Abstract
This monograph is a revised version of Tobias Hägerland’s doctoral dissertation written at the University of Githenburg, under the supervision of Prof. Samuel Byrskog. In essence the book is a study of the understanding and theology of forgiveness in first-century Judaism and Christianity.
The book is arranged over seven chapters. In the introductory chapter Hägerland sets out three basic questions: ‘is it plausible that the historical Jesus did claim to forgive sins?’; ‘in what sense did he purport to forgive sins?’; what ‘does this tell us about who Jesus claimed to be and how he was perceived by his contemporaries?’ (p. 1). The key passages used to assess these questions are Mk 2.1-12 and Luke 7.47-48, where Jesus claims authority to forgive sins. Hägerland then surveys previous studies of this topic (pp. 1-15). Next he sets out his methodological approach that draws on traditional criteria for authenticity arranged into a hierarchy of importance, and to account for inauthentic elements in place of traditional form-critical understandings he proposes a ‘new rhetorical critical model.’ (p. 31). Thus later elements are not seen as free creations, but an evolution or development of the base tradition. Chapter two then looks at the forgiveness of sins sayings in the gospels, with a discussion of the applicability of the authenticity criteria. Chapter three provides a discussion of the theme of forgiveness of sins in Christian literature up to 135 CE. Then the criterion of discontinuity is applied to suggest that ‘ecclesiology cannot account for the origin of the forgiveness episodes’ (p. 131). Chapter four then examines how forgiveness of sins was mediated in a first-century Jewish context. Here Hägerland argues that there are no compelling analogies with the role of the high priest claiming authority to forgive sins. Second, while the charge of blasphemy ‘is historically implausible’ the claim to forgive sins ‘would have been heard more as a claim to be a prophet than as a blasphemous encroachment on the prerogatives of God.’ (p. 177). Third, it is argued that Mk 2.10 is modeled on Dan 4.14, and it is suggested as a result Jesus is portrayed ‘as the angelomorphic Messiah Son of Man who has been granted authority by God to forgive sins.’ (p. 178). From this Hägerland concludes that Mk 2.1-5, 11-12 is coherent, Jesus’ announcement of forgiveness of sins coheres with healings as eschatological/ messianic events, and that this is consistent with prophetic activity (p. 225). In chapter six the trajectory of the Markan tradition is traced. It is suggested that a historical event underlies the Markan pericope. Then drawing on Bauckham’s arguments, Hägerland states that ‘it follows that the ultimate source of the narrative must be one or several eyewitnesses who, having been present at the event, recalled and retold it.’ (p. 229). This is a big claim. Bauckham has proposed that the naming of minor characters implies their status as eyewitnesses. However, Hägerland notes that here the eyewitness behind the narrative is anonymous.
The defence of the traditions concerning Jesus’ forgiveness of sins as traceable to the historical Jesus is the strongest articulation of that thesis to date. Some aspects of the argument are more persuasive than others. Perhaps the uncritical appropriation of some of Bauckham’s claims concerning eyewitnesses would have benefitted from further justification. Overall this is an interesting thesis, which presents a well structured cumulative argument, and then teases out some of the implications.