Jesus and Joe Black

Jesus and Joe Black

If there is one thing that fascinates me about the Gospels, it is the cryptic conversations that Jesus has with other people. They are conversations that have a mysterious touch, leaving things sometimes unsaid, seeming to remain latent and in abeyance, but really saying everything that is important and essential. They are reported conversations, edited dialogues, masterfully put together – perhaps they display something about Jesus.

But in any case, it is the testimony about Jesus that we have, not the real person in flesh and blood. It is the Jesus of the Gospels that awakens the hope we have – the myth. We do not know whether the words that Jesus is reported to have spoken are in fact his words, or the words of the evangelist. Even the philological evidence is thin because the New Testament was written in Greek and not in the language that Jesus spoke: Aramaic.

Just as Paul wrote: “So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more; so that if any one is in Christ—he is a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, all things have become new.” Paul says that Christians now live under new circumstances, it is not fitting to judge someone as flesh and blood, rather, we should see them as new creatures of a new creation. So too Jesus should no longer be seen in his carnal status, rather in his new status, as Messiah.

It is therefore not surprising that the Gospels portray Jesus in his new status, and not only as flesh and blood. He knows things that others do not, he is assured where others are worried, he is determined although others have yet to understand what the agenda is. And yet a touch of humanity does get through. Something that is lacking in other heroic personalities. He is more like a Joe Black, curiously innocent and yet mighty, all-knowing and yet able to learn.

“He came to a town of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the place that Jacob gave to Joseph his son and where the well of Jacob was. Jesus, being weary from the journey, was sitting on the well and it was the sixth hour.
A woman of Samaria came to draw water and Jesus said, ‘Give me to drink.’
His disciples had gone into the town, that they may buy provisions. The Samaritan woman, seeing he was alone, said to him, ‘How come that you, being a Jew, ask drink from me, being a Samaritan woman?’ for Jews have no dealing with Samaritans.
Jesus answered, ‘If you would know the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, give me to drink, you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water.’
The woman said, ‘Sir, you haven’t even a vessel to draw with, and the well is deep - where, then, can you have the living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and who himself did drink out of it, as did his sons, and his cattle?’
Jesus answered, ‘Every one who drinks of this water shall thirst again, but whoever may drink of the water that I will give him, will not thirst again and the water that I will give him shall be a well springing up into everlasting life.’
The woman said, ‘Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor have to come here to draw water.’”

There are a number of questions that seem to be left unanswered, but the woman is receptive and follows the lead she receives. You are a Jew, why are you talking to me? What water are you talking about? Are you able to do more than our legendary paragon? The Samaritan woman is not slow to follow him, but lacks information and is uncomfortable with the situation. She knows that the circumstance is something special and asks the key question that had always been the dispute between Jews and Samaritans – we pray on Mount Carmel, the Jews on Mount Zion, who is right?

Jesus replies ‘The hour is coming, and now is, when true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth - for the Father seeks such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth … believe me, the hour is coming when you shall neither worship the Father on this mountain, nor at Jerusalem.’ The dispute is not about God, but in reality another form of idolatry - my God is stronger than your God - forgetting that according to the legend of Jacob, he came to understand that the Mystery wasn’t some local idol, but spiritual: God is a ‘Spirit’.

The story tells us that the woman was able to keep Jesus in her town for two days, where he convinced people that he was the Messiah. But the heart of the story is the longing for something to satisfy an unending thirst, for ‘eternal water’ which even springs up as a well of hope on which we can thrive, and as a source of faith and love that is so lacking in our world. The metaphors are simple but that is what people need if their hearts are to be spoken to.

This is why the Bible attracts the sentimental, but in a way that the story of Joe Black attracts us. We know that Joe is Death, and we know that Death is not a person. But the story teaches us something about ourselves – not death. The story is introspective for everyone one reading the book or watching in the cinema. The subject of the Bible is not Death, but Life and the Mystery behind it. Can we be receptive?

Shalom
Bob

I like this post Bob.

Could you clear something up for me?

You mention that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. What evidence is there of this? I am currently studying 2nd century North Africa and the Jewish diaspora there had Greek as their first language. Why should not Greek have been spoken among Jews before this? It may not have been their first language, but Greek was the language of Commerce in the ancient world so my intuition suggests to me that it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

As for Joe Black, your post reminded me of how simple adn beautiful the Christian message is at its core. We would do well not to forget this and abandon questions of the transmundance in favour of those dealing with the mundane.

–It is more plausible that Jesus spoke Aramaic. It is important to note that Jesus spoke in Aramaic with his last words. If Aramaic was not his primary language, then he would have whispered the Shema in Hebrew instead. Regarding the expression, “son of man,” Lindsey is clear that “the original is Aramaic . . . and so far as we know Jesus and the people of his day knew the text only in Aramaic.” (The Jesus Sources, p. 72). The text being referred to here is Daniel 7:13 which is written in Aramaic – in the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of the words in Aramaic are identical to the words in Hebrew.

–Aramaic was quite widespread in Jerusalem and in other parts of the land, as can be seen from the large number of Aramaic inscriptions which have been discovered dating from the Second Temple period. The use of Aramaic is also evident from the literature created in that language. The Genesis Apocryphon, the Targum of Job and portions of several other Aramaic works were found in the ancient library of the Essenes at Qumran, and Jewish sources of the period mention additional non-extant works.

Aramaic also had a strong influence on Mishnaic Hebrew, and Aramaic words are found in the New Testament and in the writings of Josephus. Unlike in countries such as Egypt where Aramaic almost disappeared when the country came under the influence of Hellenism, Aramaic remained a vibrant language in the land of Israel and Syria even during the centuries of Græco-Roman rule until the Arab conquest at the beginning of the seventh century C.E.

Aramaic was the language of communication between Jews and those non-Jews not connected with the government or living in Greek cities. An ordinary non-Jew mentioned in rabbinic literature is referred to as an Aramean and generally has an Aramaic rather than a Greek name (Tosefta, Pesahim 1:27). It is possible that some Roman officials who served long periods of time in the land of Israel learned Aramaic, and Jews may
have been able to converse with these officials in Aramaic.

The latter taken from (DeFransisco, PhD, 2004).

Thank you. Although, youo’ll agree taht this is not solid evidence for rejecting the idea that Jews of teh second temple period had Greek as a second/third language?

Of course I can, I was there with them. No, only joking. Of course I cannot disagree that they didn’t know Greek as a second or third, or forth or fifth language. Only they knew, and sadly, they’re dead.

“My love is generations old.
I was there when trees died and the world went cold.”–some Lyricist

hmmm…knowing who spoke what and where is one of those really illusive questions in the astudy of the ancient world…

Hi Bob,

And yet another glimpse of a Jesus who brought a much broader message than messianic fulfillment of prophesies. It is so sad that this simple understanding must be teased out from under the burden of so much dogma.

Much like the Tao, the people turn to ‘knowledge’ which bring’s their death, and ignore the simplicity of holding fast to life, the living water.

Can we be receptive? No, not yet. The chaos has yet to run it’s course. Even the best efforts, the best teaching, will simply be seen as the works of ‘false prophets’ who labor as ‘tools of the devil’. Religion is on a course of self-destruction and there will be no questions until it fail’s utterly. Our arrogance must first become humility, and I see very little in today’s world.

Thanks for the lift. I find encouragement that at some point…

JT

Hi gavtmcc,

I must admit that I rely upon the scholars in this question, not least modern day Jewish scholars who have written a lot in Germany about the origins of the New Testament, like Pinchas Lapide.

I found this excerpt that is supportive of various statements I found in my books, many of which would have to be translated into english forst of all:
"Franz Delitzsch’s view … is that Jesus and the disciples taught in Hebrew; and that is the opinion of Resch also. Adolf Neubauer, Reader in Rabbinical Hebrew at Oxford, attempted a compromise. It was certainly the case, he thought, that in the time of Jesus Aramaic was spoken throughout Palestine; but whereas in Galilee this language had an exclusive dominance, and the knowledge of Hebrew was confined to texts learned by heart, in Jerusalem Hebrew had renewed itself by the adoption of Aramaic elements, and a kind of Neo-Hebraic language had arisen. This solution at least testifies to the difficulty of the question. The fact is that from the language of the New Testament it is often difficult to make out whether the underlying words are Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, for instance, Dalman remarks-with reference to the question whether the statement of Papias refers to a Hebrew or an Aramaic “primitive Matthew”-that it is difficult “to produce proof of an Aramaic as distinct from a Hebrew source, because it is often the case in Biblical Hebrew, and still more often in the idiom of the Mishna, that the same expressions and forms of phrase are possible as in Aramaic.” Delitzsch’s “retranslation” of the New Testament into Hebrew is therefore historically justified.

But the question about the language of Jesus must not be confused with the problem of the original language of the primitive form of Matthew’s Gospel. In reference to the latter, Dalman thinks that the tradition of the Early Church regarding an earlier Aramaic form of the Gospel must be considered as lacking confirmation. “It is only in the case of Jesus’ own words that an Aramaic original form is undeniable, and it is only for these that Early Church tradition asserted the existence of a Semitic documentary source. It is, therefore, the right and duty of Biblical scholarship to investigate the form which the sayings of Jesus must have taken in the original and the sense which in this form they must have conveyed to Jewish hearers.”

That Jesus spoke Aramaic, Meyer has shown by collecting all the Aramaic expressions which occur in His preaching. He considers the “Abba” in Gethsemane decisive, for this means that Jesus prayed in Aramaic in His hour of bitterest need. Again the cry from the cross was, according to Mark xv. 34, also Aramaic: 'Elwi, elwi, lama sabacqanei. The Old Testament was therefore most familiar to Him in an Aramaic translation, otherwise this form of the Psalm passage would not have come to His lips at the moment of death.

It is a quite independent question whether Jesus could speak, or at least understand, Greek. According to Josephus the knowledge of Greek in Palestine at that time, even among educated Jews, can only have been of a quite elementary character. He himself had to learn it laboriously in order to be able to write in it. His “Jewish War” was first written in Aramaic for his fellow-countrymen; the Greek edition was, by his own avowal, not intended for them. In another passage, it is true, he seems to imply a knowledge of, and interest in, foreign languages even among people in humble life.
earlychristianwritings.com/s … ter17.html

Shalom
Bob