitical current running through much of the first­century Palestinian populace particularly among their Jewish social milieu.85 82 For the respective application of each of these terms as authors apply them to the social milieu of the Jesus movement, see Stegemann and Stegemann, "Chapter 6.5 Religio­Political and Socio­Revolutionary Resistance Movements," in The Jesus Movement, 170­171 (This is also a favorite term throughout Theissen's work, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity)', W. J. Heard, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Revolutionary Movements," 688­698; Hanson and Oakman, "Peasant Interests: Rebellion and Social Banditry," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 56­89; John Barclay, "Deviance and Apostasy: Some Applications of Deviance Theory to First­ Century Judaism and Christianity," in Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, 289­307. 83 Oakman, "Was Jesus a Peasant? Implications for Reading the Jesus Tradition (Luke 10:30­35)," in The Social World of the New Testament, 125; Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 88; Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 14. 84 References to "King of the Jews" are numerous through the synoptic accounts which encompass the entire life of Jesus (cf., Matthew 2:2; 27:11; 27:29, 37; Mark 15:2,9, 12, 18, 26; Luke 23:3, 37, 38). Theissen (Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 24) relates this title to Jesus' role as the Son of Man functioning as "the expectation of a king who will free Israel." This expectation was similar to many other theocratic notions of its day from other Jewish sects but not altogether too incompatible with some prevailing Gentile expectations either. (See Meeks, Moral World, 103) 85 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 61; J.A. du Rand, "12.9.3 Origin and nature of the Zealots," in New Testament Milieu, n.p. 20 1.2. First­Century Palestinian Jewish milieu Judaism even within the confines of first­century Palestine consisted of any number of sectarian communities86 leading into the rise of the Jesus movement. This section considers the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes (i.e. Qumran87) as representing the three predominant communities of Jewish religious thought in first­century Palestine, as Josephus relays: "The Jews had for a great while three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees." (Ant. 18.1188) These also represent the most immediate communities of influence surrounding the Jesus movement. 1.2.1. Sanhedrin—Pharisees and Sadducees Analogous to the Roman forms of governmental control in terms of an hereditary election, OQ centralized focus of resources and labor, and bifurcated stratification of the populace, the "Jews did not form a polis but an ethnos, with the high priest and the Sanhedrin at its head."90 These aristocratic communities, the Pharisees and Sadducees, formed the bulk of the "Sanhedrin" who 86 J. A. Du Rand (Chapter 12 "Groups in Jewish national life in the New Testament period," in New Testament Milieu, n.p.) identifies at least 10 different communities of the Jewish faith in the Palestinian region. See also Markus Cromhout, "The Judean Sects," in Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 2 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2007), 133­138. 87 R. A. Kugler, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Qumran: Place and History," n.p. Kugler compiles literary references between Essenes and the Qumran find in 1947 which include: Philo, Omn. Prob. Lib. 75­91; Hypoth. 11.1­18; Josephus, J. W. 2.8.2­13 §§119­61; Ant 18.1.5 §§18­22; Hippolytus, Haer. 9.18.2— 28.2; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 5.15.73. 88 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987); cf., also Freyne, "Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes," in Jesus, a Jewish Galilean, 130­133. 89 Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 153. 90 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 10. 21 remained ever politically motivated to solidify their ties and influence alongside Roman Palestinian civic rulership.91 Throughout the time of Jesus, Herod and the Roman prefects appointed the Jerusalem high priests. Herod the Great married successively two women from high priestly families, Mariamme the Hasmonean and Mariamme daughter of Boethus. These priestly marriages were designed to further consolidate his power and increase his status. 2 Hanson and Oakman's analysis of this relationship corroborates the likeness this oligarchic arrangement held with the common highly stratified Roman civic rulership: the basis of economic support and centralization remained at the Jerusalem Temple, whose leadership was delegated either by the prefect, or his electees.93 The Pharisees and Sadducees, therefore, may be considered an attempt at a "ruling upper­stratum"94 over Jewish life and practice in Palestine95 as the Jerusalem Talmud relays. (m. Ta<an. 4.3; y. Sheqal. 5:1) Josephus even refers to them as "the Jerusalem council" (Josephus Ant. 14.9.2—4 §§167­80; Vit. §62) who possess authority extending as far as the death penalty. (Josephus, Ant. 20:200; cf., m. Sanh. 6:1­11:6) Thus, we see reports by the synoptic writers of them coming onto the scene sharply questioning and challenging Jesus' authority and actions whenever his deviant public displays of "non­elite interests and aspirations"96 could be construed by the crowds as representative of Jewish practice (cf., Matt 12:2,10,14; Mark 2:24; 3:1; Luke 6:2, 7; 14:1, 3). In this, the backdrop of Jesus' 91 Freyne, Jesus, a Jewish Galilean, 131­32; cf., also Hanson and Oakman, "The Political "Family," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 80­82. 92 Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 146­47. 93 See Hanson and Oakman, "Figure 5.3 Political Religion in Agrarian Roman Palestine," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 148­149; Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 157. 94 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 157. 95 G. H. Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Sanhedrin," n.p. 96 Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 125. 22 recorded reactions against many elitist interests of the Judean aristocratic leadership becomes clear, such as wealth (cf., Matt 7:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 16:13), and purity concerns (cf., Matt 23:25­26; Mark 7:15, 18­23; Luke 11:39­41). This culminated in "the direct conflict with the Q7 Herodian and Judean elites that eventuate in Jesus' death" (cf., Mark 3:6; Luke 13:31). 1.2.2. Qumran Taking equally extreme measures toward these Jewish aristocrats are those of Qumran. Regarded QO as a Jewish faction adjacent to the rise of the Jesus movement , the Qumran community held a radically ascetic ethos "renouncing both possession and marriage."99 Their eschatological views maintained a strict form of "cosmic dualism"100 that fueled their separatist tendencies. The same type of ascetic, dualistic, and separatist elements have their parallels in the synoptic literature recorded of the Jesus movement (cf., Matt 8:20; Mark 9:48; Luke 14:26). The parallel practices and ideology between the Qumran community and the Jesus movement go quite deep, as observed in Luke's sequel, Acts. The Qumran community understood itself as the renewed people of God, and expressed its covenant identity through the community of goods (1QS 1.11­13; 5.1­13; 6.15­25), adherence to the teachings of the community (1QS 5.2­12; 6.4­8; lQSa 1.1­5; 1QM 10.10; CD 4.7­9 1QH 12.22­27) and a ritual (proleptic) meal (1QS 5.8­12; lQSa 2.17­ 22). These are the very same ingredients as found in Acts 2:42^47 (and in Deuteronomy). This adduces a noticeable parallel between the Qumran community and Luke's summary of the church in Acts 2:42­47. The same three elements are found: sharing possessions, adherence to the community's teaching, and the emphasis on the common meals.101 97 Ibid. 98 R. Alastair Campbell, The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 54. 99 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 21. 100 Martin, 101 Hellenistic Religions, 106. Matthias Wenk, Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 266­67. They too understood themselves as a Holy Spirit inspired movement of the God of Israel (1QS 9.3) as both a "New Exodus' with an 'Old Exodus' historical precedent. 109 Indeed, they were the quintessential countercultural movement within Judaism. Not unlike the Jesus movement which the synoptic gospels similarly reflect as its own countercultural Jewish movement by one of its own rabbis (cf., Matt 26:25; Mark 9:5; Luke 21:7103). 1.3. Greek of the Synoptic Gospels: A Semiotic Realization of the Confluence The synoptic literature of the New Testament bears all the semiotic markings of the cultural and religious confluence typical of the first­century Jewish Palestinian setting in which it was embedded.104 As this study of the Palestinian setting applicable to the early years of the Jesus movement has shown, theocratic messages were not heard by either Jewish or Gentile audiences as anything novel. Those on the bottom of the bifurcated socioeconomic system needed a countercultural answer, and, since many of the Gods in circulation had mostly lost their exclusive national associations, seeking an answer through supernatural origins became a natural impulse. The Jesus movement was no exception. The Jewish message of God's intention for theocracy itself would have not been too surprising if not for the inherent demonstrations of Jesus to embody this "kingdom of God" message in the form of compelling and authoritative signs ascribed to the ability of the God of Israel alone, such as: command over creation (cf., Matt 14:32­33; Mark 5:41; Luke 8:24), forgiveness of sins (cf., Matt 9:6; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21), and, most shockingly, resurrection from the dead (cf., Matt 28:7; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:34). All of these testify and realize above the level 102 Ibid., 265. 103 Luke does not use the same term "pafipi" but a translated substitute for his gentile audience, "SiSdaKtiXot;." See John 1:40 who references the translation value of these terms for a Jewish leadership context. 104 Meeks, Moral World, 104. 24 of simple ideology that the kingdom of God was not merely near to the Jesus movement, or just an empty proclamation, but actually embodied by it. While the countercultural dimension was common, it was the modus operandi of the Jesus movement that proved unshakable: firstly, proclaim Jesus as king, secondly, prove it through signs, and thirdly, gather the believers.105 (cf., Matt 18:20; Mark 9:39; Luke 9:48) These central tenants around the proclamation of Jesus reflected by the synoptic writers not only illumines the original motivation toward reaching the Jews first, but, furthermore, serves as a sociological insight for why the spread of the Jesus movement became such a success later on. After all, the Diaspora Jewish population was encamped in every country of the Roman empire as ready­made communities of potential Jesus­ believers. All they had to do was hop from one synagogue to the next announcing and demonstrating Jesus' Messianic status; it is no coincidence this is recorded as the primary activity of the itinerant lifestyle of Jesus' himself106 because he wanted to set the precedent for success and represents a practice that no group outside of Judaism would have been welcome to do. Not just taking full advantage of its Jewish origins and surroundings, the Greek language surrounding the Jesus movement also proved useful. Since the original Hebrew of the OT had died out as a regularly spoken language, the "firmly established" lingua franca of the Roman empire was the Koine Greek we see in the New Testament.107 The writers of the synoptic gospels clearly understood that to promulgate their message in the most efficient possible means 105 Ibid., 136. This feature speaks well for the Jesus movement as sectarian: "it requires a deliberate choice to follow the authority of Jesus and not that of other Jewish leaders and teachers." 106 Demonstrations by Jesus in the Jewish synagogues appear often within the synoptic literature. The synoptics represent a consistent portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant charismatic teacher moving from synagogue­to­ synagogue, confirming his desire to reach out to Israel, at least initially. The lemma CTuvaywyii appears in the synoptics 36 times with each of the synoptic authors reporting that he "went through all of Galilee" with his teachings as testified from both friend and foe alike. (Cf., Matt 4:23; Mark 1:28, 39; Luke 4:14; 23:5) 107 Stanley Porter, "Reading the Gospels and the Quest for the Historical Jesus," in Reading the Gospels Today, ed. Stanley Porter, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2004), 46. 25 throughout the Roman empire would necessitate writing its own version of a "didactic biography" 1 (18 in the language with which everyone was familiar. So successful was this sociolinguistic strategy that "by the time Constantine decided to join the Christians, the two empire­wide organizations, the Christian church and the Roman state, stood side by side."109 CHAPTER 2. THE JESUS MOVEMENT AS AN ANTISOCIETY Having demonstrated the Jesus movement's main bulk of activity as moving within the loose social network of the Palestinian Jewish communities of its day (i.e. primarily via synagogues), this section examines the need for "relexicalization"110 as a sociolinguistic function that satisfies the movement's need to communicate both social identity, and "in­group"111 maintenance. The need for this kind of maintenance to begin with betrays the outside pressures the movement could never walk away from and the necessity to keep their membership reminded of how the original Jesus movement did business, so although many scholars have accepted the synoptic 119 gospels as being compiled later for their final redactions , this study asserts that they were both capable of and designed for preserving the original movement's precedent of antisocietal operation. To explore these areas, the synoptic accounts are recognized as just such internal 108 Meeks, Moral World, 138. Meeks points out that this was "a specific Hellenistic genre." 109 Ibid, 123. 110 Halliday, "Antilanguages," 570. '11 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 15. 112 Though not without solid controversy. This study follows more the work of Martin Mosse, The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), who rightly follows the fathers in their testimonies to date the synoptics between A. D. 44­61. (p xxx) 26 correspondence which allowed their followers to "make sense of their experiences."113 According to Halliday, the Jesus movement as an antisociety required this type of linguistic medium to help define their base­level resocialized "alternate reality"114 that encompassed such areas as social distinctiveness, social location, and common vocabulary. Each of these would have aided followers of the Jesus movement to know who they were, who was in charge, and how they communicated; this communication both constructed and fueled their "conversational apparatus" which would have reinforced the previous two.115 This section examines evidences for the following three areas as recorded within the synoptic accounts: 1) social identity, 2) foregrounded social hierarchy, and 3) evidences of relexicalization, in order to uncover from their social foundation both the necessity and function of the kinds of key linguistic items in which the synoptics sought to teach their audiences. 2.1. Social Identity in the Synoptic Gospels If the Jesus movement's intentions for renewal were to establish any kind of lasting impact on the larger culture within which it was embedded, it would need a way both to create and to maintain some base­level of its own differentiated social identity across the various cultural spheres116 within the Palestinian environment which it strove to convert. The people joining this movement would have to face the social consequences that would come and be able to deal with the cost. This social identity represents the means by which its audiences would be able to register the 113 Ibid., 16. 114 Halliday, "Antilanguages," 575. See also Meeks, Moral World of the First Christians, 13; 129, concerning the "deep resocialization" (cf., Matt 10:35, 37; Mark 3:31­35; Luke 14:26). which those of the Jesus movement would have had to undergo to not only convert into the movement, but to stay in it as well. 115 Berger and Luckman, Social Construction of Reality, 172; cf., Halliday, "Antilanguages," 574­5. 116 See Meeks, Moral World of the First Christians, 15­16. 27 kinds of "social exchange"117 that would become essential to its in­group/out­group criteria for membership.118 With Jesus setting up his Galilean ministry originally designed to target mainly the peasant villages,119 Jesus' actions according to the triple synoptic tradition moved without the approval of and often times in direct conflict with the traditional lines of rabbinic authority (cf., Matt 21:23; Mark 11:28; Luke 20:2). The main reason the Jewish authorities would have felt the need to move toward the Jesus movement with corrective measures is mainly because Jesus was not considered an outsider to the people of Judaism. The reasons for this are primarily two­fold: I) He clearly taught, dialogued, and answered to the Palestinian Jewish community of his time. This included: A. teaching in their synagogues (cf., e.g., Matt 4:23; Mark 1:39; Luke 4:15) B. teaching in the temple precincts (cf., e.g., Matt 21:23; Mark 11:15­18; Lukel 9:45­47) C. dialoguing with the Jewish religious authorities (cf., e.g. Matt 12:10; Mark 3:4; Luke 14:3) D. answering to the Jewish high priest for his activities (cf., e.g., Matt 26:57; Mark 14:53­65; Luke 22:54) II) His primary communication was also within the normative ethical and religious expression of the "Israelite ... moral world and context of the social institutions of his society."120 This included121: 117 See Malina and Rohrbaugh, "Social (Exchange) Relations," in Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 406. The concept of social relations forms the entire basis for the reason why the Gospels were created: to understand who they were (i.e. social location and identity), and how they related to others as the Jesus movement spread. 118 Esler, "Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict," in Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 195­ 200; Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary of the Synoptic Gospels, 373­4. Esler's section discusses "Jesus' Approach and Social­Identity Theory" which outlines the primary strategies available to Jesus for establishing identity and reduce conflict from both within its own borders and amid the competing Hellenistic identities of the day. Malina and Rohrbaugh understand the in­group and out­group criteria for membership as creating the necessary boundaries that could maintain the social identity the Jesus movement strove to establish. 119 See R. Reisner, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "The Public Ministry of Jesus in Galilee," 36­ 40; Malina, "Social­Scientific Methods," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 5; Freyne, Jesus, a Jewish Galilean, 7; Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 47. Stegemann and Stegemann (The Jesus Movement, 198) go perhaps too far as to specify that "the followers of Jesus were limited geographically to Galilee and especially to the northern shore of the Lake of Gennesaret (Capernaum, Bethsaida)." 120 Stegemann, "The Contextual Ethics of Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 59. 28 A. belief that the God of Israel is the only God. (cf., e.g. Matt 4:10; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27) B. acceptance that moral knowledge is from the scriptures, (cf., e.g. Matt 5:21; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20) C. understanding that human history will be judged by God's standard of perfection, (cf., e.g. Matt 12:36; Mark 13:20; Luke 10:14) So the original motivation of the Jesus movement clearly operated within a Palestinian Jewish ideology.122 Rather than Jesus trying to start something completely brand­new, he simply sought out efforts to "renew"123 the movement of God that had already begun with the only group which he considered to possess the heritage of being the true people of God, i.e. "Israel" (cf., Matt 15:26; Mark 7:27; Luke 1:68) and this constituted his primary initial missionary emphasis (cf., Matt 10:5­6; 15:24).124 Moreover, from this regard, arriving in Gentile territory would have been considered more of "a retreat" from his mission and as such he would have reacted to these communities from a more ethnocentric position that "Gentiles have no right to the ministry of the Jewish Messiah."125 121 The following list comes out of Meeks, Moral World, 100­1. Meeks identifies these as "commonalities" which the Jesus movement shared with Judaism that identified it initially as a Jewish sectarian group. 122 See B. D. Chilton, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Judaism," 398­405. 123 See W. R. Hertzog II, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Sociological Approaches to the Gospels," 760­66; Theissen, "Socio­cultural Factors," in Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 77­97; Stegemann, "The Contextual Ethics of Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 45­63. 124 See Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 314; Cromhout, Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q, 368; Kruise, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Apostle," 30. Cromhout affirms that "Q's mission was only aimed at Israel (Q 10:2) and Gentiles are clearly the primary outside group from whom the Q people distinguish themselves (Q 6:34; 12:30)." Cf., also Malina, "Social­Scientific Methods in Historical Jesus Research," in Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 8­9. He also offers a sociocultural model as the basis for a re­translation of the term 'IodScuo^ which he renders as "Judeans" rather than the traditional "Jews" partly based on their ancient land­promise traditions associated with the region of Israel which fueled national identity. 125 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 594. Many commentators agree that the statement ascribed to Jesus in Matthew's account would have been realistic to Jesus' original missional mandates: to attend only to those "of Israel." Cf., Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC 33B 29 While renewal movements themselves would surely have been considered nothing out of the ordinary to a Palestinian Jewish crowd around the time of the Jesus movement,126 what the synoptics portray as the modus operandi of this renewal, however, did prove to startle audiences: Jesus' actual messianic demonstrations (cf., Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22). 1 97 This is confirmed by their record of responses: "Never before has anything like this been seen in Israel!" 1 98 (Matt 9:33 ESV129, cf., also Mark 2:12) The crucial foregrounded element here lies not in a message which Jesus merely shouts in the air (which could have put him in the same category as other "messianic pretenders"130 of his day) but in the experiential dimension of those demonstrations which were ft ei'Sere Kai f|Kouaaxe.131 While Matthew 11:5 and Luke 7:22 are regarded as material that many commentators consider to derive from the original "Q" sayings source, 1 ^9 (Dallas: Word, 1998), 441; W. D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, ICC (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 550. 126 See Richard A. Horsley "Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: their principal features and social origins," in New Testament Backgrounds, ed. Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, The Biblical Seminar 43, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 124­49. 127 Mark includes much the same material in just as much of a foregrounded, thematic fashion along his narrative plot. For e.g., see Mark 1:34, 38,42; 2:1­12; 3:10; 5:29; 6:5, 13; 8:22. 128 See Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 306, nt. 113. Keener points to several occasions of healing blindness in antiquity (Tob 2:10; 3:16­17; 11:10­14; Ep. Arist. 316; Ps­Philo 25:12; b. B. Me§. 85b) but the surprising part was that they "never included a personal intermediary... it does suggest how dramatic the miracle appeared." 129 All Scripture quotations in ESV unless otherwise noted. 130 See W. J. Heard, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Revolutionary Movements," 688­98. 131 See Stanley E. Porter, The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2007), 117. 132 For discussion on the relation of "Q" to this material in Matthew and Luke, see Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2001), 339; Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, vol. 2, 241; Franijois Bovon, and Helmut Koester, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 281; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, Anchor Yale Bible 28 (London: Yale University Press, 2008), 668. 30 these miracle categories also function together as fulfillment of messianic expectation133 verified from various texts out of Isaiah (for e.g., Is. 26:19; 29:18­19; 35:5­6; 61:1). Rather than l exploiting this series of quotations and allusions with the usual fulfillment formulae common to the NT writers, the synoptic authors identify these as types of deliverance characteristic to the Jewish messianic expectation toward which Jesus creates in the form of "concrete experience"134 by his healings of conditions otherwise "incurable apart from God's intervention" (e.g., leprosy was depicted as only curable by God, see Luke 4:27 and its reference to 2 Kings 5:7).136 Thus, the triple synoptic tradition depicts Jesus as initially offering his healings as a "proof1 for 1 "37 the Jewish religious establishment of his day (cf., Matt 8:4; Mark 1:44 ; Luke 5:14) probably in the hopes that they of all people would take the messianic hint.138 133 Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, ICC, (London: T&T Clark International, 1896), 233. Plummer expressly mentions that Luke 7:22 as demonstrating the "clearest sign of his being the Christ." Cf., also Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 300; 134 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans; 2005), 451. Cf., also Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, vol. 2, 242, who refer Jesus as "calling attention to the marvelous events that have been happening." 135 Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 260. 136 See Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 198, 301; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 423; Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, vol. 2, 242. Cf., also with Pieter F. Craffert, The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective, Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 3 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008), 276 for a holistic, cross­cultural, "biopsychosocial model" of understanding the healing episodes in the synoptic accounts which seeks to revise what he terms as the modern "cultural bundabashing" so prevalent in the unwittingly reductionistic and ethnocentric methods used in modern western interpretations of these accounts, cf., also Rohrbaugh, "Ethnocentrism and Historical Questions about Jesus," in Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 27­43. 137 For discussion on the significant textual variant here between the uses of CTtXayxviaOeu; and opyio0ei<;, see Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.), 2nd ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 66; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 27 (London: Yale University Press, 2008), 206. From a literary perspective, Marcus' argument for opyioGeiq is more convincing because Mark uses this reaction on two other occasions in his material (i.e. 3:5; 10:14) and in both instances social exclusion represents a common ground among them, therefore representing a cohesive thematic element. 138 Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 65, 88. Lane refers to this "Jesus who embodied the kingdom" as representing "the new thing God was doing, which if met with unbelief would serve as incriminating evidence against the priests." 31 Besides this activity, however, the synoptic accounts also ascribe to Jesus an unexpected element. While the miracles helped confirm for Jewish constituents his messianic role (cf., Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29), the synoptic accounts also paint Jesus as using these miraculous events as tools en route to accomplishing the larger messianic "function"139 of social reintegration.140 (Cf., Matt 9:6; Mark 2:11; 5:19; Luke 5:24) This created a major rift though; the more social outcasts joined the movement, the more the religious authorities (and the communities who relied on them) felt pressure to resist. In other words, the Jesus movement from its inception was designed to gather and unite the people of God, but as Jesus stepped over more Jewish religious taboos141 "that separated classes of people,"142 time in this practice came to multiply Israelite rejection, and forced his followers to cling all the more to their defining banner—faith in their leader (cf., Matt 8:10; Luke 7:9).143 So much so that "[w]hen he finds such faith in a Gentile, the logic of excluding such a one from help on the basis of Jesus' exclusive call to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (15:24) loses its cogency."144 This may explain the "ad hoc"145 nature of Jesus' 139 See France, Matthew, 615. France asserts that many could discern Jesus' role as messiah through his miraculous healings and exorcisms but "the crucial question concerned the function of messiahship, and it was precisely at this point that Jesus' teaching concerning his own function stood in radical opposition to contemporary expectations." 140 See Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 151; France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC, 119. Those to whom the "proof' Jesus offers represents "the community into which the healed leper is being restored." Cf., also Craffert, The Life of a Galilean Shaman, 346, who observes that "kingdom language... offered an alternative structure of social and economic relations for the people of God ... a redistribution of honor and dignity, or the ability to participate in community activities." 141 See Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 298; Cromhout, "Be careful what you eat," in Jesus and Identity, 130­132. 142 C. L. Blomberg, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Healing," 301. See also Wenk, CommunityForming Power, 298. 143 See Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 356. See Bovon (Luke 1:1-9:50, 262) who observes several features that foreground the aspect of faith from the centurion: Jesus receiving a parable (instead of giving one) and "merely reacts, as a spectator (eOaujiaaev, "he was amazed") like the other spectators," and Jesus using this as an example for Israel's "prophetic reproach." 32 ethical behavior recorded by the synoptics: as his reception changed, so too his methods and scope. Thus, ethnic boundaries gradually took a back seat on the Jesus movement's priority list as Gentiles, who had less religious taboos to hurtle than their Jewish contemporaries, continued to join their ranks. Gentile admittance may be seen as a very early reaction of the Jesus movement's rejection by its parent body. For example, Davies and Allison point out how reserved Matthew is toward Gentile admittance, allowing only two places where a Gentile's request is granted on account of great faith (cf., Matt 8:5­13; 15:21­28) simply because Jesus is portrayed as exclusively seeking after "the lost sheep of Israel." Matthew's portrayal of "the Gentiles" is usually negative since they are no example of piety (cf., 6:7, 32; 20:25), who are to be avoided (10:5), will persecute the disciples (10:18), and are guilty of mocking and killing Jesus himself (20:19). This attitude clearly changes in both Mark and Luke since Mark has only two references to them at all (Mark 10:33; 42), and Luke actually sees the gospel as "a light to the Gentiles" (Luke 2:32) by definition.146 For any of those poor in Israel who faced socioeconomic desolation from lack of patronage, this preached good news indeed. According to Malina, patronage carried with it the honor system that meant provision and survival for the poor of antiquity: "politicians, aristocrats, landowners, and owners of small businesses, usually controlled essential provisions and had honourable positions in society. Because most of the people in the Mediterranean world were very poor, they relied on these well­doers."147 The synoptics paint Jesus as breaking this cycle 144 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 356. See Hagner (Matthew 1-13, 205) for discussion of this verses' stemming from the Q community. 145 See Stegemann, "The Contextual Ethics of Jesus," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 51. 146 Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, vol. 2, 25. 147 Malina, "Meaning of the Window: good relations between employer and employee," in Time Travel to the World of Jesus, n.p. 33 using his egalitarian stance of unqualified acceptance. Malina and Rohrbaugh together illuminate the New Testament's foregrounding of this "divine patronage"148 concept in their social­science perspective as depicted particularly through Mark's language of grace which deserves full treatment here. In the New Testament the language of grace is the language of patronage. God is the ultimate patron whose resources are graciously given, often mediated through Jesus as broker; note the frequent comment that Jesus spoke with the authority of his Patron (for example, Mark 1:22). By proclaiming that the "kingdom of God had come near" (Mark 1:15), Jesus in effect is announcing the forthcoming theocracy for Israel along with the ready presence of divine patronage. Jesus thus sets himself up as broker or mediator of God's patronage and proceeds to broker the favor of God with healings and driving away of unclean spirits (essentially in Israel: see Mark 7:27 where Gentile "dogs" come second). He also sends out a core group of his faction, the Twelve, to function as brokers of divine grace (Mark 6:7­13). When they are unsuccessful, people come directly to Jesus (Mark 9:17­18).149 This messianic function painted of Jesus uncovers the source of both the mission and confusion surrounding the characteristic quality of the original Jesus movement regarding messianic expectation: was this how Messiah should act? Surely the large crowds Jesus drew thought as much. Since neither the existence nor the effect of his miracles could be denied,150 the opponents were reduced merely to attempt either to control (cf., Luke 13:14) or malign them (cf., Matt 148 See Craffert, Life of a Galilean Shaman, 346; Malina, "Patron and Client," in The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels, 143­175. For Malina, "patron" is a better contemporary translation of the Gospels' use of God's reference as a "father." (p 147) Modern readers will undoubtedly loose the metaphor using this, but those who study the original Greek would be able to see it. Craffert details the social justice motivation driving this approach: "Under the eastern Mediterranean Roman empire, the local Israelite elites failed in their traditional role of caring for the non­elites (the poor, hungry, and destitute), and the solution would be that the God of Israel would take control by means of the kingdom of God ... the divine patron would intervene on their behalf." 149 150 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 389­90. Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, vol. 2, 335. They make the excellent point that the religious authorities were not even addressing Jesus with their accusations, but to the crowds just to attempt "keeping others from belief." 34 12:22­32; Mark 3:23­27; Luke 11:17­22). Jesus' miracle­driven resocialization151 (not an unprecedented concept for those of the Palestinian Jewish community of Jesus' day152) began to "influence the community's conduct on all levels of relationships."153 Challenging his audiences with this novel species of social divide also posed the greatest risk to the Jesus movement's survival: it began to carve a "deep chasm"154 between those who were eager to adopt his countercultural praxis of renewed social and religious—or "spiritual" (i.e. God's "Holy Spirit"155 [cf., Matt 3:11; 12:28; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; 11:20])—values, in opposition to those who were not, particularly those who stood to lose the most in terms of "first­order resources" like "protection ... land, jobs, goods, and power,"156 i.e. those already socially obligated within "Herodian" patronage157 (cf., Matt 12:15­16; Mark 3:6; 8:15158; 12:13; Luke 20:20). 151 See Wenk, Community-forming Power, 51; Meeks, Moral World, 13. This feature also functions as a condition catalyzing the antilanguage that fuels "second life" nature of antisocieties, see Halliday, "Anti­ Languages," 572. Wenk refers to the change of the "people's symbolic world... through a process of resocialization from their Jewish and/or Graeco­Roman background." 152 See Scott Mcknight, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Proselytism and Godfearers," n.p. For a discussion about the "social engineering" asserted of Palestine in the Hasmonean period, see Cromhout, "Who Were the Galileans?," in Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q, 231­256. Cf., also with Meeks, Moral World, 65, who refers to those of Israel "who had to come to terms with" the new loyalties and moral codes introduced by the Grecian polis structures, and not without much resistance (cf., pp 67­8). 153 Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 51. 154 Luz, Matthew 8-20, 50. 155 Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 82, 117. Wenk includes a enlightening section here on the longstanding literary precedent within Palestinian Judaism between the recorded activity of God's Holy Spirit and the renewal of social and religious values in Israel which would bring them back to God. Jesus is portrayed by our synoptic writers as moving precisely in this arena, and creating his own, brand­new divide among the people because of it. 156 See Malina, "Patronage System in Roman Palestine," in Social-Science Commentary of the Synoptic Gospels, 388­90; cf., also D. A. deSilva, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Patronage," n.p. deSilva mentions the advantages of money, grain, employment, land, as well as professional and social advancement which prompted the obligations of loyalty, services which "contributed to the patron's power." Hansen and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 74, also include direct legal privileges such as granting and raising citizenship status, preference in legal cases, and exemption from taxation. 157 See Douglas Oakman, "Jesus' Critique of the Herodian­Judean Political Order," Jesus and the Peasants, Matrix: The Bible in its Mediterranean Context 4 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008), 264­271; Oakman, "Herodians," in Palestine in the Time of Jesus," 174; France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 35 2.2. Evidences of a Foregrounded Social Hierarchy in the Synoptic Gospels The synoptics record Jesus as a difficult rabbi to follow. Several occasions from these authors demonstrate with a powerful unity that it was specifically his message, via words and illustrations, that became the greatest challenge to overcome for his audiences (cf., e.g. Matt 13: 13­15; 15:16; Mark 4:12; 6:52; 8:17; 9:32; Luke 2:50; 8:10; 9:45). What exactly constituted this "message" will be examined further on. While some commentators have ascribed the misunderstandings of Christ's message as an absence of "divine revelation"159 (an unverifiable claim), a sociolinguistic understanding, however, could claim that Jesus' message functioned to initiate and maintain a semiotic reinforcement toward a "fundamental first­century Mediterranean"160 collectivist practice of in­group/out­group boundary identification. Only those who could either readily understand or were patient enough to inquire how Jesus' message could be understood and accepted would manage to stick with him through his ministry. Malina and Rohrbaugh recognize this feature: "When asked why he speaks in parables, Jesus indicates that they are meant for the in­group."161 Though not for outsiders, France agrees that "until those • 162 people become insiders they will not be able to grasp it." NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 151; Sean Freyne, "Jesus and Roman Imperial Values in Galilee," in Jesus, a Jewish Galilean, 133­149. 158 H. W. Hoehner, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Herodian Dynasty," 317­326. He remarks on p 325 that "a secondary Markan reading, "leaven of the Herodians" (F45, 0 p1,13)" may be correct. 159 Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 372. 160 Malina and Rohrbaugh, "In­group and Out­group," Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 373­374. 161 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 74. See also Malina, The Social Gospel of Jesus: The Kingdom of God in Mediterranean Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 71 where Malina identifies "the institution of religion" for first century Mediterranean peoples as "exclusively embedded in kinship." 162 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 511; cf., Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 2, 388, who refers to the "exclusivist distinction between a closed community and those outside." 36 The synoptics record this inability from both the crowds (cf., Matt 13:13; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10), as well as the religious authorities alike (e.g., Matt. 9:3, 11; Mark 2:8; 7:5; Luke 5:21). Even the disciples themselves are frequently painted as not understanding his use of language until they are given the proper explanation by Jesus to aid them, (e.g., Matt 13:36; 15:15­20; 16:9; Mark 7:18­23; 8:17­18; Luke 8:9­10) The point is, these disciples were just like everyone else in that they did not get it either, but Jesus was the one who chose them for understanding it, and they proved themselves both desirous to inquire as well as receptive to listen. This in contradistinction to the Jewish authorities who cast it off in pure enmity. (Cf., Matt. 9:34; 10:25; 12:24; Luke 11:15) The central problem was that Jesus functioned as the sole authority for understanding his message163, alongside those whom he had personally trained. Hence, if he were to pass on any understanding of the "secret"164 nature of his theocratic message165 (cf., Matt 13:11; Mark 4; 11; Luke 8:10), he aptly recognized the need to appoint and train those closest to him as his own representatives, in other words, what the synoptics record as Jesus personally appointing "the twelve" out of his crowd of followers. (Cf., Matt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 9:1) 2.2.1. Jesus' need for 'the Twelve' The synoptic authors remain unified in their depiction of Jesus as a powerful social influence on the populace of Palestine. (Cf., Matt 4:24; Mark 3:7, 8; Luke 6:17) Recognizing the need for 163 See Dennis Duling, "The Jesus Movement and Network Analysis," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 301­32; Craffert, Life of a Galilean Shaman, 348; Cromhout, Jesus and Identity, 350. Both Cromhout and Duling recognize this characteristic as indicative to the kind of "ego­centered network" faction which the Jesus movement manifested: a faction recruited by, reliant upon, and centered around an ego figure, namely, Jesus. 164 See Appendix I: The Messianic Secret of Antilanguage. 165 See Craffert, "Jesus's Teaching and Social Interaction: Impromptu Reactions to Rumors and Gossip," in Life of a Galilean Shaman, 342­3. 37 more than merely a public face166 in order to differentiate between insiders and outsiders of his movement, the synoptics provide their equivalent of a privately conducted, offstage view behind Jesus' public proclamations where he would explain his teaching to 'the twelve.' (Cf., Matt 13:10, 36; 15:15; Mark 4:10, 34; 7:17; 13:3; Luke 8:9; 10:23; 12:1) The pattern of public speech and private explanation predominates as Jesus' primary mode of engaging his disciples. Jesus had good motivation to do so since, on the one hand, he could challenge his entire audience with using a shared form of "enigmatic speech"167 thereby disinteresting any non­committed types, and, on the other, use that same material as fodder to address the concerns of his devout leadership later in private session. The more one could handle Jesus' talk of mission for the kingdom of God, the closer one could relate to him, the more he would subsequently privately reveal and personally divulge his experiences and insights. This tendency of favoritism shows in Jesus' higher level of selectivity for certain episodes: his healing of Jairus' daughter (cf., Matt 9:18­26; Mark 5:22­43; Luke 8:51), his transfiguration (cf., Matt 17:1­8; Mark 9:2­8; Luke 9:28­36); and his prayer in Gethsemane (cf., Matt 26:36­46; Mark 14:32­42; Luke 22:40—46). Out of this spirit, the synoptic authors make it a point to reiterate their key refrain: "For to the one who has more will be given" (cf., Matt 13:14; 25:29; Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18; 19:26) revealing the pressures inside a faction where status correlated with the competency to "hear" the "secret... jargon" 1 AS of its leader's kingdom 166 See Malina and Rohrbaugh, "Self: Public, Private, Collective," in Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 403­5. 167 Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 326; William Lane, Gospel of Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1974), 172. Both authors agree that "Jesus parabolic speech is enigmatic speech." 168 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 571. Secrecy and jargon are two predominant characteristics of an antisociety and its antilanguage and therefore, create the basis of the foregrounded social hierarchy where the 38 proclamation, (cf., e.g. Matt 11:15; 13:9; 43; Mark 4:9,23; Luke 8:8; 14:35) Such a competitive environment illuminates the motivation behind the disciples' recorded proclivity toward jockeying for leadership status.169 (cf., Matt 18:1; Mark 9:34; 10:35­37; Luke 9:46; 22:24) France has an excellent summary of the problem brewing among Jesus' apostles as Matthew records it. Peter has been in the limelight, living up to Matthew's singling him out as "first" (10:2). His declaration at 16:16 has evoked Jesus' warm commendation of his insight (16:17) and a consequent statement about his special role and authority in the founding of Jesus' ekklesia (16:18­19), and Peter with his two closest colleagues has been singled out for a special journey with Jesus up the mountain (17:1), leaving the rest of the disciples behind to face a difficult situation. In 17:24­27 it has been assumed that Peter speaks for Jesus, and Jesus' "solution" to the tax problem has included Peter along with himself, to the apparent exclusion of the rest of the Twelve.11So who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"170 Hence, while Jesus finds no place for the customary Palestinian Jewish methods of distinguishing social boundaries such as purity codes and "ritual law"171 to determine the closeness of those within his table fellowship,172 instead, he successfully replaces these with his own principle of an in­group status marker, recorded as a challenge "exclusive"173 to the Gospel identity of a resocialized "second life" finds its place. The gospels relay all these characteristics within Jesus' ministry. 169 Cf., France, The Gospel of Mark, 373; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 391; France refers to their "bid for leadership" after Jesus' announcement of his death; Green discusses their "maneuvering and positioning" in the same situation. 170 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 676. 171 Cf., Cromhout, Jesus and Identity, 50; 155; 182; Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 176. Various aspects of Palestinian Judaism contributed to "the foundation for [Judean] solidarity," and thus tending to the hierarchy of the day, such as food regulations/taboos (p 50), ritual laws (p 50) and purity (p 155), and Torah observance (p 113). 172 See S. Scott Bartchy, "The Historical Jesus and Honor Reversal at the Table," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 175­84; idem, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Table Fellowship," 796­800. 173 Gerhard Kittle, TDNT, s.v. "mcotawOeco," 1:213. 39 for any initiates: the ability to "follow me" with this kingdom message all the way to the cross174 (cf., Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). The synoptic authors record the social fallout of this "radical commitment"175 achieving every level of impact starting from those of outright opposition (cf., Matt 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15); to those of shallow interest (cf., Matt 19:22; Mark 10:22; 18:23), to an adoring public (cf., Matt. 14:13­21; Mark 6:32­44; Luke 9:10­ 17), disciples (Luke 10:1), and finally the "apostles," including those belonging to 'the twelve' reportedly chosen by Jesus himself, (cf., Matt 10:1; Mark 3:13­15; 6:7­13; Luke 6:13; 9:1) Those belonging to the numbered chosen (72 disciples/12 apostles) represent the upper­echelon of the Jesus movement whose numbers are linked to symbolism between the nations and Israel.176 This highlights the kind of "new social system" fostering the "highly ritualized... and strongly affective identification with significant others"177 which this hierarchically ranked symbolism suggests. An open door to aggressive competition amongst these members is not difficult to imagine in a movement characterized in this fashion. Fostering competitiveness toward conformity and favoritism necessitates the drive for insider hierarchy characteristic of antisocieties.178 This proves especially vivid among the Jesus movement when their leader prophecies of his own demise (cf., Matt 16:21; 20:17­19; Mark 174 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 431. 175 Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 372. 176 For symbolism of the 72 disciples prefiguring a Gentile mission to the world's "72 nations" (cf., Gen. 10 LXX used by Luke which includes 72 nations of the world), see Karl Rengstorf, TDNT, s.v. "ep8o|if|KovTa," 2:634; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 411; Scott Mcknight, Dictionary ofJesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Gentiles," 259­264. For reference on the symbolism of the 12 as "representing the tribes of Israel," see Malina and Rohrbaugh, SocialScience Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 249; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 310. Cf., also Cromhout (Jesus and Identity, 29, 110) who understands the symbolism as a "regathered and reconstituted Israel." 177 178 Halliday, "Anti­languages," 155. Halliday, "Anti­languages," 574. The social hierarchy of the in­group represents the alternate social stratification of the antisociety which parallels that of the mainstay culture but whose stratifying is attained by in­ group demonstrations of greater competency with the use of its antilanguage, i.e. "secret... jargon." 40 8:31; Luke 9:22,44): even Jesus himself has to deal with the shock of his group's competitive nature thrown back in his face: "Far be it from you, Lord!" (Matt 16:22 ESV; cf., Mark 8:32) "Peter's rebuke is interpreted as a test of Jesus' loyalty to God, hence Peter's rebuke is a 'Satan,' a tester of loyalties."179 (cf., Matt 16:23; Mark 8:33) The authors simply depict here the knee­jerk strategy among the membership which would have been taken to win any in­house disagreement, but in this case, they take it to the next level by adding a level of impulsivity that neglects differentiation even toward Jesus. Nonetheless, while taking bumps along the way, Jesus cultivated the atmosphere his group would need for the task which he appointed them to accomplish: to proclaim (G: Kripuaaw)180 the gospel of the kingdom everywhere, (cf., Matthew 11:1; Mark 3:14; 16:20; Luke 9:6) Jesus recognized the need these apostles had not only to I Q t understand the language of his "messianic kingdom" message, but, most importantly, as a respectable Jewish rabbi182, also understood the imperative to drill his apostles in the new "praxis of the kingdom."183 179 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 182. 180 See Colin Brown, NIDNTT, s.v. "Kipuaaoj," 3:54. The synoptics use this lemma 32 times to convey "the apostle's manner of speaking; and similarly... the apostle's activity of preaching just as much as the content of his message." This effectively relays the reality receiving propagation by the kingdom message as both linguistic discourse, as well as deliberate alternate social experience the apostles were carving out through their praxis. 181 See Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 62, 142; Porter, Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, 202; D. C. Allison, Jr., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Eschatology," 209. 182 M. J. Wilkins, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Discipleship," 187, Wilkins relays several notes about Jesus as a rabbi: "Jewish disciples would follow their master around, often literally imitating him. The goal of Jewish disciples was someday to become masters, or rabbis, themselves and to have their own disciples who would follow them... Following Jesus means togetherness with him and service to him while traveling on the Way." 183 Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 144; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 310. Keener asserts that "Jesus' mission included not only proclaiming the kingdom, but also demonstrating it." Wenk connects this to the activity of the ethical influence of the Spirit in his disciples' lives giving them a new ethos to become resocialized within the Christian community as "the way." (Cf., Matt 3:3; 22:16; Mark 1:3; 12:14; Luke 3:4; 20:21; see M. J. Wilkins, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Discipleship," 185) 41 2.2.2. The activity of'the Twelve' Despite the brevity of the Gospels, the term 'The twelve' crops up 23 times throughout the synoptic material and it represents one of the most prominent thematic elements of their writing. Their activity takes shape inside two primary segments as Mark's Gospel has relayed in the most express of terms: "he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons." (Mark 3:14, 15). This study presents these two phases of Jesus' ministry (training and commission) as essential social processes from which derived both the unique type of strategy that drove the movement, as well as the key relexicalized terminologies which the synoptics came to report. The synoptics record that Jesus demanded of his followers compliance regarding two direct activities which Jesus himself would frequently call to their attention: the imperative to understand his teachings and illustrations (cf., Matt 16:11; 19:11; Mark 4:3; Luke 8:10), as well as serve as witnesses to the authority he could exert over creation (cf., Matt 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:24) and demons/unclean spirits184 (cf., Matt 8:16; Mark 1:27; Luke 4:41). Only after experiencing both would Jesus begin to turn his followers loose for brief periods on their own, and only with reports of their experiences when finished, (cf., Luke 10:17)185 In "climactic"186 fashion, the synoptic authors record these activities between teaching/illustrating and exerting authority as coinciding to constitute a central component of their mission answering "the 184 Craffert, The Life of a Galilean Shaman, 245; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 273; 290. Craffert finds the link between unclean spirits and healings in Jesus' ministry as comprising "the bulk of material ascribed" to Jesus as a historical figure. Moreover, Keener sees that "the authority to heal demonstrates the authority to forgive." Hence, this study asserts that the authority over spirits/healing is more empirically fundamental than the theological assertion of forgiveness regarding the mission of the historical Jesus. 185 Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 561. Nolland understands this mission and its report as being linked to the historical Jesus, and thus an integral part of his mission. 186 Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 424. 42 question that has been in the minds of the disciples (and readers of the Gospel) from the beginning of his ministry": "Who do you say that I am?" (Matt 16:15; cf., also Mark 8:27­29; Luke 9:18­20) Malina and Rohrbaugh understand this episode as a genuine inquiry of Jesus concerning the status of his "in-group self' where the synoptics portray him as tracking the collective opinions (G: vfidq) of his "faction members" concerning the "power and status" he has acquired along the way because it is "Jesus who does not know who he is, and it is the disciples from whom he must get this information." 1 87 Admittedly, Jesus certainly took immanent concern for his reputation and honor status in general accord with the Mediterranean culture of the day. In light of the synoptic record of Jesus' replete references to self­identity (e.g. Matt 12:6, 8,41,42; 27:43; Mark 13:6; 14:62; Luke 11:31, 32; 21:8), however, it stands to reason that Jesus' inquiry simply called upon yet another teaching point as he had so many other times prior. This offers not only a needed resolution to a heated problem that had been brewing throughout the entirety of the plot of the narrative itself (e.g. Matt 14:2; Mark 6:16; Luke 9:7­9) but also concerning the quintessential lesson188 for audiences to walk away with: a redefinition of messianic identity as "seen and heard" (cf., Matt 11:4; Luke 7:22) via Jesus' ministry. 1RQ Rather than taking the expected, and oft­repeated, route of messianic military exploits190 as so many others had failed to 187 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 87, 180. 188 Hagner, Matthew 14-28,466. See Robert E. Longacre ("A Top­Down, Template­Driven Narrative Analysis, Illustrated by Application to Mark's Gospel," in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, 154) who considers this section as a "didactic peak" within Mark's gospel. 189 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 424. Keener discusses their ministry struggle well: "Viewing Jesus in such terms thus managed to fit him into categories of thought that already existed, rather than letting the Messiah himself redefine their categories by his identity." 190 See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, "Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism," in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, 105. It is easy to see why the concept of a military oriented messiah would come about having the messianic concept derive from its origins of royalty (i.e. "Son of David" and the like), see, C. A. Evans, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Messianism," n.p. 43 accomplish under Roman rule, the synoptics record Jesus as taking a much more covert route to kingdom realization: a "spatial and personal network"191 wholly reliant upon personal testimony.192 The things seen and heard in his ministry were indeed the miracles aforementioned, and aided to point to Jesus as messiah, yet, surprisingly not for the sake of procuring messianic notoriety per se, as much as uniting his people under the only banner amidst their oppressive urbanized environment that gave them real utility—how the Lord had mercy on each of them, (cf., Matt 9:13; 12:7; Mark 5:19; Luke 1:54; 10:37) Therefore, these miracles were an essential set of practices cumulatively functioning as the representative semiotic to the "social process"193 driving the Jesus movement's impact on Palestinian life that the synoptics record Jesus as embodying in the presence of his followers. In light of this, it is little wonder why the synoptics make it clear that Jesus focuses so much effort on reproducing these same essentials of his ministry praxis in his followers.194 His disciples preached the same message as Jesus, and performed the same mighty works195 which served to retrain and ingrain their understanding of messianic identity and mission so that they could be considered fully prepared in the eyes of their rabbi to "take on the role of brokers of the 191 Duling, "The Jesus Movement and Network Analysis," 301. 192 Cf., Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 48; Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 187. This strategy is seen best from how the "this­worldly dimension" of the kingdom of God becomes manifest via bringing "converts 'into community"' right under the nose of both religious and civil authorities through what Lane refers to as the "devotion of those who have received his benefactions" which lead to Gentile conversion in the region of the Decapolis due to Jesus command to send the Gadarene demoniac's testimony there. 193 Stanley Porter, "Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical? An Evaluation Using Philemon as a Test Case," in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, 55. 194 See Green, The Gospel of Luke, 414; Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 553. Nolland assertion agrees with this study's conclusion that "the presence of the kingdom of God is to be perceived in the healing activity itself (cf., 11:20)." Hagner (Matthew 1-13, 272) understands these essential ministry activities as "the demands of discipleship." 195 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 417; cf., also Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, 170. 44 power of God."196 Matthew's version of Jesus' command to his disciples sums it well: "And proclaim as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons." (Matt 10:7,8; cf., also Luke 10:9) Only after Jesus' reception of their successful report do the synoptics introduce Jesus' final installation of teaching which helped them both to systematize and culminate their entire experience under a single, familiar semiotic label: the introduction of a new covenant, (cf., Matt. 26:26­28; Mark 14:22­24; Luke 22:19­20) 2.2.3. New praxis reveals the new covenant Having thoroughly and painstakingly trained his most committed followers in the key semiotic practices representing this true intention, namely: kingdom language, social practices, and mission objectives, it is significant to note what the synoptics do not record Jesus doing. It makes little sense for these Jewish authors to come together and intentionally pass on a unified in­group correspondence announcing Jesus as a Sabbath violator (cf., Matt 12:2; Mark 2:24; Luke 13:14), impurity indulger (cf., Matt 15:2; Mark 7:3; Luke 11:38), temple wrecker (cf., Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58; Luke 21:5­7), and sorcery practitioner (cf., Matt 9:34; 10:25; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15) unless they had other intensions behind using these incidents. After cataloguing countless accusations of violating the most essential canons of Judaistic faith and practice of his day, one must wonder why then it would not have made more sense for these authors to record Jesus as revoking the covenant, or issuing their corporate identity under some different semiotic issuing their movement as something other­than­covenant. They do not have Jesus doing this. Rather than seen as stripping Israel of their covenant with God, he is portrayed as reconstituting it. This l% Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary of the Synoptic Gospels, 63. 45 reconstitution was the gospel communication. The Jesus movement redefined what it meant have a covenant with the God of Israel. 2.3. Evidences of "Relexicalization" in the Synoptic Gospels In traditional methods of biblical study, "context" usually refers to the historical/grammatical/literary background of the scripture to be analyzed. A sociolinguistic understanding, however, according to Halliday, views any linguistic expression as both text, and context: a twofold function of the linguistic system ... both as expression of and as metaphor for social processes ... in the microencounters of everyday life where meanings are exchanged, language not only serves to facilitate and support other modes of social action that constitute its environment, but also actively creates an environment of its own, so making possible all the imaginative modes of meaning, from backyard gossip to narrative fiction and epic poetry. The context plays a part in determining what we say; and what we say plays a part in determining the context. 97 What this study asserts as the culminating conclusion about the synoptic picture of Jesus is this: he created his own environment that reconstituted definitions of key concepts through his own semiotic praxis of resocialization. The synoptics authors simply record their struggles in conforming to Jesus' program (i.e. the historical context) and that by this communication they call their audiences to the same (i.e. determining context). 2.3.1. New covenant with new terminology This simultaneously and firmly plants the Jesus movement within its own historical context—i.e. inherited traditions of linguistic exchange—while acknowledging the human capacity for heuristic exploration of the same—i.e. a starting point of rediscovery and redefinition. This reveals the Jesus movement as operating inside both social grounding and trajectory. Their 197 Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, 3. 46 conception of a 'new covenant' then consisted of familiar elements (i.e. terms) that were relexicalized according to their current and future mission objectives. 2.3.2. Relexicalized terms of the new covenant The following word list offers some relexicalized terminologies recorded by the synoptics. Each of these terms may be considered to contribute to essential components of the ministry of the Jesus movement within their Palestinian Jewish setting. Firstly, this study annotates issues regarding in­group status markers including friendships, baptism, and leadership. Secondly, this study moves to issues of eschatology such as death, resurrection, and the messiah. 2.3.2.1. In-group status markers i. Friend—(plXoq Friendship in the first century Mediterranean world was based primarily on communal association from the family and branch outward to the "community, town, city, tribe or nation."198 The synoptics show Jesus uprooting this custom at its most fundamental level turning from family (cf., Matt. 12:46­50; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:19­21) to become "friend of tax collectors and sinners" (cf., Matt 11:19; Mark 2:15; Luke 15:2) simply on the basis of their reception to his messianic deliverance, i.e. "faith" (cf., Matt 8:10; Mark 10:52; Luke 7:9). Friendship in the absence of common descent, patronage, reciprocity, especially to associate with those of religious and/or genealogical199 uncertainty undoubtedly projected a "subversion of current values."200 198 Bruce Malina and Stephan Joubert, "Not individuals but a community," in A Time Travel to the World of Jesus, n.p. Cf., D. A. Carson, NIDNTT sw. "Brother, Neighbour, Friend," 1:254­260; C. S. Keener, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Friendship," n.p. 199 See Malina, "A Classification of Persons in Judaism," in The New Testament World, 159­162. Hanson and Oakman (Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 29) annotate three different types of "descent" which played importance in the time of Jesus in Palestine: Patrilineal, Matrilineal, Cognatic (emphasis original). 47 ii. Baptize—pajtxi^co The synoptics briefly and proleptically point to this by assigning to John the Baptist, i.e. their starting baptismal context, the juxtaposition between the individual water baptism which he uses against the corporate eschatological Holy Spirit baptism of the "one who is to come," cf., Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16). Thus upon Jesus' arrival, the Holy Spirit confirms him as the one who will fulfill this mission. Keener's commentary on Matthew points out that "John recognized that Jesus had come to bestow the Spirit in fuller measure than even he as a prophet had received, and he desired this baptism (3:11; cf., 11:11­13)."201 While water baptism did continue, the gospels use a forward trajectory to point to its redefined status in light of the Jesus movement. iii. Greatest—(xeyaq While the disciples sort out "the pecking order"202 of who will take over the movement after the announced death of their leader,203 (cf., Matt 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 22:24), the synoptics record Jesus' "dramatically countercultural"204 reaction to this dispute by pointing to a child as the quintessential example of the kind of greatness for which he is looking: "Jesus' reversal of the 200 Andries van Aarde, "Jesus as Fatherless Child," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 80. 201 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 132. 202 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary of the Synoptic Gospels, 92. 203 See Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 339; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 675. This is especially since this term neyou; was often used of Zeus, heroes, and Persian kings (Walter Grundmann, TDNT, s.v. "neyac;," 4:529) so they understood the associations it carried certainly were not with children. Mark is even more explicit with his inclusion of the term "first" cf., BDAG, s.v. "7rpc5TOi;," 893; K. H. Battels, NIDNTT, s.v. "Ttpcoxoi;," 1:664, since this speaks of the "seat of honor" or "leadership" status of the person designated by this word. The Gospel of Thomas Lane quotes to clarify the issue: Logion 12: "The disciples said to Jesus, We know that you will go away from us. Who is it that will then be great over us?" 204 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 447; cf., Green, Gospel of Luke, 391. Green explains the "topsy­turvy social ethic" involved with Jesus' response. Keener foregrounds the dramatically countercultural nature of this move from Jesus asserting that "First status in the kingdom is often inversely proportional to status in the world." This would have been utterly contrary to belief from every angle of sociocultural and religious example and perspective. 48 expected order challenges the assumptions of an honor­shame society in a very fundamental way."205 While seeing themselves as on a higher plain associated with their kingdom mission, Jesus assures them that he "is modeled best among the most powerless, not among the powerful."206 Jesus counterculturally defines the "greatest" leadership using the lowest example of attitude and openness to receive him. 2.3.2.2. Eschatology i. Sleep—KaOeuSco/ Koi^aco207 While this term does not show a strong level of frequency throughout the synoptics, this expression is used as a metaphor for death in a few contexts of these gospels (cf., Matt 9:24; 27:52; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52)208 probably in light of the theme of resurrection as a main component of Jesus' eschatological pronouncement where what would normally account for death. A tendency for close lexical proximity to the use of "death" (G: 0dvaxo<;) demonstrates the that the synoptic authors regarded the concepts thematically connected, taking the prayer of Gethsemane for instance. (Matt 26:38 par.) In describing the Jesus movement, the gospels communicate the power of Jesus turning it around to amount to mere sleep from which the person would "rise." (73 times in synoptics) ii. Raise (eydpco) 205 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 92. 206 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 447. 207 Eugene Nida, and Johannes Louw (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition [New York: United Bible Societies, 1996],1:258) categorizes these as the same semantic domain. 208 See France, The Gospel of Mark, 239; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 685; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 398; BDAG, s.v. "tcoi|idco," 551; L. Coenen, NIDNTT, s.v. "koGcuSm," 1:443. 49 This thematic connection which the synoptic authors make sure continues throughout different contexts, to include his ability to heal (Matt 8:14, par.), his command over creation (Matt 8:26 par.), his authority to forgive sins (cf., Matt 9:6 par.), his role of eschatological judge (Matt 12:42), as well as his personal prophecies of death and resurrection, which his disciples could not comprehend while in his ministry (cf., Matt 17:9,23; Mark 9:9­13; Luke 9:43­45) as well as his actual resurrection appearances. (Matt 28:6 par.) The issue mentioned that they could not understand the message he was giving them, and that they were afraid to ask (Matt 17:23 par) signifies a kind of "eternal destruction" which death represented209 in their minds and therefore Jesus is using a status for this term that the disciples had not used before, i.e. a Jewish leader being raised from the dead. It was only after their resurrection encounters with Christ did the apostles grasp how he used the term. iii. Christ (Xpiaxoi;) The synoptic authors report the term Xpiaioq as a Jewish tradition representing "the Messiah of Israel's hope" which represents both Jewish tradition and Christian modification.210 Most directly, the kingship (i.e. "son of David," appears 16 times in synoptics) of God's anointed sent to reestablish the Jewish nation's monarchical reign characterized a dominant expectation for the Jewish "Christ."211 Far from denying this of himself, it is the disciples' expectations of how he accomplishes this goal that needs retraining. Avoiding zealous banditry and military force, Jesus reinstates the weakest outcasts: blind, lame, lepers, deaf, and possessed. (Cf., Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22) Instead of swords and clubs (Mark 14:48), he arms his in­group with the language of faith 209 Rudolf Bultmann, TDNT, s.v. "Oavaxoq," 3:13. L. W. Hurtado, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Christ," 106. Cf., also Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 290; France, "The status of the Messiah," in The Gospel of Mark, 482­88. 210 211 K. H. Rengstorf, N1DNTT, s.v. "Xpiotoq," 2:334­343. and testimony. Building his kingdom one community of believers at a time, Jesus retrained his associates in living experience what it meant to perform the mission of "the Christ." 51 CHAPTER 3. ANTITHETICAL ETHOS OF THE JESUS MOVEMENT Since the Jesus movement redefined the praxis of social relations over against the parent culture's customs, those inside the movement could expect nothing less than outside resistance, as recorded by Jesus' solemn warnings to his followers. The synoptic authors remain unanimous in their depictions of Jesus as warning his disciples about the social persecution they would certainly face. This would, in fact, come to "mark out the path of discipleship."212 (See Table A) TABLE A The Synoptic Warnings of "Universal" Persecution 1) Kings and governors 2) Towns and cities 3) Synagogues 4) Immediate families 5) Hated "by all" (cf., Matt 10:18; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12) (cf., Matt 10:23; 23:34; Luke 10:10) (cf., Matt 10:17; Mark 13:9, 11; Luke 21:12) (cf., Matt 10:21; Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16) (cf., Matt 10:22; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17) Such an expectation of persecution reflects the movement's adoption of countercultural social practices, i.e., those of an antisociety. As the Jesus movement progresses, these tensions would call upon the need for a greater level of cohering solidarity than simply a few differing practices from their neighbors. If such a movement were to survive these inundating pressures, its members needed to carve out some sort of unifying and differentiating identity community marker. How the Jesus movement chose to live, their ethos, represented the symbol of their mission: belief in the radical Messianic demonstrations of Christ. If Christ really was proving himself as the awaited Messiah of Israel's people, then the basic tenants constituting daily Jewish life, their ethos, also needed a corresponding radical change. This chapter will analyze the most essential changes to their Palestinian Judaistic self­definition, their resocialization, in light of believing Christ as their Messiah. 212 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 423. 52 3.1. Social­Semiotic Ethos: Self­Definition in a Judaistic & Greco­Roman World The Greek term eBoq used by Luke encompasses the concept of a community ethos and is found only in the later Gospel of Luke three times (whereas he refers to it seven times in Acts). It refers on its most general level to what represents a "customary manner of behavior" that becomes a "long­established usage or practice common to a group." The term adopts a deeper level of community commitment, and more severe consequences for its breech, as whatever practices it refers to become more intimately associated with the "practices of the ancestors." Jesus did not lead armies, or attempt government usurpations, but instead he did engage a vivid "social semiotic"214 life of "disengagement"215 whose withdrawal symbolized a subversive protest toward those oppressive influences that contributed to the normative establishment of hierarchal social relations of the day. Starting with the most fundamental and sacred species of social relations, familial ties, the synoptics paint a united call of Jesus to regard them as potentially distracting. Meeks offers his analysis of the synoptics' drastic demand to hold an even higher regard for following Jesus than family ties. More than a metaphor is involved here, for the Christians are evidently expected not only to cherish fellow members of the sect with the same care as they would natural siblings, but even to replace natural family ties by those of this new family of God, created by conversion and ritual initiation. That kind of deep resocialization was the norm ... of the early Christian movement... as certain sayings of Jesus preserved in the Synoptic Gospels attest: (Matt 10:35, 37; Luke 14:26; Mark 3:31­35 and parallels).216 213BDAG, s . v . "60o<;„" 277. 214 Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 46. Rohrbaugh makes an excellent connection between the "social semiotic" behavior of Jesus which functioned as the fuel for the "antisociety" he was forming, and which naturally resulted in the antilanguage which his people used to communicate it. 215 See T. Raymond Hobbs, "The Political Jesus: Discipleship and Disengagement," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 251­282; cf., Meeks, Moral World, 104. 216 Meeks, Moral World, 129. 53 While this would be the Jesus movement's greatest aid for growth later in the decades to come, it started out as its most difficult hurdle initially. Though the original mission was meant for Jews, receptive Gentiles were not being denied acceptance either. The audacity it took to assume the Jesus movement could form a "familial" people group taken from acceptance of members from any level of society would garner resentment and the synoptics record Jesus (alongside those following him [cf., Matt 10:14; Mark 2:4; Luke 6:40]) as suffering repercussions for this "egalitarian"217 thrust on every level of social life (cf., Matt 20:25; Mark 7:42; Luke 22:25­27): from the rejection he received by his immediate familial relations, then rejection by synagogue authorities, with a specifically marked reciprocation of enmity from the Pharisees (cf., Matt 12:14; Mark 3:6; Luke 11:42), and finally rejection by the temple authorities in Jerusalem (cf., Matt 10:34ff; 13:55; Mark 3:21; 13:12; Luke 12:49­53).218 This model of "disengagement" is the essential trait of an antisociety as represented by its semiotic: "an attitude of a small, threatened group toward a larger, all­powerful, and all­ pervasive group and/or dominant ideology. It is a pragmatic and a strategic response; it is, at root, subversive." Hobbs goes on to note the use of "antilanguage" that fronts their "masks of 71Q strong disagreement," • » while these "masks" would have been familiar to others in the dominant culture, their content and use (semantic and pragmatic nature) had been reconstituted in light of the new objectives and ideals of the movement. This antilanguage is nothing more than the reflection of their newfound social relations. The resulting "displacement" the first followers of the Jesus movement would have experienced represents a mark of the "resocialization" effort to 217 Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 289. 218 See Scroggs, "The Earliest Christian Movements as Sectarian Movement," in Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, 82. 219 Hobbs, "The Political Jesus: Discipleship and Disengagement," 252; cf., Meeks, Moral World, 13. 54 establish new social boundaries on a more egalitarian level than they were accustomed to in that day. 3.2. Evidences of "Resocialization" The Jesus movement had to establish itself as something more than an invention from the mind of its leader, otherwise it could provide no cultural competition against the longstanding Jewish system already in place. It would do no good for the Jesus movement to offer a purely contrived ethos in the face of a Jewish past that had been riddled with centuries of struggling to maintain a distinct cultural identity. Keener aptly connects the Jesus movement with a need to establish cultural continuity: "Jesus' fidelity to the law constituted an important part of their conscious identification with their culture."221 If the Jesus movement were to gain acceptance among its Palestinian audience, it needed two essential elements to its program. It would have to engage the common expression and ideology of its Jewish audience, and a retraining or "resocialization" within those parameters to gain a wider audience. Since the synoptic record suggests that the program of this resocialization by the Jesus movement was initially designed to bring together Palestinian Jewish populations, we might expect their opposition to be directed against alternative agendas not in accord with their mission objectives. The Jewish program then included at minimum a focus on Jewish law, Jerusalem temple, and scriptural interpretation. 3.2.1. Jewish law The synoptics demonstrate no ambivalence regarding their stance on certain issues of Jewish law, particularly those that cultivated what they might consider an artificial cause of social 220 See Cromhout, "Judeanism Encounters Hellenism," in Judean Identity, 123­147. 221 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 176. divide. Although Jesus is strongly depicted as not opposing the law itself222 (cf., Matt 5:17; Mark 10:19; Luke 16:16­17), the key issue is the concept of what was considered a "lawful" practice. The Greek term is e^saxiv which the synoptic authors use 21 times, describes customs or practices that are considered "authorized" or "proper" actions representing "religious or cultic commandments."223 What authorizes such practices is their relationship to the Torah code or its Mishnaic authority, which functions as "a discursive commentary to, and extension of, that code."224 The practice of extending interpretation beyond the law became so closely associated with many of the foundational tenants of Jewish self­identity225 such as "Torah, temple, circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws"226, as to be considered at one with them. The synoptic record reveals that the main objections or corrective measures of Jesus focus primarily upon these practices,227 in other words, attacking practices that were more along the lines of taboo. Practices that served to reinforce an artificial social stratification that excluded the less fortunate, Jesus is recorded as attacking frequently, and vociferously. 222 See Green, The Gospel of Luke, 602; Dale Allison, Jr., "Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E. P. Sanders," in The Historical Jesus, 68; cf., Douglas Moo, "Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law," in Historical Jesus, 83­128. 223 BDAG, s.v. "g^ecmv," 348; Werner Foerster, TDNT, s.v. "e^eanv," 2:560. 224 See Jacob Neusner, "Identifying Yerushalmi within Rabbinic Literature," in The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), n.p.; cf., Peter Tomson, 'If This Be from Heaven...': Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 107. 225 Tomson, If This Be from Heaven, 88. 226 Allan W. Martens, '"Produce Fruit Worthy of Repentance': Parables of Judgment Against the Jewish Religious Leaders and the Nation (Matt 21:28­22:14, Par.; Luke 13:6­9)" in The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, McMasterNew Testament Studies (Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 173; cf., also Cromhout, "Religion and Covenantal Praxis," in Judean Identity, 147­189. 227 See L. D. Hurst, Dictionary ofJesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Ethics of Jesus," 218. 56 One of the most prominent practices of the Jewish law where the synoptics show Jesus as regularly "on the offensive" was during Sabbath observance (e.g., Matt. 12:9­14; Mark 3:1­ 6; Luke 6:6­11). In the Second Temple period, Sabbath observance was known for increasingly 9­>n tight restrictions on what the Jewish authorities considered acceptable behavior. It was known throughout the ancient world as a distinctive Jewish practice that influenced on many aspects of life and reaped a heavy social impact, for better (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.39 §282; Philo Vit. Mos. 2.21) or worse (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.20­21). Some relevant examples are precluding Jewish peoples from military service, and preventing them from working in various capacities {Jub. 2:29­30; 50:6­13; CD 10:14­11:18). Other examples are not carrying loads (Jer 17:21­22), not lighting fires (Ex 35:3), and not allowing travel (Is. 58:13; Ex 16:29). Even certain measures of personal grooming and female beautifying were prohibited (y. Shabb. 10:5, III. 1). Traveling to the Jerusalem temple on the Sabbath, however, was not condemned (y. Maas. S. 5:2, II.1.A). Tending to the sick was permitted only if the mixture used to tend to the them was mixed prior to the Sabbath day (cf., y. Ber. 1:1, IV.l.F; y. Shabb. 14:3, IV.5). Moreover, a point that this study will return to, the activities of those who worked to prepare and administer the temple service on the Sabbath were also permitted, to include the ritual sacrifice232 (cf., y. Shabb. 2:5, III.6.D; y. Meg. 1:1,111.2) 228 Ibid. 229 "Sabbath" appears 39 times throughout the synoptic material. 230 See Stephen Westerholm, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Sabbath," 716. 231 For insight about the Talmud, a second century compilation, and its relation to Jesus' thought, see H. Maccoby, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Rabbinic Literature: Talmud," n.p. "Though the rabbis quoted here belong to the second century, the arguments they use were part of the rabbinic stock, on which Jesus also was drawing." 232 See David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Matt 12:5. 57 The synoptics record Jesus practically paying no attention to such Sabbath observances at all. Jesus permits his disciples to pick grain (Matt. 12:1­8; Mark 2:23­28; Luke 6:1­5). He publically heals on the Sabbath before the presence of the entire synagogue (Matt 12:10; Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7), moreover uses these opportunities to seemingly condemn killing on the sacred day (cf., Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9), a practice that was permitted under circumstances (cf., y. Shabb. 1:3, II. 1.G ;14:1,1.2.J). Jesus gave them reason for celebration (which was the whole point of Sabbath in the first place233) by his healing on the Sabbath. These miraculous cures pointed not only to the obvious cause for celebration that one of their own people received health, life, and release from the bondage of disability, but also appealed to the analogous example celebration that otherwise would have been understood if an animal had been saved from a similar dire situation (cf., Matt 12:11; 14:5; Luke 13:15). Jesus here uses the traditional rabbinic teaching method of kal vechomer234 as was his habit235: in essence, demanding an answer to the convicting query, "if you are so eager to save a donkey on the Sabbath, why would God not act all the more so for his own people?" The same principle applies to the other violations, if the principle analogy that which Jesus drew upon remained true, where the plucking of grain on another Sabbath could be considered. It was already accepted that "Temple service takes precedence over Shabbat," (Shabbat 132b).236 Jesus moves forward from this traditional rabbinic reasoning for the temple presiding over the Sabbath as the lesser principle (kal), toward the now 233 See Neusner, "Tractate: Shabbat Introduction," The Jerusalem Talmud, n.p. 234 Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, Matt 12:3­4; Contra Rabbi D.M. Cohn­Sherbok, "an Analysis of Jesus' Arguments Concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath," in The Historical Jesus, ed. Stanley Porter, and Craig Evans, 136­139. 235 Ibid., Matt. 6:30. Stern identifies 21 uses of the kal vechomer reasoning in the New Testament, six of which appear in the synoptics. 236 See Ibid., Mt 12:5. 58 larger issue (vechomer) of his announced Lordship equating with that temple and therefore, also over the Sabbath (cf., Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). Since executive privilege rested with both the lesser "Lord," King David (cf., Matt 12:3­4; Mark 2:23­28; Luke 6:1­5), as well as the temple priests who labor on the Sabbath and remain guiltless (cf., Num. 28:9, 10; 1 Chr. 9:32), Jesus calls them to apply the same privileged status to him as Messiah. Critiquing this rabbinic counter, Rabbi Cohn­Sherbok has made the claim that Jesus' activity with his disciples in this situation was "fundamentally dissimilar" to the analogies Jesus drew from both the temple priest and King David in order to defend it, and therefore was a misuse of the kal vechomer reasoning on Jesus' part.237 Clearly, a comparison between a priest, a King, and a rabbi (i.e. Jesus) does engage fundamental dissimilarities, but the point of Jesus' comparison was not to fallaciously assert their total likeness, but to apply what represented the primary semiotic not only common to each of them, but also to the situation in which he employs the comparison; he was personally adopting this characteristic toward himself: executive privilege over the Sabbath. Saying, therefore, if this privilege applies guiltlessly to the lesser entities of the temple, its priests, and King David, "how much more" must this principle now apply to the greater "Lord of the Sabbath" whom Jesus defines as himself. This matches the practice of antilanguage because any part of the semiotic system can be used, as Jesus has done here. Speaking in expressions familiar to the "historical, social, religious and intellectual ambience of the time and place in which he lived"238, rather than shaking off the old and conjuring something completely foreign, Jesus is both defending239 and training his disciples in a 237 Cohn­Sherbok, "an Analysis of Jesus' Arguments Concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath," 238 Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, Mt 6:30. 239 See Malina, and Joubert, "Fight for honor with the weapons of debate," A Time Travel to the World of 138. Jesus, n.p. 59 new praxis of the same traditional Jewish concepts by influencing both belief, e.g., Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath, and practice, e.g., service in his name is a more sacred duty than observance of the law. Prioritizing sacred duty represented a longstanding Jewish consideration. The Torah itself specifies that some mitzvot are more important than others (see Yn 5:22­ 23&N, Ga 2:12bN). Keeping Shabbat is important, but the animal sacrifices required by Numbers 28:1­10 are more so, so that the cohanim work on Shabbat in order to offer them.240 A new praxis241 derived from this value meant a new way of living with the same elements, and a different focus for Sabbath fulfillment: acts of mercy for others in the Lord's name now becoming the higher priestly sacrifice, so to speak, ascribed over observance of the law. 3.2.2. Temple Another area of life the Jesus movement sought to resocialize in its constituents was the way they regarded the Jerusalem temple. The Jerusalem temple in Jesus' day represented a great deal more than simply a religious building; Palestinian Jews considered it the epicenter of religious, political, and social activity for many Jewish peoples in Palestine.242 The structure was a memorial to the glory days of Israel's longstanding history of its heroes like David, Solomon, and Moses, and by the time of Jesus' first­century appearance had been for decades the major building and expansion project of Herod the great.243 While the benefits that came from political backing supplied numerous advantages, it also meant that those operating the temple became 240 Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, Mt 12:5. 241 Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 413. Lane uses the phrase "entirely new economy." 242 See Michael Wise, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Temple," 811; Hanson, and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 135; B. Chilton, P. W. Comfort and M. O. Wise, Dictionary of New Testament Background, s.v. "Jewish Temple," n.p. 243 Hanson, and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 136. 60 subject to the will of those connections.244 What began as the centerpiece of sacrificial, religious, and political life for the nation of Israel, became more than an intermediary between God and Jewish peoples. As the temple gradually took back its national significance, while under Roman rule, it soon became an intermediary between the Palestinian Jewish peoples and its civil rulers. It is not surprising therefore that virtually every major conflict, both internal—whether deriving from differences regarding Israel's covenantal duties or from tensions between its socioeconomic strata—and external—between the local populace and its foreign rulers—repeatedly centered on the Temple and its priesthood ... In fact, it may be said that precisely because of its centrality, as the primary national institution and symbol, the Temple was a magnet for national and religious tensions.245 The temple continued to garner the aspirations of those whose intention was to eventually regain the Abrahamic promises of God to inherit the land of Canaan (e.g., Gen 13:15; 15:7, 18; 17:8; 22:17; 26:3).246 "The land theme is so ubiquitous that it may have greater claim to be the central motif in the OT"247 and so there can be little wonder why those of Jesus' day resorted to political connections in effort to obtain it. Although there were defectors regarding it as a "defunct" structure,248 the temple was seen by many as a growing effort to reinstitute a broken and scattered Israeli people whose national symbol249 stood as "one of the wonders of the ancient world."250 244 Cromhout, Judean Identity, 135. 245 Steven D. Fraade, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), s.v."Judaism: Palestinian Judaism," 3:1058. 246 Cromhout, Judean Identity, 190. Cromhout regards land as "the central theme of biblical faith" based on the Israeli people's "land charter" which stood on the promises given to Abraham by God. 247 W. Janzen, A YBD, s.v. "Land," 4:146. 248 See Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts, Companion to the Qumran scrolls 5 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 54. See also John J. Collins, A YBD, s.v. "Essenes," 2:624: "it may be that sacrifice was permitted if the proper (sectarian) regulations were observed, or it may be that all access to the temple was prohibited." 249 Rohrbaugh, The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 157. Jesus, however, initiated some radical retraining about the temple's role for religious living. On the one hand, the synoptic authors spend a significant amount of space depicting Jesus as either teaching in the temple (cf., Matt 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; 22:53) or defending the sanctity of the temple's connection with God's presence (Matt 12:4; 23:17; Luke 6:4), such as prohibiting swearing by it (Matt 23:16­21 [5:35, possibly by implication from "Jerusalem"]) and guarding it as a "house of prayer" (cf., Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46 [18:10]). No one would have objected to these actions. On the other hand, the synoptics portray a darker side to his relationship with the temple that first century Palestinian Jews would have found disturbing and Jewish religious authorities would have found subversive or offensive. First, Jesus thrashes those selling sacrifices in the temple and publically denounces them as "robbers" in God's house (cf., Matt. 21:12­16; Mark 11:15­18; Luke 19:45­46). As Keener points out, purification is not in mind: "Jesus might have symbolized a mere purifying of the temple by pouring out water; overturning tables signified something more ominous" (emphasis original).251 Predicting the destruction of such a prominent structure in Jewish life would certainly not have gained many allies among the authorities (cf., Matt 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; Luke 21:5­6). It is little surprise why this might also have served as an action that justified the death penalty against him (cf., Matt 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58). Secondly, Jesus forces what must have been an embarrassing "loss of face" for the temple authorities coming off of an unsuccessful attempt to call out his activities of teaching the people outside of established 250 Hanson, and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 136; See Carol Meyers, A YBD, s.v. "Temple, Jerusalem," 6:351­369. 251 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 499. 252 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 799. See Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 725. Marshall quips that they "take refuge in ignorance." 62 rabbinical authority (cf., Matt 21:23­27; Mark 11:27­33; Luke 20:1—8).253 In an unprecedented fashion, Jesus is depicted as weaning his Jewish audience from their temple preoccupation by replacing it with miraculous gospel deliverance (cf., Matt 21:14; Luke 20:1). It is this gospel message that testifies to the authority Jesus exercises to dissolve people of their uncleanness, shepherd them back in from the margins of society, and announce their re­inclusion with the people of Israel. Joel Green submits an insightful comment regarding the Jewish religious authority's true object of rejection toward Jesus' subversive treatment of the temple254, namely— God's first installment of the eschaton. Jesus apparently regards the temple setting ("my Father's house," 2:49) as the appropriate place to unveil the divine plan. "To bring good news" is reminiscent of his message from the beginning and is intimately related to the inbreaking kingdom of God in Jesus' ministry and, thus, to the presence of eschatological redemption for those marginal to society­at­large (cf., 4:18­19,43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16).255 The eschaton pointed to a frightening transition for the Palestinian Jewish peoples and the temple's religious authorities if it meant the destruction of the temple which had stood as a symbol of "Israel's election from among the peoples of the earth."256 Despite this frightening prospect, Jesus stood with the enough audacity to act within this framework, as well as embody this message for his followers to emulate. Jesus cleverly used the temple's memorial significance to transition the nation into the theophanic arrival of God's inbreaking kingdom. Though he clearly demonstrated the ability to heal anywhere, utilizing the temple grounds drew concrete 253 Stern, Jewish Commentary of the New Testament, Matt 21:23; Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, WBC 34B (Dallas: Word, 2001), 200. 254 It is easy to see why this turns out to be an accusation against which the Christians must defend later in the century: "enemies of temples", see Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 498. 255 Green, The Gospel of Luke, 700. 256 Wise, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Temple," 813. 63 pragmatic associations to the God of Israel (cf., Matthew 11:5; 15:31;21:16; Luke 20: l).257 Jesus used the temple as the means to his end, which stood in direct opposition to those authorities who considered it as an end in and of itself. 3.2.3. Scriptural interpretation In many ways it is plain to see that Jesus was not operating in a ministerial vacuum; he kept his activities operating within the "symbolic world" of the Jewish culture: he used the facilities at his disposal that were traditional for rabbis of his day to utilize, he focused on resolving the struggles he saw his people going through that kept them split, and he spoke in familiar forms of expression and inside an ideology familiar to their world; in other words, he maintained continuity with one of the most longstanding influences that shaped this symbiotic world, the scriptures of ancient Judaism. They represent the foundation of the Judaism of Jesus day and drew the Jesus movement into the symbolic representation that it came to adopt: the new covenant of Israel's God.259 This "new covenant" approach was also not an uncommon expression of thought at this period of Judaism (cf., CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12; CD 15:5­1 l;lQpHab. 2:3­4). Given that Jesus operated in the familiar expressions of his culture and time, it is no surprise that he symbolically instituted "a community­building or boundary­making function"260 for that new covenant relationship using references to a Passover meal as representative of his coming death which offered the blood establishing it (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:15). 257 Allison, "Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E. P. Sanders," 66. 258 Meeks, Moral World, 16; Wenk, Community-Forming Power, 51. 259 Mogens Muller, "The New Testament Reception of the Old Testament," The New Testament as reception, ed. Mogens Muller, & H. Tronier, JSNTS 230 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 6. 260 Green, The Gospel of Luke, 756. 64 In light of this, it becomes easy to see why one of the Jesus movement's top priorities was to present their own interpretation of Holy Writ. Just as the temple stood as Jesus' demonstrative transitional arena, so too did Scripture shape a literary, and religious framework for the Jesus movement. Even though, from a history­of­religion viewpoint, there is a marked continuity in the way the Jesus movement and the Early Church manifest themselves within ancient Judaism, their self­understanding was reflected in an interpretation of Scripture that points to a new beginning, that is discontinuity. This discontinuity does not express itself in a fundamentally new hermeneutics, but rather in an awareness of representing a new chapter in salvation history. As the eschatological fulfilment [sic] of the prophecies, this means that previous events can be characterized as past history and 'obsolete' (Heb. 8:13; Mk 2:21­22 par.).261 Understanding the Jesus movement as one chapter of salvation history in the semiotic world of Judaism helps to illuminate what kind of "independent track" ft") he clearly desired to tread through that symbolic universe. While there are countless issues surrounding the topic of how the New Testament authors use the Old Testament Scriptures , for the sake of this thesis, there was one, overarching goal for all use of the OT Scripture quotations and allusions: demonstrate Jesus as the Messiah, King of Israel.264 "Jewish Christians remained passionately concerned to continue trying to convince their unconverted family members and close friends that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and that following him was the way to constitute the new true—or freed— Israel."265 He was the leader, his wisdom needed to guide them into understanding about his 261 Muller, "The New Testament Reception of the Old Testament," 8. 262 Tomson, 'If This Be from Heaven...': Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism, 395. 263 See Beale, and Carson, "Introduction," in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, xxiii­xxviii. 264 See Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, JSNTS 413 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 57. 65 eschatological agenda and dialogue, and it was only by his repeated resocializing effort that his community of followers could endure the brunt of rejection, and persecution they experienced when they made the choice to accept him. Therefore, to legitimate his role as true King of Israel, he needed to "open their minds to understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:32; 45) from the perspective of his life, death, and resurrection. It was one thing, and very common among Greco­ Roman myths, to hold to a leader who attained a heavenly dignity or immortal status, but this absurd notion of "a crucified Messiah" gave the fodder necessary to the "creative dialectic between historical facts and the hermeneutic process, in which the combination of certain scriptural passages may have provided an impetus for the development of Christology."266 It was the Christology, therefore, that became the ultimate antilanguage of the synoptics and of the New Testament in general—the incomprehensible assertion that cursing from the world garners the blessing of God. That death in this world means life in the next, and all the entailments that go with this line of thinking: giving what you have means receiving from God, letting go of the things of this life means obtaining true life in the next, and poverty in the world's eyes means richness in God's. The legacy of this antilinguistic wisdom has proven its worth over countless generations. The synoptic record tells of a Jesus movement that took the common ways of expressing and thinking about the Jewish God and sought to apply them in completely different ways for the new community they wanted to establish under their Messiah. While a number of Messianic pretenders inundated the Palestinian Jewish peoples near the first century period, Christ alone 265 266 Ibid., 1. Hlikan Ulfgard, "In Quest of the Elevated Jesus: Reflections on the Angelomorphic Christology of the Book of Revelation within its Jewish Setting," in New Testament as Reception, 125. demonstrated unprecedented acts that called the attention of his followers and arrested their allegiance. This allegiance summoned a new praxis of life from its Jewish audience and garnered the rejection of those whose lives had too much to lose from the shift, namely, the religious authorities. All of the essentials of Jewish self­identity had to be redefined: social relations, cultural customs, and religious observance. Jesus demanded that all good Jewish piety now consisted simply of service in his name. This, of course, was a hard pill to swallow. 67 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH Having demonstrated evidences of each of the Hallidayan criteria for antilanguage: a parent culture, relexicalization, and an antithetical ethos, the authors of the synoptic gospels portray the Jesus movement as operating through an antilanguage symptomatic of an antisociety. Moreover, the Jesus movement also did not operate within a vacuum of isolated expressions and concerns, but finds itself squarely placed within both the historical setting and cultural milieu of other movements not unlike itself, attacking many of the same concerns that were common to address. Indeed, the evidence does suggest that a movement such as the one Jesus began could have been so surprise to his audiences. One important implication from this research may be that Jesus can be studied as the human being that he really was to both his disciples and enemies: a true Jewish rabbi, who spoke, acted, and lived the lives that all of his contemporaries did, but with that unique twist that we all offer as living, growing human beings with opportunity to use our environments to deliver something unique in the world which was not previously experienced. After all, that is what makes research so fruitful—the promise of discovering an area that no one else has uncovered with the same material everyone has been working. Jesus' unique contribution was an experiential Messianic demonstration in both word and deed. Jesus did not represent something that was not already on the table to begin with, but the main assertion of this thesis is that he simply used what was commonly available to create new ways of looking at it, using it, and carving out a path that no one else could. That is what antisocieties do. The Christianity that followed the Jesus movement took this antisocietal precedent and ran with it for two thousand years, producing countless forms of denominations, ordinations, interpretations, as well as living, changing, and adaptable ways of incorporating this Christian worship through countless people groups and cultures. Christianity continues to take what is old within itself, and create something new from that to stay relevant, and active in every subsequent generation. The study of antisocieties would make a strong appeal to biblical study, since much of the passing of the torch from movements in societies around the world belongs to this type of social phenomenon. Oppression, poverty, and exclusion are common to all forms of cultural identity throughout time. They pervade all people groups, and antisocieties are the reactions to them. Their language is an antilanguage. People want to feel significance; when they cannot receive this from the main culture, it is not hard for them to justify starting their own movement. In the exercise of self reflection, this study may offer what might be considered a new dimension within the "gospel" genre. Antilanguage is a specific type of "technical register" that may help to reveal new insights into certain motivations behind why the Christian movement developed the way it did: why it recorded the messianic secret, how it began as a sect of Judaism, and later broke from it, as well as how it multiplied into the incredible diversity of faiths that we have ended up with and continues to do so today. The study of antisocieties and their antilanguage illuminates a key reason for societal structures in general—how people groups use language to take care of their needs. Just as the Jesus movement led its first century Palestinian Jewish audience into an entirely new praxis based on the Messianic demonstrations of its leader, so too have similar calls for change occurred in other parts of the world through what might not be considered any less divine intervention: Luther's reformation, the Azuza Street revival, the American battle for civil rights, and others. God has chosen to reveal himself through the medium of language for countless millennia and so it is incumbent upon every responsible 267 Halliday, "Antilanguages," 571. 69 theologian to deepen our understanding of this medium as it represents a reflection of the true God. 70 APPENDIXITHE MESSIANIC SECRET AND ANTILANGUAGE The antilanguage model of understanding the synoptic accounts of the Jesus movement also comports well with and offers some real sociological insight to the recurrent theme of the so­ called, "Messianic Secret."268 The Greek term christos has its own Hebrew translation (i.e. masiah) which remained in fluctuation throughout its use, being applied to many different peoples and movements within the milieu the first century Mediterranean. Theissen offers a brief synopsis of the phenomenon surrounding the Jesus movement in the first century. There are no examples of a person becoming a Messiah because he looked like a Messiah, but there are instances of persons being proclaimed Messiah by other people during their lifetime. In the same way, was Peter declared Jesus to be Messiah, Rabbi Akiba declared Bar Kochba to be Messiah (y. Ta'an. 4.68d). Josephus considered Emperor Vaspasian to be the fulfillment of messianic hopes (War 3.401­2). The pseudo­ messiahs of Mark 13:21­22 are proclaimed Messiah by others. 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' Why should not the adherents of Jesus have proclaimed Messiah? This is all the more likely since, in the Gospels, the title "Messiah' is always used by other people, only rarely by Jesus himself... As far as the messiahship of Jesus is concerned, there is a consensus in the Gospel story among both adherents and opponents of Jesus.269 The term "Christ" occurs 37 times in the synoptics, its appearances for each Gospel occur in relative proportion to each gospel's literary size: 17 in Matthew, 12 in Luke, and 8 in Mark. Not surprisingly, the Gospels record their own variety of use with this term. With a triple synoptic tradition of Jesus' command to secrecy (i.e. commands to "tell no one" include for e.g., Matt 16:20; 17:9; Mark 7:36; 8:30; 9:9; Luke 5:14; 8:56), the motivation behind this action becomes the main concern. Malina and Rohrbaugh assert that this feature is simply because Jesus is maintaining the social in­group boundaries for the movement. Therefore, "Jesus­group insiders 268 See Malina and Rohrbaugh, "Secrecy," in Social-Science Commentary of the Synoptic Gospels, 402­3; L. W. Hurtado, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Christ," 109­116; Theissen, "The Political Dimensions of Jesus' Activities," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, 230­33. 269 Theissen, "The Political Dimensions of Jesus' Activities," 231. See Stanley E. Porter, Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. get to know both the outsider and insider versions of the story even though Jesus' public hearers got only version number one."270 The more Jesus reveals, the closer he moves his followers to speak and act as he does; at this infantile stage, going public with what little they learn along the way would ruin his efforts, hence, secrecy becomes a necessity for the original Jesus movement. 971 The synoptics simply report their difficulties en route to constituting that new "social order" which Jesus spent all his ministry effort training them to operate. 270 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 403. 271 Halliday, "Anti­Languages," 580. 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. 6 Volumes. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, and David F. Graf. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Balz, Horst Robert and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Beck, Norman Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Symbolic Messages of Hope and Liberation. Westminster College Library of Biblical Symbolism. Volume 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Berger, Peter and T. Luckman. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Brown, Colin. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Campbell, R. Alastair. The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2004. The Challenge of Jesus' Parables. Edited by Longenecker, Richard N. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2000. Craffert, Pieter F. The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in AnthropologicalHistorical Perspective. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context. Volume 3. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2008. Cromhout, Markus. Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context. Volume 2. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2007. Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume 2. International Critical Commentary. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. De Villiers, J. L., I. J. Du Plessis, J. A. Du Rand, B. C. Lategan, G. M. M. Pelser, and W. S. Vorster. The New Testament Milieu. 2 Volumes. Edited by A.B. du Toit. Guide to the New Testament. Ukiah: Orion Publishers, 1998. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 73 Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic ed. Edited by Porter, Stanley E. and Craig A. Evans. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, electronic ed. Edited by Ralph P. Martin, and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, and Jeffrey T. Reed. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Volume 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Douglas, Mary. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge 1992. du Toit, A. B., J. L. de Villiers, I. J. du Plessis et al., The New Testament Milieu. Guide to the New Testament. Volume 2. Ukiah: Orion, 1998. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 34B. Dallas: Word, 2001. Evans, Craig A. The Historical Jesus. The Biblical Seminar. Volume 33. A Sheffield Reader. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007. . The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002. Freyne, Sean. Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus Story. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 33B. Dallas: Word, 1998. Halliday, M. A. K. "Anti­languages." In American Anthropologist. No. 78 (1976): 570­584. . Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: Edward Arnold, 1978. . Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1994. Hanson, K. C. and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. 74 Harrington, Hannah K. The Purity Texts. Companion to the Qumran scrolls. Volume 5 London: T&T Clark, 2004. Horsley, Richard A. "Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: Their principal features and social origins." In New Testament Backgrounds. Edited by Craig A. Evans, and Stanley E. Porter. The Biblical Seminar. Volume 43. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics. 2nd edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hurtgen, John. Anti-Language in the Apocalypse of John. Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993. Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980. Lane, William. Gospel of Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, and D. A. Carson. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Volume 168. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew: A Commentary. Edited by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2001. Malina, Bruce. The New Testament World: Insights form cultural anthropology. Revised Edition. Louisville: Westminster, 1993. . The Social Gospel of Jesus: The kingdom of God in Mediterranean perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. . The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels. New York: Routledge, 1996. Malina, Bruce, and Richard Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Malina, Bruce, and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. 75 Malina, Bruce, and Stephan Joubert. A Time Travel to the World of Jesus. Ukiah: Orion, 1997. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible. Volume 27. London: Yale University Press, 2008. Martin, Luther. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978. Martin­Asensio, Gustavo. Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach to the Lukan Perspective. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Meeks, Wayne. Moral World of the First Christians. Westminster: John Knox, 1986. The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007. Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. 4th Revised Edition. London: United Bible Societies, 1994. Mosse, Martin. The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Miiller, Mogens, and Henrik Tronier. The New Testament as Reception. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Volume 230. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Neusner, Jacob. The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. Nida, Eugene, and Johannes Louw. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. Electronic edition of the 2nd edition. 2 Volumes. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2005. Oakman, Douglas E. Jesus and the Peasants. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context. Volume 4. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2008. Petersen, Norman R. The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel. Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1993. 76 Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark International, 1896. Porter, Stanley E. "Reading the Gospels and the Quest for the Historical Jesus." In Reading the Gospels Today. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Porter, Stanley E. and Craig A. Evans. New Testament Interpretation and Methods. The Biblical Seminar. Volume 45. A Sheffield Reader. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation. Edited by M. D. Carroll R. Journal For the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Volume 299. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Riches, John Kenneth and David C. Sim. The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Volume 276. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context. Volume 1. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2007. Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. Edited by David Horrell. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Stambaugh, John E. and David L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. Westminster: Westminster Press, 1986. Stegemann, Ekkhard and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Stegemann, Wolfgang, Bruce Malina, and Gerd Theissen. The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Schniedewind, William M. "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage." Edited by Jouette Bassler, Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 235­252. Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament. Electronic edition. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Volume 413. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. 77 Theissen, Gerd. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1978. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Electronic ed. 10 Volumes. Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Tomson, Peter. 'If This Be from Heaven...': Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Wenk, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. London: T&T Clark, 2004.