Were they ‘the marginalised’, ‘the outcast’, ‘the oppressed’
and so on? Were they people perceived to be breaking the Law or an
interpretation of the Law?
In Jewish literature from Hebrew Bible texts and through rabbinic
literature the range of meanings appear to be relatively stable in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek. We might say similar things about Christian Syriac
translations of the Bible. One view of the Gospel ‘sinners’ which should be
discounted, however, is one which should have long gone away: ‘the sinners’
as ‘the marginalised’, ‘the outcast’, ‘the
oppressed’ etc. with whom Jesus was prepared to mingle. There is a lot of
discussion about the socio-economic status of ‘sinners’ in Jewish literature
(Psalms, DSS, 1 Enoch, lots of rabbinic literature etc.) and the answer is
always clear: ‘sinners’ are perceived to be rich and oppressive. In this sense,
they can only be ‘marginalised’ in the same way as ‘the 1%’ are
marginalised today. What else? The usual uses
of ‘sinners’ have interrelated uses. They can be perceived to be beyond the Law
(or a group’s interpretation of the Law), beyond the covenant, and act as if
there is no God. ‘Sinners’ can therefore be synonymous with ‘Gentiles’, a usage
known also from Paul (Gal. 2.15).
What might this mean for the Gospel tradition? It is
possible to read all the main uses into the various Gospel passages, though
there is sometimes not enough contextual signs to be precise on a number of
occasions. Might Jesus’ association with sinners have provoked a reaction for
legal issues? Possibly. Passages like Mark 2.15-17 and parables of repentance-return
in Luke 15 (esp. the Prodigal Son) might point in this direction. The close
association of tax collectors and sinners would point to at least some
understandings of ‘sinners’ in terms of wealth and oppression.
But why the controversy in the Gospel? Perhaps, as Dunn suggested, there
may be a reflection of some sort of ‘sectarian’ dispute over interpretation of the Law. The suggestion
made by others (esp. influenced by Sanders) that the controversies were over
Jesus allowing a bypassing of the Temple for forgiveness is problematic not
only because of a lack of evidence but because Jesus is criticised for associating with 'sinners': ‘Why does he eat
with tax collectors and sinners?’ Or, in the words of Sirach, ‘Who pities a
snake charmer when he is bitten, or all those who go near wild animals? So no
one pities a person who associates with a sinner and becomes involved in
other’s sins’ (Sir. 12.13-14).
Largely based on Ezek. 33, some did look for the repentance-return
of sinners, although most texts we have are highly sceptical that this would
happen and imply something along the lines of Sirach 12. The Gospel tradition
appears to be part of a more optimistic approach. But maybe Sirach and others
were right to be sceptical. We don’t find much in the way of success stories in
the Gospel tradition (which we might expect if there were plenty of available stories) and
it is notable that one we do find—the story of Zacchaeus—is only attested in
Luke (who especially liked themes relating to ‘sinners’) and which may have
been written up in light of the lack of success. Perhaps this hope for the
repentance-return of ‘sinners’ failed to materialise and the reactions were more
predictably like that of the rich man of Mark 10.22. And even Zacchaeus only
gives up half his possessions (Luke 19.8)…
There is much more to say on this topic, including how it
relates to the ongoing survival of such traditions. All the answers can be found in Jesus and the Chaos of History (2015) which
has just been published in North America.
Thank you for this post, James. I wonder if your reading of sinners is helped or hurt by the use of oil (seemingly having monetary value) by the "sinner" referred to in Luke 7:
ReplyDelete"36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.”
Traditionally, Xty has associated this passage with Mary Magdalene who (thanks to Gregory 1) is incorrectly believed to be a prostitute. But what if her status as "sinner" is simply indicative of her non-Jewish status? Or what if her status of "sinner" is indicative of her wealth?
-anthony
Difficult to be sure why she is labelled so because of the lack of description in the passage. But we do know that in the similar passages of such anointing of Jesus, the oil is deemed something of great financial value. In this respect there may well be more evidence for her being labelled a sinner for associations with wealth rather than as a sex worker. The oil is of potential support (though I put it no stronger than that). The Gentile suggestion is certainly a possibility and given that this was a known use of "sinner" it gives it an advantage over the sex worker reading, at least in this respect. There may be other reasons for regarding the woman as a sex worker but I'm yet to be convinced.
DeleteJames
What about sick people, people with some chronic disease? Could they be considered "sinners"?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that they would have been. It might depend on how an audience viewed the relationship between sin and disease but more typically 'sinner' would be a polemical term for those types listed above which are much discussed in early Jewish uses of 'sinner'. I may be wrong but I don't think that there were connections made between disease and 'sinner' (Mark 2.17 is a more figurative use).
DeleteThank you fir your reply. Yes, that is figurative. However, I was thinking also about the following passages.
DeleteJohn 9:2 (question from Jesus’ disciples):“who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” and then John 9:34 (Jews/Pharisees to the blind man) “You were born entirely in sins”.
John 5:14 (Jesus after healing a man who had been ill for many years): “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore”
Then we have Mark 2:5 (paralytic healed by forgiving his sins).
Yes, it is examples such as these that made me suggest that it might depend on how an audience viewed the relationship between sin, illness, disease etc. But it does appear that 'the/a sinner(s)' is some kind of derogatory label/cliche which was not widely (if at all in the early Jewish texts we have on this subject...?) used in relation to disease and illness. I think the (Synoptic) Gospel texts are in line with the uses known in early Jewish sources. And, for what it is worth, it is one of those striking Johannine things that he does not have Jesus' association with 'sinners'. So, while 'the sinners' and language of sins are obviously connected, it might be worth thinking about them as distinct categories in relation to your question (if that makes sense).
DeleteThank you James, good points
DeleteWhat do you think about the correlation of "sinners" with "debtors", as found in Parables as Subversive Speech by Herzog II?
ReplyDeleteI haven't got Herzog's book at hand, annoyingly. If I remember rightly, he reads 'debtors' in economic terms...? One thing worth mentioning in this respect is that the language of 'debt'/'debtor' was an idiomatic Aramaic way of talking about 'sin' and 'sinners'.
DeleteAnd a debtor who owed 500 denarii was never poor. It wasn't possible for poor people to owe that much before the invention of subprime mortgages. Which all makes the "debtor" analogy look decidedly unsubversive, and more like Jesus's sympathies laid with the problems that rich people faced.
DeleteGood point
DeleteYes, he does read "debtors" in economic terms. But I guess his understanding goes beyond semantics. He argues that people who were unable to pay the temple taxes would be mystified as "enemies of Torah" and that Pharisees converted debt codes of the Torah into purity and pollution codes (p. 182). Therefore, Jesus sharing the table with "debtors" was questioned by Pharisees. He applies that on his interpretation of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector at the Temple, so not in all cases. Now, it is Oakman (The Political Aims of Jesus) who depends on the aramaic term (hovayin) to say that "sinners" are farmers or fishers in heavy debt (p. 98), so that Jesus' meals with "tax collectors" and "sinners" could have the purpose of reconcile the two parties. So he applies his understanding more broadly. I guess both, rich and poor, could be labeled as "sinners" for economic reasons, right?
DeleteTo a strict egalitarian or man of the people, a Marxist, just giving Jesus the too- exhaulted status of a christened Lord, might be a sin. In some theologies, Jesus did not say he was Christ much, to avoid vanity.
ReplyDeleteSupport for seeing Peter as a rich fisherman (Lk 5.8), not some poor Galilean?
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe Luke sees Peter as the especial example of a rich "sinner" among the followers grouped as "sinners and tax collectors" (5.30)?
Perhaps. The Peter example is the oddest in the Gospel, *if* we assume that he was a poor Galilean. There's no evidence that Luke thought he was a flagrant law breaker at this time (on the contrary, see Acts 10-11). I really don't know what to make of Peter as sinner but you're suggestion may be right. After all, Jesus does like to go for the rich dudes in the Gospel tradition and they do seem to have given up everything to following him which might imply that someone like Peter had at least something. But I speculate...
DeleteFortunately, I'm more concerned with the earlier tradition so I can, ahem, happily put this to one side as part of Luke's particular interest in 'sinners'