GTheissenposts

Jesus’ Relationship to the Heavenly Son of Man in Gerd Theißen and Annette Merz’s New Jesus Book

Posted by

0

Having learned much from Gerd Theißen and Annette Merz’s 1996 book Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (ET = The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Fortress, 1998) during my student days, it evoked good memories for me to read their (relatively) new book Wer war Jesus? Der erinnerte Jesus in historischer Sicht. Ein Lehrbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023).

While there is much overlap with the 1996 book, there is also much that is new or newly conceptualized, including the extent to which the 2023 book is shaped by memory-hermeneutical questions and considerations. And this is presumably why the authors and/or publisher decided to give this book a new title rather than simply characterizing it as a new edition of the original book.

As Theißen and Merz put it in the opening sentences of the preface (p. 6): “Our textbook on the historical Jesus is the new version of a textbook that was published in 1996. It has, after a quarter-century, become a new book.” / “Unser Lehrbuch über den historischen Jesus ist die Neufassung eines Lehrbuches, das 1996 erschienen ist. Es ist nach einem Vierteljahrhundert ein neues Buch geworden.”

In this blogpost, I am going to provide a translation of a paragraph from the section titled “Jesus as Son of Man: The Explicit Christology” / “Jesus als Menschensohn: Die explizite Christologie” (pp. 407-416), alternating between my English translation and the German text. At the end of the post, I will then include a comparable excerpt from John Bowden’s English translation of the first edition, so that one can compare it with what is said in the 2023 book, while noting that some of what is said in this quotation is paralleled by material from the 2023 book that I have not quoted/translated below.

Excerpt from Wer War Jesus? (pp. 415-416):

There are then two possibilities for how Jesus understood his relationship to the super-earthly Son of Man.

Es gibt dann zwei Möglichkeiten, wie sich Jesus sein Verhältnis zum überirdischen Menschensohn.

He could have understood their relationship as a two-stage activity of the same figure.

Er könnte ihr Verhältnis als zweistufiges Wirken ein und derselben Gestalt vorgestellt haben.

In that case, he would have expected, as Enoch is appointed to (or installed into) the role of the Son of Man at the end of the Book of Parables in 1 Enoch 70-71, to be appointed (or installed) as Son of Man.

Dann hätte er so, wie Henoch am Ende der Bilderreden in äthHen 70-71 in die Rolle des Menschensohns eingesetzt wird, erwartet, zum Menschensohn eingesetzt zu werden.

Jesus would have had a futuristic self-consciousness (R. Otto).

Jesus hätte ein futurisches Selbstbewusstsein gehabt (R. Otto).

He would, however, have been much more than a forerunner of the future Son of Man and instead have been the divinely chosen candidate for this role.

Er wäre aber weit mehr als ein Vorläufer des zukünftigen Menschensohns gewesen, sondern der von Gott erwählte Kandidat für diese Rolle. (Note: It is difficult to capture the force of “sondern” here — usually “but rather” is best but “and instead” might work better in this sentence.)

But his statements sound as if a Son of Man already existed now in heaven – such as how Enoch in the Parables sees him already now in heaven (1 Enoch 36-69) before it is revealed to him at the end that he is this Son of Man (1 Enoch 70-71).

Aber seine Aussagen klingen so, als existierte schon jetzt im Himmel ein Menschensohn – so wie Henoch ihn in den Bilderreden schon jetzt im Himmel schaut (äthHen 36-69), bevor ihm am Ende offenbart wird, dass er dieser Menschensohn ist (äthHen 70-71).

Therefore, Jesus also understood himself as the representative of this heavenly Son of Man already now on earth.

Deshalb hat sich Jesus auch als Repräsentant dieses himmlischen Menschensohns schon jetzt auf Erden verstanden.

In doing so, he was able to carry a social-mythical parallelism between heaven and earth to its conclusion.

Er konnte dabei einen sozialmythischen Parallelismus zwischen Himmel und Erde zu Ende führen.

For the one like a son of man in Daniel 7 represents the people of God living upon earth, the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch only a part of the people, namely the “community of the righteous.”

Der Menschenähnliche in Dan 7 repräsentiert nämlich das auf Erden lebende Gottesvolk, der Menschensohn in den Bilderreden des Enoch nur noch einen Teil des Volkes nämlich die “Gemeinde der Gerechten.”

Jesus, however, is the only representative of the heavenly Son of Man on earth as in Mark 8.38-39 (H. Merklein).

Jesus aber ist der einzige Repräsentant des himmlischen Menschensohns auf Erden wie in Mk 8,38f (H. Merklein).

Jesus was probably both: on the one hand the candidate for the role of the future Son of Man, on the other hand already now the earthly representative of the present Son of Man in heaven.

Jesus war wahrscheinlich beides: einerseits der Kandidat für die Rolle des zukünftigen Menschenshns, andererseits schon jetzt der irdische Repräsentant des gegenwärtigen Menschensohns im Himmel.

What is decisive is that he shows his strong consciousness of exalted status (or: majesty) through the fact that he ascribed to himself the same role as “the Son of Man.”

Entscheidend ist: Er zeigt sein großes Hoheitsbewusstsein dadurch, dass er sich die gleiche Rolle als “der Sohn des Menschen” zuschrieb.

Excerpt from G. Theißen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus, trans. J. Bowden (Fortress, 1998), 552:

“In our view the interpretation mentioned last is therefore the most probable one: Jesus spoke of both the present and the future Son of Man. He combined the expression ‘son of man’ from everyday language with the visionary-language tradition of a heavenly being ‘like a son of man’. This combination revalued the everyday expression, and the visionary-language comparison with a son of man was replaced by the direct designation ‘Son of Man’. No angel, no heavenly being, no one who was only like a man, but a concrete man will take over his role in the kingdom of God which is breaking in: Jesus himself. He is at the same time the present and the future ‘man’. This ‘double’ concept of Son of Man is analogous to the ‘double’ kingdom of God eschatology. However, the combination of present and future eschatology in the kingdom of God is more easily understandable than in the case of a person who is speaking about his own future as though about another person. The two proposed solutions discussed by scholars – the assumption of a two-stage activity of the same person and that of a representative relationship between heavenly and earthly person – do not a priori contradict each other: mythical thought understands the future as the present which already exists in heaven. To say that Jesus represents in the present the future Son of man amounts to the same thing. Except that in relating himself to an already existing heavenly figure Jesus could not be referring to himsef, whereas in relating himself to a future figure he could. At all events, it is certain that Jesus thought in terms of a symbolic representative relationship. When he chose the ‘Twelve’, they represented the twelve tribes of Irsael. This presupposes that Jesus himself represents Israel as a whole. He, a human being, was destined to lead Israel into the kingdom of God.”

For my other blogposts on Gerd Theißen, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

Gerd Theissen’s Critique of the New Perspective on Paul

Posted by

5

The topic of “Paul and the Law” and the long-standing debate around the strengths and weaknesses of the many different versions of the “New Perspective on Paul” have continued to be of interest to many scholars of Early Christianity. Within the blogosphere, for example, many posts at Near Emmaus and various Patheos Blogs have been devoted to the admittedly Now-Not-So-New Perspective on Paul, and a recent post by Shawn Wilhite has helpfully drawn attention to James Dunn’s latest attempt to clarify his position in Early Christianity 4 (2013).

This post will attempt to contribute to the discussion by highlighting a key quotation from Gerd Theissen’s 2007 book Erleben und Verhalten der Ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentum (Experience and Behavior of the first Christians: a Psychology of Primitive Christianity), and by pointing readers to one of Theissen’s English publications on the topic in my analysis section.

Translation (wmc): “It is correct that Judaism was proud of the Torah. But precisely for this reason critical voices were massively pushed back and suppressed, which can be documented.  Paul is only one example of these voices. It is also correct that Paul was not conscious of any sin in his pre-Christian period; he persecuted the Christians out of conviction. But this does not rule out [the view / thesis / possibility / likelihood / fact] that he repressed a critical voice in himself that first broke through with the Damascus vision. It is finally correct that intra-Christian, Judaistic opponents first impelled Paul to grapple with the problem of the law. But this does not rule out [the view / thesis / possibility / likelihood / fact] that he fought against a part of his own life in these opponents. In my view, he grappled once more with the Jewish fundamentalist that he himself once was. He fought in them a part of himself – and it was precisely for this reason that the controversy with them was so heated. But in everything Paul is a representative of Judaism, both in his zeal for the law and in his criticism of the law.”

Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen (p. 468-9): “Es ist richtig, dass das Judentum auf die Thora stolz war. Aber eben deswegen wurden kritische Stimmen massiv zurückgewiesen und verdrängt, die sich belegen lassen. Paulus ist nur ein Beispiel für diese Stimmen. Es ist ferner richtig, dass sich Paulus in seiner vorchristlichen Zeit keiner Sünde bewusst war; er verfolgte aus Überzeugung die Christen. Aber das schließt nicht aus, dass er eine kritische Stimme in sich unterdrückte, die erst mit der Damaskusvision durchbrach. Es ist schließlich richtig, dass erst innerchristliche, judaistische Gegner Paulus genötigt haben, sich mit der Gesetzesproblematik auseinander zu setzen. Aber das schließt nicht aus, dass er in diesen Gegnern ein Stück seines eigenen Lebens bekämft hat. Er setzt sich m. E. noch einmal mit dem jüdischen Fundamentalisten auseinander, der er einmal selbst war. Er bekämpft in ihnen ein Stück von sich selbst – und eben deshalb war die Auseinandersetzung mit ihnen so heftig. In allem aber ist Paulus ein Repräsentant des Judentum, in seinem Gesetzeseifer wie in seiner Gesetzeskritik.”

Selective grammatical analysis: The second sentence reads awkwardly. One could perhaps repeat the word voices for clarification (“But precisely for this reason critical voices were massively pushed back and suppressed, voices which can be documented) or move the relative clause forward (“put precisely for this reason critical voices, which can be documented, were massively pushed back and suppressed). I am also uncertain whether it is preferable to translate “verdrängt” as “suppressed” or “repressed”, and the same question applies to the translation of “in sich unterdrückt “ in sentence 5. [In response to the facebook link to this post, Ben Wiebe noted that “‘verdrängt’ might literally be translated to press or crowd out; ‘unterdrückte’ to press or push under”.] The translation of “das schileßt nicht aus, dass” is difficult, since in English one would probably need to supply something before “that”, e.g., “the view that”, “the thesis that”, “the possibility that”, “the likelihood that”, or “the fact that”. ” I also have questions about the translation of “judaistische” in sentence 6. I have chosen the non-word “judaistic” since it is unclear to me whether the intended sense is “judaizing”, for which reason I have avoided this term. It is always difficult to translate auseinandersetzen – I have used “grapple with” for the verb here (“confront” would also have been possible) and controversy for the noun.

But here just two of them: “verdrängt” might be literally translated to press or crowd out; “unterdrückte” to press or push under

Substantive analysis: For better or for worse, my own relationship to the wide-ranging discussion surrounding the “New Perspective on Paul” is complex. Being strongly influenced by the diversity of approaches represented by my teachers, especially Peter Stuhlmacher, James Dunn, and Markus Bockmuehl, I have come to appreciate both the insights/arguments of its protagonists and the objections/concerns of its detractors, which is not to say that I have been able to attain to a clear or balanced position in the process! Against this background, I have included this “key quotation” from Gerd Theissen both because I regard it as a significant line of argumentation and because I think that it arguably merits more substantive engagement than it has received thus far. For further explication of this “key quotation”, I recommend beginning with the additional page references that I provide at the end of my RBL Review of Erleben und Verhalten, as well as Theissen’s 2007 article “The New Perspective on Paul and Its Limits: Some Psychological Considerations”, which appeared in the Princeton Seminary Bulletin. For a work that positively takes up Theissen’s line of thought, see Daniel Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in his Letters. Tübingen: Mohr, 2013, p. 207-208.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Gerd Theissen on Evil and the Aporia of the Theodicy Problem

Posted by

3

Being relatively new to the blogosphere, I have been enjoying the way that a diverse range of blog posts have been exposing me to new ideas and reminding me of things that I had nearly forgotten. For example, Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne’s announcements of an upcoming Conference on Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Earl Christianity at St. Mary’s University turned my thoughts to Gerd Theissen’s characteristically insightful reflections on evil and theodicy in his 2007 book Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: eine Psychologie des Urchristentums (Experience and Behavior of the first Christians: A Psychology of Primitive Christianity), which I reviewed here for RBL.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the grammatical commentary directly follows upon the German passage.

English Translation (WMC): “We have seen that the theodicy question leads to varying causal attributions of evil to God, Satan, and human beings. It is always ‘causal factors’ that are filled out as roles with subjects that are equipped with intentionality and interactivity.  We found the key to overcoming the problem of theodicy in the Christ figure, the central role offering of primitive Christianity. It [the Christ figure] makes possible a communitarian theodicy:  because God, as God who became human, suffers in Christ, the human being is reconciled with his/her suffering and stands in community/fellowship with God even in suffering. Because God acts as a human subject in Christ, the human being is strengthened in his/her responsibility and not crushed by God’s almightiness.

Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen (p. 326): “Wir haben gesehen: Die Theodizeefrage führt zu wechselnden Kausalattributionen des Bösen an Gott, den Satan und den Menschen. Immer sind es ‘Kausalfaktoren’, die als Rollen mit Subjekten ausgefüllt werden, die über Intentionalität und Interaktivität verfügen. Den Schlüssel zur Bewältigung des Theodizeeproblems fanden wir in der Christusgestalt, dem zentralen Rollenangebot des Urchristentums. Sie ermöglicht eine kommunitäre Theodizee: Weil Gott als menschgewordener Gott in Christus leidet, wird der Mensch mit seinem Leid versöhnt und steht auch im Leid in Gemeinschaft mit Gott. Weil Gott in Christus als ein menschliches Subjekt handelt, wird der Mensch in seiner Verantwortung gestärkt und nicht von Gottes Allmacht erdrückt.“

Selective grammatical commentary: I am uncertain whether the force of “wechselnden“ is alternating, changing, or varying in this context. Thanks to Laura Hunt for alerting me to the fact that I had incorrectly translated “Immer sind es” as “they are always”. It should, I think, be translated “It is always”. The translation of “über … verfügen” is difficult: the sense seemed to be “equipped with” but “have power/control over”, “dispose over”, or “have … at their disposition” could be better. I have discussed my reasons for translating “Urchristentum” as “primitive Christianity” here.  I am very uncertain about the translation of kommunitäre, since I think that this is also a loaded word in German. Is “communitarian” on target or should a less loaded translation such as “community” or “communal” be adopted? I am also uncertain about the word order for the translation of “Weil Gott als menschgewordener Gott in Christus leidet”, but it seems to me that “in Christus” is more closely linked with “leidet” rather than with “menschgewordener Gott”. Though menchgewordener can often be translated as “incarnate”, it seemed preferable to retain the literal meaning of “having become human” here. I have written his/her to reflect the fact that der Mensch encompasses both men and women, but this solution might be too awkward for a published translation. And I have translated “auch” as “even”, though “also” might be preferable. I remain very uncertain about the best word order for the translation “Weil Gott in Christus als ein menschliches Subjekt handelt”. I have translated Allmacht as “almightiness”, though “omnipotence” could be better.

Substantive analysis: I have selected this paragraph as today’s “key quotation” both because I think that it is an attractive attempt to approach the topic of evil, suffering, agency, and theodicy from the perspective of an early Christian understanding of the person of Jesus Christ and because I think that Theissen’s broader discussion of evil and the aporia of the theodicy problem in this chapter is one of the more learned, sophisticated, and insightful attempts to investigate the ways in which this subject area was grappled with within early Judaism and early Christianity. Hence, I hope that my readers will not only find this quotation helpful, but that it will also direct you to Theissen’s larger discussion of this topic.

Links to some other blog posts relating to Gerd Theissen: Anthony Le Donne,  Johnny Walker, Jeremy Cushmann, Tim Henderson, Larry Hurtado, Jonathan Clatworthy, Diglotting, Matt J. Rossano, Michael Kok, Tanner Gish, Michael Kruger, Neil Godfrey, Michael Barber, Nijay Gupta

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.