Abstract
Paul says that he “knows the mind of Jesus.” And this study seeks the same goal, but one that focuses on Jesus' socialization into the cultural world of the House of Israel. We will consider the Gospel of Luke from the perspective of several social science models. We can learn much about Jesus when we consider him (1) as a group-oriented person; (2) as “socialized” to know about Israel's cultural world; (3) as a participant in Israel's purity system. (4) when we employ native rhetorical genres which instruct a speaker/writer to look for certain things, such as chreiai, which demonstrate the superior wit and wisdom of a recognized wise man, and two of the encomium's topics, “Nurture and Training” and “Accomplishments”; (5) when we evaluate the recovered materials in terms of the social-science concepts of “norms,” “customs,” and “laws”; and (6) when we consider the treatment of Jesus' paideia in Hebrews. Thus we recover and evaluate the materials concerning Jesus' socialization of the laws and traditions of Israel.
It is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength [1 Cor 1:17–25].
We, too, seek to know “the mind of Jesus,” but as recoverable by the use of social science concepts and models. Our focus is neither paraenetic (Phil 2:5) nor rhetorical (1 Cor 1:17–25). We want to learn what Jesus himself “learned.” “His mind” is accessible only from the gospel reports; yet we are not interested in all that Jesus knew. Two scholars have recently made a thorough inventory of all that Luke knew (Robbins 1991) and the literary education of Paul (Neyrey 2003). We are not, however, seeking to replicate such a project in regard to Jesus. Both Luke and Paul were formally educated, not so Jesus.
We seek to know “the mind of Jesus” in regard to his understanding of the will of God, of Torah, and the interpretation of certain “traditions.” “Since he was not educated,” how did he come to know anything? We will argue that Jesus was “socialized” into this knowledge and piety. Was he taught it (teacher-disciple relationship)? Was he in general “socialized” into it (family and kin)?
If one asks whether Jesus was “taught,” we would investigate who his teachers were, what he was taught, when, where, and how he was taught. Crowds asked the same question: “How does this man have learning, since he is without education?” (John 7:15). Jesus was not taught, as was Paul who was “educated strictly according to our ancestral law, by Rabbi Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3). Although Jesus himself says, “All will be taught by God” (John 6:45), this subtext of the homily in John 6 (Borgen) is immediately qualified by a typical Johannine claim of special knowledge: “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:46). Yes, God would teach all, proof of which is allegiance to Jesus as sent from God: “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. Anyone who does the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own” (John 7:16–17). This, however, does not account for the breadth and depth of his general knowledge of Israel's world. Paul also knows this: “You have been taught by God (theodidaktoi) to love one another” (1 Thess 4:9),” but he says this only in regard to behavior, not teaching. Paul himself protests that he was not taught by the apostles (“… the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal 1:11–12). But everyone knows that Paul was taught many, many things by others, such as “I handed on to you what I had received” (1 Cor 15:3; cf 11:23; 7:10; 1 Thess 4:13–17).
According to the canons of an encomium, Luke mentions how precocious Jesus was. “They found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers” (2:46–47). This typical cause for praise (in the case of Josephus, see Neyrey 1994), effectively rejects that Jesus was “taught” like his interlocutors, but was precocious as a boy who had no schooling. Moreover, all the Gospels deny that Jesus was ever the disciple of a Rabbi or that he was taught anything in a school setting. Yet all call him “Rabbi” or “Teacher”—without a PhD. Jesus, then, was known to be un-taught, just as the Jerusalem elite judged that Peter and John were “uneducated and ordinary men” (Acts 4:13), that is, un-schooled—not stupid or dumb (van Unnik). Students never surpassed their teachers, at best equalled them (Matt 10:24–25).
Paul's claim to be “taught by God” might find a parallel in Jesus' theophany at the Jordan. A heavenly voice addressed Jesus: “You are my beloved son” (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22), but we are not told what was meant by this. Again, a voice from the cloud instructed the disciples to “listen to him” (Mark 9:7), presumably referring to what he had just said to the disciples, which upset them (Mark 8:31, 33). While it may be an attractive path to follow, we will not learn much when we ask who taught Jesus and what he was taught. God's revelation accounts for some data, but hardly the ordinary stuff Jesus knew about his world.
But when ask whether “Jesus was socialized,” we go in a different direction. “Socialization” is the academic term for all that an individual learns from many various agents, for the purpose of equipping him to function in a specific culture. It may include “education” (teacher-disciple relationship) when appropriate, but would be complete even if one “never studied” and was considered a “common, uneducated” person. “Socialization” refers to very general knowledge of many various, common and typical things that make up a cultural world. It refers to what “everybody knows” in that world, their “high context” understanding of the world. Socialization includes tips on social skills, whom to trust or avoid, maxims to channel behavior, and narratives on which to depict the large canvas of one's world and one's place in life, in short, all one needs to function successfully. This is the direction to which we turn in regard Jesus of Nazareth.
How to Conduct this Inquiry?
What does “socialization” mean in regard to Jesus of Nazareth? To what was Jesus socialized? We can make a very crude inventory of what Jesus knew in general, what he learned, and how he learned it. But this would necessarily reflect the idiosyncratic choices by and subsequent arrangement of its contents by the investigator, unless some organizing model or grid is used. Rather, we will conduct this inquiry into Jesus' socialization according to models or concepts from the social sciences and native rhetorical genres.
First, we must determine what kind of person Jesus was, whether an individualist (i.e., modern) or a group-oriented one.
Second, we want to know about his “symbolic world,” how he and all other Israelites conceived the world to be classified, which is the matter of a “purity system.”
Third, we are privileged to have native instructions on just how to collect and evaluate significant information on a person, the genres of chreia and encomium, taught in the ubiquitous progymnasmata. In the encomium, students search for the “nurture and training” of the person to be praised and then to dramatize the “deeds of the soul” accomplished by him, whereas chreiai display a person's wit and wisdom.
Fourth, available to modern scholars is Edward Hall's model of “high culture” and “low culture,” which permits inquirers to gather information on what all know, even if it is never said that they know it (Hall 1976: 85–103). Considering “nurture and training” once more, we can examine how formally and seriously Jesus and his critics accepted Torah by assessing it in terms of the social-science understanding of “norms, customs, and laws.”
Finally, inasmuch as “nurture and training” are the equivalent of paideia, was there any interest in this elsewhere in the New Testament? Of this full agenda, we choose to take up the questions of Jesus' modal personality, the rhetorical instructions for finding and assessing his “nurture and training,” and his “accomplishments.” We need to use technical notions of the norms, customs, and laws of his culture, to assess Jesus' practical understanding of Torah. Finally, it will greatly confirm our study if we compare this paideia with that described in Hebrews 2–5, 12. At this point, we may have sufficient data to “know the mind of Jesus.”
What does “Socialization” mean?
Socialization is the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society, and it refers to
the kinds of social learning that lead the individual to acquire the personal and group loyalties, the knowledge, skills, feelings, and desires that are regarded as appropriate to a person of his age, sex, and particular social status, especially as these have relevance for adult role performances [Clausen: 7].
Socialization once focused on the training of infants and children, but has matured to consider development in adult human persons. As Paul said, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways” (1 Cor 13:11). Socialization, therefore, equips individuals in such a way that they can perform their duties in their society.
The primary agents of socialization are found at home, that is, the (extended) family in which one learns what is or is not accepted in society, social norms, and cultural practices that eventually one is likely to take up. Through secondary agents, who are found outside the home, children and adults learn how to act in a way that is appropriate for the situations they are in and as members of a group within the larger society. The contents of socialization may be as broad as the sky and as deep as the ocean. Whatever individual persons learn or come to know in the course of their lives belongs here. But all individuals are limited by the particular constraints placed on them by specific people, living in specific places, at specific times, and who are themselves enculturated with a specific understanding of the world in which they live their lives. Just so with “the mind of Jesus.”
Group-oriented Persons: What others know about them and so what they know
We accept as proven that there is/was such a phenomenon as a “group-oriented” person, which serves as an accurate assessment of Jesus and others in his world. Although we do not need to repeat that here (Malina & Neyrey 1991: 67–96), a summary will prove useful.
Group-oriented persons internalize and make their own what others say, do, and think about them because they believe it is necessary, if they are to be human beings, to live out the expectations of others. They need to test this interrelatedness, moving the focus of attention away from their own egos and toward the demands and expectations of others … this means that the individual person makes sense of everything on the basis of reasons, values, symbols, and modes of assessment typical of the group” [Malina: 73–74, italics added].
Thus are group-oriented persons socialized. Therefore, a person socialized as a 1st-century Israelite would know what an observant individual was expected to know and do, with performance being more important than knowing the reasons for something. An individual would be socialized to know where he fits in society in terms of status and role, and what was expected of such persons. Group-oriented persons like Jesus, then, are hardly expected to be original or idiosyncratic in ideas or behavior; they are basically products of their culture.
Group-Oriented Persons, Progymnasmata, Chreiai, Encomia, and Accomplishments
Would-be civic leaders and litterati were all schooled by means of progymnasmata, a series of 12 or 14 distinct genres, by means of which they learned how to write and speak with substance and in familiar modes. The progymnasmata were “a series of set exercises of increasing difficulty … the source of facility in written and oral expression for many persons and training in speech in public life” (Kennedy: ix). Of the dozen or so specific exercises, we settle on the two genres most likely to produce the materials whereby a person was admired, namely, chreiai and encomium. The encomium instructs a writer to consider two related areas: “nurture and training” and “accomplishments. Thus, two genres (chreiai and encomium), but two items in an encomium “nurture and training” and “accomplishments”). These are particularly important because they provide a native's instruction on what to say about a person's “mind,” that is, his wisdom, paideia, and virtue. As such, they provide immediate access to what constitutes a group-oriented person's major characteristics.
Since our interest lies in the socialization of Jesus to be a first-century member of the House of Israel, we process what Jesus learned and knew according to our rhetorical genres. Even if Jesus himself did not know the rhetorical conventions of chreia and “nurture and training” and “accomplishments,” Luke used them to catch and organize data about his “mind.” Each genre, moreover, came with specific rules for its use, utilizing group-oriented categories or stereotypes to find materials for praising someone. Rules for an encomium came with formal directions to search for praise in a person's origins and birth, nurture and training, and virtues displayed, of which we will focus on “nurture and training” and “accomplishments,” that is, “virtues.”
Chreiai, on the other hand, portray a contest between renowned intellectuals and their challengers, a combat over the extent and breadth of a wise man's knowledge. Challenger and defender vie for the honor of being the wittiest and wisest. There is, moreover, considerable overlap between chreiai and an encomium in that both have to do with the training, learning and wisdom of a prominent person, namely his “arts, skills and laws” and how his wisdom is attested to. Two native genres (chreiai and encomium), then, help us to make a proper selection of data from Luke's Gospel, both of which focus on Jesus' knowledge of the Law and his acumen in interpreting and defending it. Knowing the extent of his socialization, we have some data to describe his “mind.”
Chreiai and Luke's Portrait of Jesus
Since chreiai narrate the success of a wise man in defense of his learning, they are excellent places to discover Jesus' socialization and so his learning about major matters of his culture. The chreiai in Luke are narrative dramatizations of Jesus' controversies with the Pharisees, Lawyers, and Scribes over Torah. A mere list of these controversies lacks adequate interpretation. We need to know from writers who are roughly contemporary with Jesus, the typical rhetorical form in which to cast the controversies about significant topics of debate. Chreiai are brief exchanges whose purpose was to celebrate the wit and wisdom of a famous person (Hock & O'Neill). Generally they contain an aggressive remark or a question addressed to a person renowned for wisdom, to which the famous person must respond. All questions, moreover, contest the explicit and implicit opinions of the supposed wise man who is questioned (Neyrey 1998). Chreiai, then, are public contests which “depict philosophers in typical situations, such as responding to critics and debating with one another”(Hock & O'Neill: 29). Because they function to display the wit and wisdom of a prominent person, they honor the demonstrated superiority of his cleverness and knowledge. We take as proven that the gospel reports the wit and wisdom of Jesus by way of the literary genre chreia (Robbins 1984; 1988a). By casting Jesus' controversies as chreiai, the evangelists showcase Jesus as a wise and knowledgeable person who performs as “best in show.”
In the Gospels, chreiai/controversies provide easy access to the “mind” of Jesus as a “teacher come from God.” His opponents contest all his sayings and actions that oppose what they are saying, thus calling into question the authority and orthodoxy of Jesus' “nurture and training.” How should his audience evaluate his acumen for interpreting “the Law,” the “tradition of the elders,” and halachic injunctions if he was never schooled or is easily contradicted by the local experts? It is the nature of chreiai that they revolve around matters of intellectual depth, matters that are contested. Although they were generally cast in a question-answer format, we know that “questions” were rarely requests for information, but served as hostile weapons (Neyrey 1998). Thus, by attending to the venom with which the questions are asked, we can appreciate how high the stakes were in these contests. In the Gospels, the challengers' questions are frequently introduced with provocative intent, using terms such as: “to argue with persistence for a point of view ” (suzēteō, Mark 9:14); “to entrap” (ekpeirazō, Lk 10:25); “to set a snare for” (pagideuō, Matt 22:15); “to lie in wait for” (enedreuō, Luke 11:54); “to question closely” (apostomtiō, Luke 11:53); or simply “to question” (eperōtaō, Luke 20:40). This suggests a contest to the death. Here, there are only winners or losers; Jesus needs falter but once. By portraying Jesus standing up to “professional” criticisms and eventually besting his critics over and over again, the evangelists confirm the presentation of him as appropriately socialized, even if not “schooled.” Jesus' clever and smart responses attest to his “nurture and training” as a wise and learned person.
What follows is a catalogue of the controversies between Jesus and his opponents, all of which all turn upon how the Law, “traditions” about the Law, and even Scripture are to be understood.
On the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Is not this Joseph's son?” He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your home town the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum’ ” (Luke 4:22–23)
Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Luke 5:17–26)
Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners? (Luke 5:27–32)
Why do John's disciples fast and those of the Pharisees, but your disciples do not fast? (Luke 5:33–39)
Why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1–5)
They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him Luke 6:6–11)
He has Beelzebul, by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons (Luke 11:14–23)
Others, to test him, kept demanding from him a sign from heaven (Luke 11:16)
The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash before dinner. Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (Luke 11:38–41)
Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? (Mark 9:9–13)
Some Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:2–9)
Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 18:18–30)
By what authority do you doing these things? Who gave you authority? (Luke 20:1–8)
Teacher, we know that you are right in what you say and teach, and you show deference to no one, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? (Luke 20:20–26)
In the resurrection whose wife will she be? (Luke 20:27–40)
Which commandment is the first of all? (Luke 10:25–28)
How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? (Mark 12:35–37)
We need to process these data in terms of the logic of chreiai to be clear about the topics of the challenges, their implications in regard to Jesus' “nurture and training,” and the substance of Jesus' defense and/or refutation.
Jesus' responses certify that he is familiar with the Law and halachah. Although “unschooled,” he is not ignorant of the Scriptures and the ways in which it has been interpreted. Presented as chreiai, Jesus' responses attest to his considerable, nay superior, wit and wisdom. Chreiai, therefore, offer access to the “mind of Jesus,” insofar as they testify to his socialization on these matters. Although they are the evangelists' composition, they bear some relationship to what Jesus said and did.
Encomium and Luke's Presentation of Jesus
Progymnastic teachers instructed students to find data for praise in various conventional areas, which native directions require knowing certain materials (drawn from Darton; and Louw & Nida). Thus to know a group-oriented person, rhetorical teachers considered the following stereotypical categories of information to be sufficient and valuable: origins, ancestors, nurture and training, deeds of the soul, noble death. Since the full use of the encomium genre has been studied in regard to Matthew, John and Paul (Malina & Neyrey 1996; Neyrey 1999; Neyrey 2007), we focus here on only two categories, “nurture and training” and “accomplishments.”
Among the ancients, the topic in the encomium labeled “Nurture and Training” was generally known as paideia. All extant texts instruct the student to inquire about a person's teachers, “what arts and skills this person learned, and what “laws” he knew and observed.” Because we are concerned with “socialization,” we naturally want to inquire about Jesus' “nurture and training” apart from formal schooling. The ancients themselves not only used the code world paideia, but enumerated its various species (drawn from Darton; and Nida & Lowe).
technē: skill, trade; what one learns professionally: “He was of the same trade, he stayed with them … by trade they were tentmakers” (Acts 18:3);
nomos: custom, rule, principle, norm
Any legal system: “One who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent” (Heb 7:16); “Do you not know—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during that person's lifetime?” (Rom 7:1–4 italics added).
Moses' system: “ When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses” (Luke 2:22); “If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I healed a man's whole body on the Sabbath?” (John 7:23; see Acts 15:5 and Eph 2:15).
agōgē conduct of life: “my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness”(2 Tim 3:10)
ēthos: custom or tradition: “He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom” (Luke 4:16).
Although the Gospels say that Jesus was the son of “Joseph, ‘the carpenter’” (Matt 13:55), he himself is never called such. But since sons were socialized to follow the trade of their fathers, we presume that Jesus learned to earn a living by practicing this inherited trade. Jesus, moreover, claims to know much about the nomos of Israel, which is contested by his opponents. Although the term agōgē is never used of Jesus, it seems to mean the same thing as the “Way” of Jesus. Finally, Jesus indeed had the eitha/custom of attending synagogue on the Sabbath. The technical terms “skills, arts and laws” are not part of the vocabulary of the Gospels, but there is no doubt that the contents of each is reflected in narrative parts of the story, as we shall shortly see. Accomplished authors simply did not display their schooling by using classroom jargon.
In the previous section on chreiai, we examined the rules, traditions and law that Jesus knew. His acumen was indeed contested, but he validated his “nurture and training” by defending it in public against foes claiming to be society's rule-makers and rule-enforcers. Precisely in those controversies we find the breadth and depth of the “nurture and training” to which he was socialized.
“Achievements” (Virtues) in Luke's Encomium
After finding praise for someone because of his “Nurture and Training,” the rules for the encomium instruct a writer to talk about the “accomplishments” of a person, (epitedeumata, what one does with consistency or habit), which they called “deeds of the soul,” i.e., his virtues. “We are interested only in” the good qualities of a virtuous character … that he is prudent, self-controlled, courageous, just, pious, free, magnanimous, and such things as these” (Theon 9.110; Kennedy: 50). In practice, these constitute the four cardinal virtues, of which we focus on “justice” for the following reasons. The meaning of “justice,” which remained constant over time, emphasized duties and compliance to them:
To justice [dikaiosynê] it belongs to be ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws, and to tell the truth when interest is at stake, and to keep agreements. First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed” [Aristotle,Virtues and Vices, V. 2–3; see Herr. 3.3.4].
We have seen how Jesus is attested as “keeping ancestral customs,” and he tells the truth when challenged, for he does not equivocate nor is he a hypocrite; and he knows clearly his duties to God, which he keeps. Jesus, then, was portrayed as virtuous, that is, demonstrating the virtue of “justice.”
This points us in the direction of a virtue consequent to “justice,” namely “obedience.” The semantic word field for order/command and obedience is quite extensive, an index of its cultural importance:
Order:
give order, command, instruct, insist, charge, direct, prescribe-proscribe;
orders, commands, regulations, ordinances, precepts, decrees, edicts, rules
Obey:
obey, submit to, be subject to;
obedience, submission.
To this list we might add terms such as faithfulness and loyalty (pistos, pistis), as well as Luke's own particular ways of expressing these: God's will (thelema—Luke 11:2; 22:42; God's plan (boule)—Luke 7:20; and “must” (dei)—Luke 2:49; 4:43; 9:22; 11:42, etc. This for Luke is a formal and significant topic for narrative dramatization.
Jesus' family was “just” or faithful because they obeyed the Scriptures as regard circumcision (2:21), dedication of the first-born (2:22– 24), and annual celebration of Passover (2:41). Jesus was “just” because he attended synagogue “as was his custom” (4:16, 33); he was loyal to God when tested on the mountain (4:1–12); he always seemed to know “the will of God” in his regard (9:22; 17:25 and 22:42); and he died faithful to God (23:46). Obviously he performed his duty to God by keeping the “norms, customs, and laws” of Israel. There is no doubt that Luke portrays Jesus as a group-oriented person, wise in the “nurture and training” of Israel, zealous for the “things of God,” and exemplary in justice because he was obedient and faithful to God. Being un-schooled, he learned the virtue of justice and obedience, as well as the substance of God's norms, customs, and laws as he was socialized into the world of Israel.
“Nurture and Training” Acutely Examined
When we examined the controversies in terms of the genre of chreiai, we proposed a list of them, which presented the controversial issues themselves, the threat to Jesus' honor, and his enlightened response. We continue to examine them, so as to determine how seriously Jesus understood them, as well as the perspective of his critics. Did it matter? How much? One way of doing this is to employ a concept from sociology aimed at distinguishing “norms, customs, and laws.” This academic vocabulary of “norm, custom, and law” needs explanation for its successful use. Norms are patterned rules of behavior. Let us take, for example, the norms on how males treat females, how children treat parents, and the like. Norms form one of society's two basic institutions, the “family”—the polis/state being the other. In time, rules mature into customs; they, too, are bodies or sets or collections of norms. The distinction between norms and customs lies in the general acceptance of certain customs, but now with sanctions to enforce compliance. Some social group puts teeth into the norms-become-customs to ensure that they are observed. Laws, moreover, are customs sanctioned by some other institution (generally “politics”). Somebody passes a law that children should act toward their parents in thus-and-such a way. This already existing “custom” is henceforth sanctioned by a higher institution to enforce compliance and sanction non-compliance, i.e., penalties ensue (Malina: 154–57). It matters if Jesus and his adversaries disagreed over the status of certain contested materials. Were the controversies over laws, or customs, or mere norms. At stake also is the authority of a rule-maker/enforcer to declare and to sanction rules and customs, as well as the resistence to these classification by ordinary peasants (Malina & Neyrey 1988).
Perhaps a specific example of this material can make it clear for us. Consider the controversy over “Honor your father and your mother” in Mark 7:9–13; Although Luke knows the commandment (18:20), he does not record the controversy. The incident begins with criticism of the disciples of Jesus for not keeping customs which are not really customs, but only norms:
They noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles” (Mark 7:2–4)
Jesus' criticism of them centers on his critics' elevation of norms into customs, which are called “traditions.” The issue moves from the abstract to the concrete. Yes, there is a formal law, “Honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Mark 10:19), which all know; it is the only law with rewards and sanctions (death, Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). In reverse direction, this law stands at the head of duties which adult Israelites have toward others, signally its importance. What “honor your father and mother” means was apparently determined by time and circumstances, but which were clearly understood according to customary ways of honoring aging parents. These customs, moreover, are codifications of village, tribal, and clan norms. Thus adult children were socialized to “honor” parents as they age and provide humane assistance according to commonly accepted norms in the institution of kinship/family.
Yet from the start, all knew what “honoring” adult parents meant, common understandings which were understood as a grouping norms. Yet, village life became more complex, so that these norms had to be spelled out to cover the common needs of adult parents and codify what were already general expectations of honorable behavior of their children: they became customs. Thus popular customs put flesh on the law and introduced sanctions: “long life” for compliance, but “death” for failure. But the rule-makers allowed an apparent exception to the custom, when they permitted the practice of “Corban”: “But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is ‘Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on” (Mark 7:11–13; Fitzmyer 93–100). The Law is relaxed sufficiently to accommodate a convenient change in custom by accepting “Corban” as a norm not included in the custom of adult care for parents. This exception, moreover, is approved by the rule-makers and rule-enforcers. In Jesus' criticism, they “make void the word of God through your tradition.” Some “traditions” relax what was customary, thus undermining the law. In doing so, law-makers and law-enforcers dismiss sanctions for ensuring the keeping of the Law. Thinking such as this allows “traditions” to trump “law.” This example clearly demonstrates the importance of using norms, customs and laws in assessing their importance, completeness and recognition (Malina 2001 155). These are the lenses through which we now seek to assess Jesus' words and actions. This model allows us to investigate how seriously Jesus and his opponents evaluated the controverted materials. What was at stake?
We know “the mind of Jesus” in that we accept that he knew the Law, that is, the Ten Words or the Two Tablets. He himself spoke to a ruler the Words of the 2nd Tablet, the duties of Israelite males (Luke 18:20). Jesus forced a Scribe putting him to the test to answer his own question with the Words of the 1st Tablet, “Love God and love neighbor” (Luke 10:27). Jesus, we saw, formally knows the Word about “Honoring Parents”; he knows, as well, “Keep the Sabbath,” although it is only implied in many controversies. In the “Antitheses” (Matt 5:21–36) he demonstrates that he knows most of the other Words in the 2nd Tablet. Thus, he knows Israel's Laws. In controversy with the rule-makers, he shows that he understands as well traditions which relax customs, thus avoiding sanctions. Un-schooled, but not ignorant.
It would appear that Jesus had a native's appreciation of the fragile authority of the rule-makers and rule enforces; for the crowds celebrated his “authority” as superior to that of the rule-makers (Luke 4:32, 36). Presumably villagers knew the patterned rules of behavior urged by the Pharisees and Scribes, but there seemed to be space where Jesus could step between those norms and customs. While all appeared to know the Ten Words in the abstract, the actual observance of them was elastic. Who “made” these rules? More specifically, who says exactly what must or must not be done on the Sabbath? Who determined “fast days” to be observed and how so? Or, “washing rites?” Did the Israelite peers of Jesus in Galilee agree with the articulation of Sabbath observance proposed by the Pharisees? And did anyone attempt to enforce a specific interpretation? It is hard to determine how rigorously the peasants accepted the “customs” told them. We have, however, only to remember the crowd's reaction when Jesus responded to one critic of his Sabbath observance with down-home examples of exceptions to the customs, such as drawing an animal from a pit on Sabbath (Matt 12:11) or untying an ox or ass and leading it to water (Luke 13:15). The observing crowds applauded Jesus: “When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing” (Luke 13:17). It would appear that Jesus, who was well aware of “rules,” did not accept them as “customs.”
The following classification of conflicts over specific issues of “norm” and “custom” makes clear that Jesus indeed knew the “norm,” but did not always consider it a “custom.”
keeping the Sabbath
He keeps the Sabbath on his first day in town (Luke 4:31); he does not keep the Pharisees' interpretation of Sabbath observance;
his disciples pluck grain on the Sabbath; he heals on the Sabbath.
observing fast days
He does not keep fasting traditions (Luke 5:33); but he himself fasts at Passover (Luke 22:18)
concern over purity matters
He touches “unclean” persons: menstruants, dead bodies, lepers; etc.
he puts spittle on tongue, eyes and ears;
he does not wash hands before eating, nor purify vessels;
he does not distance himself from tax collectors, non-observants and gentiles.
intensifying the law
He states a stronger keeping of the Law (Matt 5:26–38);
he dismisses Moses' divorce customs with appeal to God's Word (Mark 10:1–12).
When Jesus does not accept the classification of this or that custom, he downgrades its status to that of a rule, and by this he eliminated any sanction. Even with the law, he contests the exact interpretation of what keeping or not-keeping means. Despite his contrary remark in Matt 5:17–20, he “relaxes” the classification of customs and laws. Finally, he takes the offensive in criticizing many of their customs by calling attention to the hypocrisy in the Pharisees' teaching (Matt 23:1–39).
Sanctions
It is doubtful that Pharisees or anyone else could sanction a customs violator (yet see Acts 17:4–9). Do we even know of a single instance where they could impose a fine, bring a “sinner” before a magistrate, or in some way punish violations and enforce conformity? What was possible in regard to the Temple, was not so in villages miles away. It is a fact, however, that twenty-or-so times in Luke's narrative the Pharisees, Lawyers, or Scribes ask Jesus hostile questions which function as censures of his non-compliance with their “customs.” These “questions” serve as hostile attacks on Jesus, uttered insistently and in public, whose purpose was to dishonor Jesus and thus discredit his words. If successful, they would belittle him and discredit his teaching, in short, banish him from the public stage.
But these “sanctions” have no teeth, for Jesus responds regularly in ways that “silence” them (Luke 14:4; see Mark 3:4). Jesus' response about paying a tax to Caesar reduced his questioners to silence (Luke 20:26). On one occasion, Jesus asks a counter-question which his audience refuses to answer: “‘Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?’ … They answered, ‘We do not know’” (Luke 20:1–8). Their “silence” or refusal to answer counts as defeat. These challenges or attempted sanctions do not do what they are intended to do; they do not defeat Jesus or discredit him. In summary, this means that Jesus' reduction of their “customs” to “norms” indicates his knowledge of the matters in controversy and the crowds' acceptance of his ways. He is not ignorant of the rules of the game.
As regards Jesus' socialization, we may fairly say:
He has knowledge of the norms, customs and laws of Israel;
He does not share the same interpretation of all of them, as do the self-proclaimed teachers of the Law, the Pharisees;
In fact, their very challenges, which aim to discredit him, serve only to dramatize how wise he is;
No one would argue that Jesus is an antinomian, that is, a person ignorant of or scornful of the norms or customs of his social world;
By besting his critics, he is confirmed in the eyes of all as very wise, if not the wisest man in Galilee.
Was Anyone Else Concerned about Jesus' paideia?
We consider that “nurture and training” are adequately expressed by the Greek concept of paideia. We appreciate, moreover, the fact that the Greco-Roman world consciously accepted paideia as its cultural ideal, which can be defined as “the act of providing guidance for responsible living, upbringing, training, instruction, in our [biblical] literature chiefly as it is attained by discipline, correction” (ABGD 2000: 748, italics added). The author of Hebrews was formally interested in Jesus' paideia, to which we now turn.
Paideia in Hebrews 12
This chapter contains a classical topos on paideia. All of God's sons, Jesus as well as his disciples, were schooled according to the discipline of the Lord. Of Jesus it is said: “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb 5:8; see Coste). And of the disciples of Jesus, the author quotes Proverbs 3:11–12, “My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts” (Heb 12:5–6 italics added). The distinctive Greek term for socialization, paideia, describes the honorable rearing of a true son by his honorable father: “What child is there whom a parent does not discipline? If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children” (Heb 12:7–8). God's paideia is honorable, just as was the paideia of a typical father toward his sons: “We had human parents to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not be even more willing to be subject to the Father? … For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness” (Heb 12:9–10). Moreover, “Discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Heb 12:11). The scope of this topos on paideia, however, is limited to Jesus' end-of-life experiences. This is a very narrow understanding of it, because it refers only to Jesus' final days. In the broad Greco-Roman world, paideia would include the following:
The rearing and education of the ideal member of the polis. It incorporated both practical, subject-based schooling and a focus upon the socialization of individuals within the aristocratic order of the polis. The practical aspects of this education included subjects subsumed under the modern designation of the liberal arts, as well as scientific disciplines like arithmetic and medicine. An ideal and successful member of the polis would possess intellectual, moral and physical refinement, so training in gymnastics and wrestling was valued for its effect on the body alongside the moral education which the Greeks believed was imparted by the study of music, poetry and philosophy. This approach to the rearing of a well-rounded Greek male was common to the Greek-speaking world, with the exception of Sparta [Wikipedia, ad loc.].
The choice of the word paideia indicates that the author of Hebrews was concerned with Jesus' “nurture and training,” as suggested in the encomium in the progymnasmata.
More Paideia, “like us in all things”
Hebrews also claims that Jesus was “like us in all things” (Heb 2:17 and 4:15), which is the unique insistence that Jesus, despite all statements about his being “seated at the right hand of the Father,” was like us. This claim is made with respect to a form of paideia articulated in Heb 12:3–11, namely, that Jesus himself experienced discipline-as-education to become “a merciful and faithful high priest” (2:17) … “so as to be able to sympathize with our weakness” (4:15). “Like us,” then, refers to Jesus' capacity to be treated as an honorable son, to his experiencing a genuine paideia, that is, obedience unto death.
But the understanding of paideia is again focused on the same end-of-life experience of Jesus, as was the case in Hebrews 12. Paideia does not speak to education in general, that is, to general socialization, but to the capacity of Jesus to die obediently. He will be “crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Heb 2:9). Here, the author borrows common wisdom on how to raise an honorable son commonly found in Israelite literature, such as Sirach 30:1–6 (cf. 42:5–8). “Discipline” in Sirach refers to the beginning-of-life experiences of children and boys, a very conventional topic appreciated by all. The author is employing the same common knowledge of how honorably to raise a son to focus on the “obedience” which Jesus learned in his death. Death, then, is the school of Jesus' being “like us,” as explained by these remarks:
It was fitting that God … should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.… Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death…. Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God…. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested [Heb 2:10–18 italics added].
What are we told here? Since “the children share ‘flesh and blood’” (i.e. mortality—they were born and they died), “he himself likewise shared the same things.” So like us refers specifically to “flesh and blood,” i.e., mortality, which Jesus shares with all people. In order to perform the role of “merciful and faithful high priest,” he must experience a distinctive paideia, himself being “tempted” as were his brothers and sisters. Therefore, “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are” (4:15). The author goes into greater detail concerning Jesus, “like us in all things,” when he says: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb 5:7–8, italics added). “Like us,” therefore, refers only to the obedient death which Jesus endured, not to a full course of human life which would be replete with various elements of human socialization. In conclusion, on the one hand we know that the New Testament was formally concerned with Jesus' paideia, but on the other, not in the full sense that we find described in the encomium. Paideia = mortality.
What do we know if we know all of this?
First, we know that Luke, as well as Matthew and John, gathered Jesus' sayings and deeds into the recognizable genres of chreiai and encomium. We know beyond doubt that these materials pertaining to his wisdom and praxis were being celebrated formally and in a rhetorical way. Both of these genres are windows into the “mind of Jesus.” We know, moreover, that Jesus was a typical group-oriented person, who at first seemed to fit in with the ideas and behaviors of his family, but who later was obedient to and faithful to the “the things of God.” He never stopped being a group-oriented person, but came to understand the priority of God: “Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” (Luke 2:49). Neither did his parents (“but they did not understand what he said to them”—Luke 2:50), nor did his disciples comprehend (“they understood nothing about all these things”—Luke 18:34) comprehended when he chided of them for not thinking the thoughts of God (Luke 18:34; Mark 8:32). Moreover, by considering Jesus' deeds, i.e., his virtues, we understand that in “justice” he fulfilled his duty to God; he was faithful and obedient, even unto death. This model of behavior is what Paul declared to be “the mind of Jesus,” namely, his obedience unto death, even unto death on a cross.”
Throughout this study, we have constantly insisted that Jesus was illiterate and un-schooled. Whatever he was taught, learned or came to know about his God and this God's relationship with Israel was the result of a common form of socialization. His paideia, moreover, was his socialization to learn obedience, which included knowledge of the common rules of raising a child in the formation of a merciful and faithful high priest.
As far as our sources allow us, we can know “the mind of Jesus” by examining the ways Jesus learned the “things of God,” his zeal for God's kingdom, and his wisdom in knowing the norms, customs and laws of Israel. We learned, in short, that Jesus of Nazareth was socialized to be a typical Israelite male of the first century. “Socialization,” therefore, is our access to his “mind,” not his formal education, which he did not have.
Dedication
Bruce J. Malina is responsible for my intellectual DNA. He patiently introduced me to seeing the gospel world in terms of its own culture, an education which lasted over forty years. This education had a beginning, but no end, for Bruce's imagination itself was constrained by no mountains, oceans or skies. He was a true intellectual who never stopped imagining and reading and teaching. Moreover, as a friend and teacher, he taught with patience and respect. I consider the articles and books I co-authored with him my most original work and enjoyed them immensely. I most admire him for his excellence and for the fact that his genius provoked so nasty a dismissal. Bruce J. Malina was to many of us a unique source of wisdom, more fertile than any graduate school could boast.