Short Stories By Jesus

It is not unusual to find the authors of commentaries on Jesus's parables spending a considerable amount of time reconstructing the original wording of the parables. Scholars often seek to accomplish this by comparing how a particular parable differs across gospels (at least for those parables that appear in multiple gospels), typically giving greater credence to earlier gospels (e.g., Mark) over later ones (e.g., Matthew) (e.g., see Bernard Brandon Scott's, Hear Then The Parable). Traces of this approach can also be found in the Jesus Seminar's quest for the authentic sayings of Jesus, in particular, in its attempts to separate the "red" from the "pink" sayings.

Such an approach has long struck me as wrongheaded. It implicitly assumes either that (1) Jesus only uttered a parable once, or (2) that each time he told them, he told them in exactly the same way. Either option strikes me as highly implausible, which is why Amy-Jill Levine's recent commentary on Jesus's parables (Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi) are a breath of fresh air:

When we turn to Jesus's parables, we do well to hear them as the people who first heard them, Jews in the Galilee and Judea, did and thus to recover as best as we can the original provocation. To do so requires several leaps of faith. The first leap concerns what Jesus himself said, for we do not know with certainty if Jesus actually told the parables recorded in the Gospels. Second, even if he did tell them, we know with certainty neither the composition of the audience nor their reaction. Third, it is unlikely, were he to have composed these parables, that he only used them on one occasion or told them exactly the same way each time (p. 10, emphasis added).

(You can see why I like her. She makes me feel smart!) Rather than devote endless pages to the parables' original wording, she begins each chapter with a "fairly literal translation of a short story by Jesus" (p. 23). She follows this by locating each parable in its historical and literary context and then offers her take on what the parable might have meant to its earliest listeners.

For those unfamiliar with Levine, she is a New Testament scholar who attends an Orthodox synagogue. She is one of a growing number of Jewish scholars who have turned their analytical skills to the New Testament, and have challenged numerous assumptions that New Testament scholars have held for years (e.g., see my post on Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin's analysis of the Gospels -- "A Jewish Christ"). Levine is probably best known for her book on the historical Jesus, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. As in that book, in Short Stories of Jesus, Levine challenges traditional interpretations that set Jesus over against what first century Jews supposedly believed:

Thus, the Prodigal Son teaches that God loves sinners, when "the Jews" thought God only loved the righteous and didn't give a damn about sinners. Such a reading should make no sense to anyone who has read in the scriptures of Israel the story of Adam and Eve, Cain and David, and indeed the nation of Israel... Jews knew that God cared about the sinful; were that not the case, there'd be no reason to send prophets to Israel, or Jonah to Ninevah. For other Christian readers ill-informed about early Judaism, the parable of the Yeast and the parable of the Mustard Seed become teachings that reject Jewish purity laws and even Jewish identity, as if Jews somehow eschewed baked bread and spices, and should therefore thank Jesus for allowing us to have a hot dog, on a bun, with mustard (p. 21).

But I've gone on far too long. Amy-Jill's book is wonderful. If you're interested in a "fresh" reading of Jesus's parables from one of the New Testament's top scholars, pick up her book. You won't be disappointed.

Why Marcus Mariota Better Hope He Falls Like Aaron Rodgers

Although Marcus Mariota is almost certainly disappointed about not winning the national championship, losing might help his draft prospects, but not in the way in which most people think. After the game, there was the predictable criticism of his performance (24 of 37 for 333 yards -- "terrible") and some (e.g., Mel Kiper, Trent Dilfer) have argued that he's not "NFL-ready" (then again, neither were Joe Montana nor Tom Brady). Mariota can only hope that NFL scouts think Kiper and Dilfer are right and that he falls far enough in the draft so that he's chosen by a team with a decent offensive line so that he doesn't get beaten to a pulp like Jimmy Plunkett did in his first few years playing for the New England Patriots.

In other words, he needs to fall in the draft like Aaron Rogers did. No doubt, Rogers's ego would have been massaged if the 49ers had drafted him instead of Alex Smith. But if they had, it's unlikely that Rogers would be as good as he is today. He would've spent his first few seasons on the run and landing on the injured reserve list far too often. Instead, he ended up playing behind a future Hall of Fame quarterback (Brett Favre) and for a great team. Marcus Mariota can only hope he is just as lucky. Chip Kelly, are you listening?

The Unsurprising Drop in San Jose's Murder Rate

In 2012 San Jose witnessed a spike in its murder rate, which many blamed on cuts in the SJ Police Department's budget. As I argued back then ("The 'Cause' of San Jose's Spike in Violence"), however, the spike was more likely due to the natural variance than any other "cause":

All types of phenomena, whether its home runs, traffic accidents, PhDs granted, cancer, and so on vary in number from year to year (and place to place). That is, the number of home runs hit by the Yankees, the rate of traffic accidents in California, the number of PhD awarded by Stanford's Sociology Department, and the incidents of kidney cancer is not constant from year to year.

Moreover, the level of variance is greater with small numbers of events than with large numbers. To illustrate why this is true imagine a large urn that contains 1,000 marbles, 500 that are red and 500 that are white. If you repeatedly take 5 marbles out of the urn until it is empty, most of the time you will get a mix of red and white marbles, but every so often you'll remove 5 marbles all of the same color. However, if you repeatedly take 50 marbles out of the urn each time, you'll seldom, if ever pull out 50 marbles of the same color. This may all seem obvious, but it illustrates why with small numbers of events (in this case, the number of marbles pulled) you are more likely to experience an extreme event (in this case, drawing marbles of the same color) than you are with large numbers of events. That is why surveys that interview 1,200 people are usually more accurate than those that interview 600.

Which brings us back to the drop in San Jose's murder rate. The average number of murders in San Jose is relatively small (33), which means that extreme outcomes (i.e., extreme spikes and drops in the murder rate) will be the norm, not the exception. Moreover, after a wide swing in one direction, it is quite common for rates to move back toward the average, a phenomenon I discussed in my previous post ("Regression to the Mean and the 49ers' Next Coach"). This means that the spike in the murder rate in 2012 was likely to be followed by a drop in the rate close to the average. I expected the drop to occur in 2013, but it didn't happen until 2014 when it fell to 32 (see the chart below), just below its historical average. And as I argued back then, this drop probably has more to do with the natural variation of rare events than it does with the efforts of the San Jose Police Department.

Regression to the Mean and the 49ers' Next Coach

Regression to the mean is the statistical tendency for traits that lie far above or below the mean for a population to move (regress) toward the mean. That is why the IQs of children of extremely low or high IQ parents will, on average, cluster much more closely around the population mean than those of their parents. It is also why professional golfers who shoot extremely high or low scores in the first round of a tournament will probably shoot scores in the second round that will bring their scores after two rounds closer to the tournament average. In other words, a golfer who shoots a very low score in the first round is likely to shoot a higher than average score in the second.

This phenomenon also helps explain why when a NFL team fires its head coach, the team almost always finishes with a better record the following season. As a recent FiveThirtyEight article explained ("There's Not Much Evidence A New Coach Will Help the Jets, 49ers or Falcons"):

Teams that change coaches have a strong tendency to improve the following season, which could be taken as prima facie evidence that swapping in a new coach makes a profound difference. But it also could simply be the residue of regression to the mean. A poor record is generally required for a team to consider dismissing its coach, but much of the differences in NFL team records is due to luck and not the comparative skill levels of the teams themselves. When that luck evens out, the team appears to improve, even if its underlying skill didn’t change all that much.

In other words, it's likely that regardless who the Jets, 49ers or Falcons hire as their next head coaches, they will post regular season records in 2015 better than their 2014 records. This will almost certainly be true for the San Francisco 49ers who were one of the most injury-plagued teams in the NFL this season ("NFL Injury Report"). Thus, even if the Niners finish next season with a better record than 2014, it's unlikely that it'll have anything to do with who the new coach is. That may even be true even if the Niners win the Super Bowl next year.

NCAA Basketball: One and Done?

Basketball fans either love or hate John Calipari, the head basketball coach for the Kentucky Wildcats (although most who hate him would love him if he coached their hometown team). A common criticism of him (and the Kentucky program) is that most of his recruits only play for a year before leaving for the NBA. But that really isn't his fault. It's the NBA's. It allows players to declare for the draft after playing only one year in college. If it changed its rules and required players to stay at least three years (like college baseball players), one and done programs like Kentucky would have to change.

Schulmerich and Malmark: Battle of the Bells

Schulmerich and Malmark, Inc. are the two largest handbell companies in the world and are located just down the street from one other. In fact, a former employee of one started the other. However, while handbells often conjure up images of harmony and goodwill (especially around this time of year -- e.g., "Carol of the Bells"), until recently these two companies were at logger heads with one another, routinely suing one another for real or perceived infractions. Luckily, there's a happy ending to this story, and on a rebroadcast of a Planet Money podcast ("Bell Wars") you can hear (learn) all about it.

The Christmas Stories

Mainline biblical scholars tend to regard the Christmas stories more as theology than history. This is largely because of the considerable differences between the narratives found in Matthew and Luke. For example, according to Matthew Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem and Jesus was born at home, whereas in Luke they lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a census and Jesus is born in a stable. Or again, in Matthew Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt because Herod the Great orders the killing of all male infants under the age of two in Bethlehem, and after all is safe, settle in Nazareth; by contrast, in Luke, Jesus and his family simply return home to Nazareth after his birth. Finally, in Luke Jesus is visited by shepherds, whereas in Matthew he is visited by the magi (i.e., the wise men).

That said, Matthew and Luke do not disagree on all of the facts. For example, they agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth. They also agree that Mary and Joseph were engaged, not married, when Jesus was born. And they agree that Jesus was a descendant of King David, even though they trace the lineage through different genealogies.

Nevertheless, the differences between the two accounts have led most mainline scholars to argue that what we find in Matthew and Luke is mostly fiction. For example, they argue that Matthew and Luke have Jesus born in Bethlehem for theological reasons, not historical ones, in order that a prophecy in the book of Micah, which predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, would be seen as fulfilled. In other words, Matthew and Luke didn't base their birth narratives on historical evidence but rather on a theological conviction that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem.

This argument, although widely held, strikes me as a case of special pleading, however. Why? Because most, if not all, first century "messiahs" didn't come from Bethlehem. In fact, most of their birthplaces are unknown:

• Simon of Peraea (c. 4 BCE), a former slave of Herod the Great, who rebelled and was killed by the Romans (birthplace = unknown)
• Athronges (c. 4–2? BCE), a shepherd turned leader of a rebellion with his four brothers against Herod Archelaus and the Romans after proclaiming himself the Messiah (birthplace = unknown)
• Judas of Galilee (6 CE), Judas led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around 6 CE (birthplace = Gamala in Gaulonitis)
• Menahem ben Judah (?), the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee, was a leader of the Sicarii (birthplace = unknown)
• Theudas (?–46 CE), a Jewish rebel of the 1st century CE, at some point between 44 and 46 CE (birthplace = unknown)
• John of Gischala (? after 70), was a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War, and played a part in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (birthplace = Gush Halav)
• Simon bar Kokhba (also: Bar Kosiba) (?– died c. 135) (birthplace = unknown)

This suggests that hailing from Bethlehem wasn't a necessary requirement for messiahship in the eyes of most first century Jews and, coupled with the fact that two independent sources (material unique to Matthew and material unique to Luke), may help explain why even the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar, hardly the bastion of conservatism, hesitate to entirely write-off the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Indeed, they voted the passage in Matthew that indicates Jesus was born in Bethlehem as gray, not black:

Jesus was born at Bethlehem, Judea, when Herod was king (Matthew 2:1)

Although the narrative passages the Jesus Seminar colored gray can be interpreted in different ways, essentially they indicate that although something has probably been lost in the transmission, they still might contain a trace of history. With regards to Matthew 2:1, the "gray" vote indicates that some members of the Jesus Seminar thought it possible that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

An explanation that is just as plausible and parsimonious is that, for whatever reason, Jesus was born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth, and this led Matthew and Luke construct infancy narratives that accounted for this. How they did so differed, but that doesn't mean there isn't some traces of history in their accounts. In fact, I also think it likely that Mary and Joseph were engaged, and not married, when Jesus was born. Of course, all this doesn't challenge the claim that the Christmas stories contain less history than they do theology, but it also doesn't mean they we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater either (or maybe the baby out with the straw in this case).