Abstract
In this book, Chris Keith engages with the field of historical Jesus studies by offering an explanation for the origin of the conflict between Jesus and the scribal elite. Keith’s main argument is that Jesus’ social status as a teacher is a ‘central factor’ in the origin of the conflict (p. 6). He proposes that Jesus was not a scribal-literate authority but was sometimes publicly perceived as one. The scribal authorities, therefore, viewed Jesus as ‘a threat that had to be engaged’ (p. 13). Keith argues his case over a concise, but very thorough, six chapters.
The majority of scholars have attributed the origin of the conflict to objections to Jesus’ teachings and behaviour (e.g., exorcism, healings, and conversing with tax collectors) by the scribal elite. Keith suggests that Jesus’ teachings and praxis were all contributors to the conflict’s escalation, but they do not sufficiently explain the conflict’s origin. Suggesting that the conflict arose over difference in teaching assumes that the scribal elite regarded Jesus as a peer. This, according to Keith, neglects the issue of Jesus’ social status. Keith explains that teaching Scripture was reserved for a specific social class (i.e., the scribal elite). When Jesus taught in public, those of the scribal elite would engage with him in discourse in order to reprimand him. This, however, caused Jesus to be seen in dialogue with the scribal elite and therefore to be perceived as a scribal elite by others in lower social classes. While some traditions in the Gospels associate Jesus with an illiterate social class (e.g., Mk 6:3), some traditions portray him as a scribal elite (e.g., Lk 4:14-20). Keith uses advancements in ‘memory approach’ to evaluate which of the two traditions might be more accurate. Keith concludes that the tradition of Jesus belonging to an illiterate social class is more accurate, since it is more likely that the church moved from a perception of Jesus as illiterate to literate, rather than vice versa. Therefore, in spite of certain canonical descriptions, Keith argues that Jesus was not of the scribal elite class and attracted the attention of the authorities when he publicly participated in behaviour reserved only for another social class.
Keith argues his thesis clearly, and he convincingly demonstrates the benefits of the emerging methodology of memory approach. This book will be a model for others who wish to implement memory approach to other issues of historical Jesus research.