Sunday, July 29, 2018
ENDLESS FRUSTRATION
When we are in trouble, we look
for rational solutions. When life (our own or another’s) is in danger, we need
to look at all the possibilities for escape because if we leave anything out,
that might just be the thing that will save us. We simply cannot afford to be
irrational and remain stuck with only one way of looking at the mess we’re in.
That’s one of the things that
impressed me about the recent successful effort to save those soccer boys and
their coach from the cave in which they were trapped in Thailand. They
considered everything. Nothing was off the table. I was surprised at first that
they thought about waiting a couple of months until the rainy season was over.
That seemed farfetched. It’s too risky. Then I realized that it is the way the
rational mind works. Only by looking at all the possibilities could they
compare and contrast and figure out which approach would have the best chance
of success. They could not afford to be prejudiced against any possible
solution. That kind of shutdown of the mind is not helpful.
If we want to find the best
answers (those most likely to be true or to actually work), we have to have a
mind that is open to everything. Nothing can be ruled out in advance.
But in historical research,
especially in controversial areas, there is no sense of danger if we latch on to
an irrational answer. Historical problems are simply not urgent. It was
imperative that those soccer boys be saved. It is not a matter of life and
death if we promote the wrong answer to how Jesus ended up on a Roman cross. We
can live with irrational answers. We do it all the time.
Nobody really cares if an ancient
person like Judas is falsely accused of being a traitor. Academics are more
content if we promote the same old ideas over and over. What scholar opens his
mind to all the possibilities? Nobody wants that because it could, and likely
would, lead to a rational answer. Certain possibilities must be outlawed
forever. It is considered more important to uphold traditional ideas.
Everyone knows that the meeting
of Jewish leaders with Jesus does not fit what we know of Jewish trials of that
time. Wouldn’t that suggest that one possibility is that there was no Jewish
trial of Jesus? Instead of saying let’s consider this, what scholars do is try
to spin softer versions of the traditional story (which is very different from
the actual Gospel stories with all their interesting details). They try to make
it out to have been a softer version of a trial, so now they want to call it a
hearing. But the issue is whether a hostile judicial procedure of Jesus was
held. It does not matter what other label (trial, hearing) you pin on it. The
fact remains that the Gospel details do not support this. Why not at least
consider the possibility that there was no Jewish judicial procedure of any
kind? Why not consider the possibility that Jewish leaders held an informal
meeting to help Jesus and figure out a way to prevent his Roman execution?
Looking at these possibilities
would contribute to finding a rational answer. But that is exactly what most
historical Jesus scholars do not want. Nobody is trapped in a cave here. The
waters are not rising. Imminent danger of death is not what we are faced with, so we
can afford to be as irrational as we want and insist on answers that do not
respond to the actual evidence we have from the Gospels.
The same goes for Judas. The
Gospel stories do not give us the details we would expect in a story of
betrayal. There is no clear motive, there is no conflict between Jesus and
Judas, there is not even the use of the Greek word that means ‘to betray’. Could
one not conclude from all this that there was no betrayal? Why not experiment
with that possibility? Why not consider that maybe Judas was helping Jesus out in some way? Why can't that be put on the table? Because that would be the rational thing to do and that
is the last thing historical Jesus scholars want. I have said it many times before and will say it again: The scholarly motto is the less we see, the more we know.
The irony of all this is that
proving historical Jesus scholarship is an irrational field is not only not
helpful, it just causes scholars to dig their heels in deeper. The irrational
is exactly what we want, so go ahead and prove it to your heart’s content, the
real point is that nothing is ever going to change, which is just how we want
it. (Someone recently wrote that in America, you are permitted to search for
the truth as long as nothing changes.) I could entitle everything I have
written on the historical Jesus, all these posts and my two books, Endless Frustration.
Historical research will never be a life and death issue for anyone. We can
easily afford the irrational approach which is to automatically shut down
certain possible answers, and no one will suffer for it. Or so we convince
ourselves.
© 2018 Leon Zitzer
