8/3/2019 pesce3
1/2
Mauro Pesce and Adrianna Desto, Encounters with Jesus: The Man
in His Place and Time.
Fortress Press, 2011.
Chapter Three
Who were the sorts Jesus encountered and what influence did he
have on them? Those are thecore issues addressed in this chapter.
P. and D. are wise to insist that
it is impossible for us to really know the effects his preaching
had (p. 42).
From there, our writers discuss Jesus in his encounters with
John the Baptizer, followers, the 12,
relatives, friends, supporters, women, sinners, the sick, the
demonized, adversaries, the rich and
poor, and finally, the lost of Israel. And though that sounds
like rather a lot, P. and D. treat eachrelatively briefly (and some
more briefly than others) and yet quite thoroughly. Their
overarching point is, though, that Jesus preferred personal
encounter and spent his ministry
seeking exactly that.
Why thats his m.o. is the interesting bit. So, for example, why
did he adhere to the work of the
Baptizer?
Jesus wanted to experience an act of conversion, and that on
this occasion he
received a revelation and a supernatural consecration that
determined the course
of the rest of his life (p. 44).
Why the Baptizer though?
[Jesus] was attracted by a person who denounced his own world
and invited
people to change and renewal (p. 45).
And so throughout the chapter P. and D. show the impulse of
Jesus to have been engagement.One of the most interesting examples
of this engagement which at the same time created distance
is the reaction of Jesus to the arrival of his family as related
in Mark 3:20ff.
These blood relatives were not actually putting pressure on him,
but they claimed
the right to take charge of him, and he wanted to remove himself
from them (p.
59).
Its quite intriguing that Jesus wishes to withdraw from his
family while at the same time he
seems so intent on engaging others. Whats the dynamic underlying
this behavior? What went
on at home that drove Jesus to such displays ofindifference to
his own relatives? Our authorsdont answer that question because
they cant.
They do , though, oddly assert
8/3/2019 pesce3
2/2
it seems legitimate to suppose that James and the mother of
Jesus were
religious figures who enjoyed some measure of autonomy vis--vis
Jesus, notsimply persons who owed everything to his initiative and
to his life story (p. 62).
I dont buy that. Absent Jesus, the story of James or Mary have
no context and make no sense.
Nor, must I admit, do I buy their translation of Mark 10:25
which they render
it is easier for a hawser to pass through the eye of a needle
than for one who is
rich to enter the kingdom of God (p. 72).
I had to look hawser up too, so dont feel too oddly if you arent
familiar with it. Its a nautical
term for a large or heavy rope. Their textual foundation for
that reading is extraordinarily thin:
For the normal P. and D. adopt the far lesser likely f13 28.
579pc geo. The firstrule of textual criticism is that the more
difficult reading is to be preferred. It is far more likely
that camel would be changed to hawser than hawser to camel.
Further, the textual
evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the more difficult
reading. There is, in sum, no reason toadopt the inferior
reading.
In spite of these stumbles, P. and D. recover very nicely a few
pages on when they discuss Jesus
preference for direct encounters. In their view this preference
explains why Jesus didnt writeanything.
The written word interposes itself between the author and the
intended reader
Jesus, on the other hand, wanted to enter into a concrete and
unique exchange.
Jesus aimed at evoking a response and a decision that involved
the totality of a
persons existence, and that must be immediate. Only the spoken
word can
communicate how urgent it is to make this response, and can
elicit adherence ordissent (pp. 74-75).
This is quite true, isnt it, and it really does make perfect
sense. Tone of voice trumps text any
day.
On to the fourth chapter next, and looking forward to it very
much indeed.
Jim WestQuartz Hill School of Theology
