In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

18. Will the Reader Understand? Apocalypse as Veil or Vision in Recent Historical-Jesus Studies Edith M. Humphrey Jesus . . . because of a prophetic-visionary experience [was] . . . convinced . . . that Satan's power was broken.1 He ... sought [the] transformation [of his social world] in accord with an alternate vision.2 So a social vision marks the difference between the Jesus people and the Cynics. . . . The Jesus people promoted a vision for social experimentation as an alternative to the status quo.3 So now you're ready to live by my vision and join me in my program?4 1. Introduction Prophetic-visionary experience, transformation, alternate vision, stance, social vision, program—the evocation of different scenarios in the samples above makes it clear that the word "vision" numbers among the ranks of theological "slippery words" such as "myth" and "eschatology."5 Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Marcus Borg, Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, along with a host of other Jesus scholars, see in the figure of Jesus something distinct enough to warrant "visionary" language. But here the agreement ends. "Vision" runs the full gamut from outright mystical experience, the aspirations of a social dreamer, to a simple alternate stance in life. And, in the case of Crossan's famous last quotation, a social outlook is nourished imaginatively by drawing upon the evocative power of that elusive word "vision" in a quasi-evangelistic appeal. The phenomenon of similar words used with subtly and sometimes radically different meanings is indicative of the general situation in historical-Jesus research. The research in our decade seems less a discussion or a dispute than a set of separate conversations which bypass each other. The typical lack of communication is parodied by Tom Wright6 when Crossan's hypostatized tome, 1 Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 114, 2 Marcus J. Borg, Jesus, a New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 16. 3 Burton L. Mack, "Q and a Cynic-Like Jesus," 35 (in this volume). 4 John Dominic Crossan, Jesus:A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), xiv. 5 G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 241-44. 6 N. T. Wright, "Taking the Text with Her Pleasure: A Post-Post-Modernist Response to J. Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," Theology 96 (1993): 303-309. 216 Whose Historical Jesus ? "Michelle" (i.e., The Historical Jesus), is approached by her admiring but critical reader (Wright himself). Part of the fun of this unorthodox response to Crossan is in the unlikely detente at the end of "Michelle's" inner turmoil: "They (Michelle, and Wright as reader) gazed at each other with unspoken questions and answers. . . . Ask me again, she said with her eyes. He asked her again, and now she found her voice. Yes, she said. Yes. Yes." As yet, however, there is no new covenant between differing approaches to the quest of the historical Jesus, and the vision of Wright's aged Alexandrian librarian has come to pass: "But I will tell you how it will be in the last days. There will be no agreement."7 And for the most part, there is also little or no discussion between those who dissent. The reasons for this "ships in the night" phenomenon are complex. A foundational issue, however, which obstinately refuses to provide common ground is the varied understanding and evaluation of "apocalyptic" in relationship to Jesus and the gospels. While there is common agreement with Kasemann that apocalyptic was the mother of Christian theology, there is little consensus as to whether that mother is a legitimate spouse or even descendant of the founder-figure. Do apocalyptic themes and ideas do violence to the original view, words or teachings of Jesus, or did Jesus share this imaginative world-view—and are such complexes in continuity with his aims? A further barrier to concord is less frequently acknowledged: this is the definition or undertanding of the term "apocalyptic" itself. At first blush, the statements of Paula Fredriksen ("Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher"8 ) and Burton Mack ("Jesus does not appear to have engaged in such fantasy"9 ) appear to be polar opposites. The actual denotation and attendant connotations of "apocalyptic" need to be explored, however, before such views can be assessed in relationship to each other. Finally, the amount of passion that has surrounded recent scholarly discussions about...

Share