Anthony Le Donne on Modern Reconstructions of Jesus' Sexuality

I'm currently a little more than halfway through Anthony Le Donne's The Wife of Jesus, and let me tell you: it's good. Like, really good. Le Donne deserves to be on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Why not? They let all those other yahoos on their shows; it would be great to have a real live Jesus historian on there for once. I am especially impressed at how well balanced Le Donne's book is, particularly in its consideration of the biases we all bring to the text as readers shaped by our culture. Take, for example, the following excerpt from Chapter 5, "Smithing Jesus":

For most of us, spotting the agendas and ideologies at work in others seems easy. Many people have probably never considered the notion that Jesus had multiple wives or that he was gay, and so they will be cautious about these sexualized portraits from the beginning. But recognizing our own agendas and ideological projections onto Jesus is more difficult. If we are to be honest and avoid the arrogance of creating Jesus in our own image, a healthy suspicion of ourselves is warranted. The challenge for us, therefore, is to examine the agendas and ideologies that we unwittingly project onto Jesus. (p.90)

I hope to have a brief review—either here or at Near Emmaus—up sometime next week, followed by a full review through Review & Expositor. Many thanks to the good folks at Oneworld for the free review copy.

Buy this book. Do it. Now.

Book Suggestions on the Historicity of the Ascension?

Over the last year I've spent a lot of time and energy reading books and articles on the "historicity" of the resurrection of Jesus, and it's been a largely positive experience—I am slightly less certain than I was before that the resurrection never actually occurred as a historical event.

However, something that has continued to be problematic for me, particularly when it comes to historical studies, is how the resurrection and ascension are often sort of lumped together both historically and literarily. The ascension of Jesus is only mentioned explicitly in Luke/Acts, and implicitly in John (20:17), so it appears that the ascension is part of a much later Jesus tradition. It also relies upon an ancient understanding of the cosmos (i.e. Where did Jesus physically go, anyway? Mars?). My personal belief is that while I can accept the historicity of the resurrection, the ascension is most likely a theological embellishment intended to paint Jesus as greater than Elijah, or—even more probably—to figure out what to do with the character of the resurrected Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

So I'm curious as to whether anyone knows of any good books that argue both sides of the debate on the historicity of the ascension? Do you have any particular thoughts on the ability to accept either the resurrection or the ascension, or both, as historical events? Furthermore, if one argues for the historicity of the ascension of Jesus, are they not then obligated to consider the historicity of the ascension of Elijah in his fiery chariot, or even the historicity of the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad?

What Was Jesus' Social Status?

Chris Keith over at The Jesus Blog questions whether or not Jesus was a "peasant." I've long been interested in this question—even in high school I wondered how a first-century carpenter might also be literate (see Luke 4:16–19, John 7:57–8:11, etc.) in a time when only the wealthiest elites had access to education and literacy. It seems that either Jesus was a tekton ("builder," often translated as "carpenter"), or Jesus was literate, but unlikely—given his historical context—that he was both.

However, I wonder about the possibility (and granted, I have no historical or scriptural evidence for this) that Jesus may have in fact been a relatively comfortable tradesman living on inherited land (see Richard Bauckham's chapter on the family of Jesus in Jesus Among Friends and Enemies), but that he divested himself when he began his public ministry as an attempt to show solidarity with the peasants. This is not an unfamiliar practice among history's most recognizable spiritual giants. For instance, Siddharta Gautama (who later became the Buddha), was said to have been an ivory-tower prince before he escaped the walls of his family's castle and experienced suffering and death in the world around him. Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (St. Francis), the son of a wealthy textiles merchant in Assisi, Italy, stripped himself naked in the town square in front of the Roman Catholic religious authorities as a display of his identification with the poor. More recently, a young, highly educated lawyer named Mohandas Gandhi gave up his worldly possessions to live in an ashram community with other societal outcasts.

The facts are admittedly much more complicated than the brief thoughts I have presented here, and I'm not saying that Jesus was without a doubt a person of means who eventually rid himself of all possessions to pursue his ministry. But it is curious to consider his emphasis on divestment (see Matt. 19:21 and Luke 18:22; Luke 9:3; Matt. 8:20 and Luke 9:58; etc.), and whether or not this was a direct result of personal experience.

Book Giveaway

For all you historical Jesus types...

Anthony Le Donne is giving away two books—The Historiographical Jesus and Historical Jesus: What Can We Know And How Can We Know It?

Hop on over to the Jesus Blog and enter to win.

Jesus Mythicists? I Don't Believe They Exist.

R. Joseph Hoffmann over at The New Oxonian has recently been posting a series of biting critiques of the recent (though semi-annual) surge in Jesus Mythicism. His latest post is called "The Passion of the Christ-Deniers," and can be found here. Hoffmann suggests that the urge for mythicists to "prove" the non-existence of a historical Jesus comes from an overreaction against conservative fundamentalist theology and high ecclesial bureaucracy, and points the finger at folks on both sides of the aisle (so to speak).

I agree with most of Hoffmann's sentiments. The question of a historical figure's existence is not an inherently theological issue, nor should it be. I have seen few non-Muslims and non-Buddhists question the historicity of Mohammed or Siddharta Gautama. However, I do find it perfectly reasonable to allow one's theological perspective to be informed by historical questions, and using them to help to frame his or her perception of the past.

Albert Schweitzer on Jesus

In the knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man, [Jesus] lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does turn; and crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign.

—Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus