The Jewish Jesus: a partisan's imagination


SOURCE: Zev Garber, Shofar (Spring 2005 Vol 23 Iss 3 pp 137-144)
(Copyright © 2005 University of Nebraska Press)


My own approach to finding the historical Jesus in the text of the New Testament may appear to some as extreme. It seems to me that Mark, the earliest gospel version on the life of Jesus compiled shortly after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., contains authentic traces of the historical Jesus shrouded in repeated motifs of secrecy which are intended to obscure the role of Jesus as a political revolutionary sympathizer involved in the Jewish national struggle against Rome. When the Gospel of Mark is analyzed in its own light, without recourse to the special status which canonical tradition confers, it is less history and biography and more historiosophy and parable. It also features an astute polemic against the Jewish Christian believers in Jerusalem, whose influence diminished considerably following the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and a clever apology to make early Christianity palatable to Rome by not identifying Jesus with the national aspirations of the Jews. The Markan account on the trial of Jesus and his execution, along with the portrait of a pacifistic Christ, are for the most part historically questioned by S. G. F. Brandon, who sees in these narratives attempts by the Gentile Church to win Roman favor by exculpating Pontius Pilate from his share in the crucifixion of Jesus. (64)

I agree. Regarding the Synoptic Gospels' (Mathew, Mark, Luke) account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, (65) the trial before Pilate, (66) and the sentence of death, (67) the question of historical fairness intrudes into these accounts. Jesus is tried three times (the Sanhedrin night-trial which found him guilty of blasphemy, the trial before Herod Antipas, and the dawn-trial before Pilate), and so which court decisively condemned Jesus? (68) Where in the biblical-talmudic tradition is blasphemy defined by claiming that one is the "Messiah the Son of the Blessed?" (69) Lev 24:13-23 and Sanhedrin 7.5 proclaim that whoever curses God is guilty of blasphemy. (70) Rarely recorded are malediction and impious profanity by one who claims to be a messianic figure. True, Josephus reported many messianic pretenders between 6 and 70 C.E., but we have no record of any put to death. Bar-Kochba was called Messiah by Akiba, but tradition does not speak ill of either second-century hero. And no less a personality than Maimonides relegated the messianic doctrine to a secondary position among the articles of faith rendered in his name. Also, one guilty of blasphemy was stoned to death and not killed by crucifixion as recorded by Mark. (71)

That Jesus was sympathetic to the Zealot cause may explain why the charges of sedition were not overtly denied by Jesus when asked, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (72) Other references support this view. One of the trusted disciples was Simon the Zealot. (73) The Zealot Movement, rooted in the tradition of being "zealous for the Lord," (74) arose in the Galilee in the first decade of the first century. It may be assumed that the child Jesus raised in Nazareth would have listened often to tales of Zealot exploits against the hated Romans and how many of the former died martyrs' deaths in a futile attempt to replace the bondage of Rome with the yoke of the "kingdom of heaven." (75)

These childhood experiences listened to in earnest and awe caused the adult Jesus to sympathize with the anti-Roman feelings of his people. Thus, the "cleansing of the Temple" pericope is not to be read as anti-Temple but rather as a critique of the Temple functionaries who collaborated with Rome. (76) This episode appears to have coincided with an insurrection in Jerusalem during the period of Gaius Caligula, in which the Zealots appear to have been involved. (77) The famous question concerning tribute to Caesar has Jesus saying, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's," (78) thereby implying Jewish support of Roman fiscal and political policy. This is an assimilable position and it is very doubtful that the historical Jesus identified with it. Better to say the Rome-based school of Mark coined Jesus' answer, for it guaranteed that Jesus and his fellowship were loyal to Rome and opposed to Jewish nationalism, a necessary survivor mandate for Gentile Christians living in Rome during and after the Zealot-inspired Jewish war against Rome.

The ipsissima verba of Jesus, recorded in Matt 10:34, namely, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword," supports the militancy in the Jesus party mentioned in the Gethsemane tradition: Luke 22:35-38 portrays Jesus asking his disciples if they are armed and they reply that they are doubly armed. The size and arming of the arresting party "from the chief priests and the scribes, and the elders," (79) can be cited as evidence of nationalist loyalty by Jesus. The unknown disciple who draws a sword and cuts off the ear of the High Priest's slave is identified in John's Gospel as Peter. (80)

Others say the question of Jesus, "Have you come out against a robber with swords and clubs to capture me?," (81) separates him from the Zealots. But can the parochial Jewish nationalism of Jesus be hidden in the image of the universal image of the Christ of Peace? I think not. Yet Mark's anti-Jewish bias and pro-Roman sentiments inspired him to lay the guilt of Jesus in the hands of Jewish authorities. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was not an insurrectionist, nor did he commit a crime deserving death by Roman law. (82) Later Church narrative accepts this view without serious emendation and further presents Jesus as the "Prince of Peace." An early source of this tradition is the editorial note in Matt 26:52. Here a post-70 C.E. Jewish Christian evaluating the ill-fated Jewish War declared in Jesus' name: "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (83)

A constant motif is the silence of the apostolic writings on matters pertaining to the political situation of the time. The Zealots of the period are essentially overlooked; episodes in which they are involved, as reported by Josephus and others, are not reported. Luke-Acts is silent about the identity and antecedents of James, Peter, and the other leaders of Jewish Christianity. Mark's theology prejudices the historical situation and declares that Jesus could not have involved himself in political nationalism and other contemporary issues. Later apostolic writers submissively follow the Markan line. How far theology distorts history is further shown by the denigration of the Pharisees as the bitter opponents of Jesus. (84)

The received gospel tradition appears to suggest that the catastrophe of 70 C.E. and its aftermath was brought about by Jewish leaders who plotted Jesus' death, the Jewish mob who had demanded it, and the stiff-necked Jews who refused to follow the Jesus way. Also, the Jewish disciples do not know Jesus, (85) and it is the Roman centurion at the crucifixion who recognizes Jesus as the Son of God. (86)

Our thesis suggests that New Testament belief about "Who do the people say that I am?" (87) is more belief narrative than historicity. In my opinion, the genre of Christian Scriptures on the historical Jesus is expressed in the idiom of Midrash. By Midrash, I mean an existential understanding by man of his environment, history, and being. Its purpose is not to provide objective description of the world nor to relate objective facts, but to convey a particular cultural worldview rooted in a specific setting in the life of the people in a given historical moment (Sitz im Leben). Its content is doctrinal and ethical and its form is mythic. The very nature of Midrash is an invitation to "demidrashize," i.e., to decode the original form and make the content more meaningful for different time and clime. Indeed the New Testament shows evidence of this. For example:

Given: Jesus returns in the clouds of Heaven.

Pauline: Shifts the emphasis of the failure of Jesus' return to the believer's present life.

Johanine: Achieves the same Pauline goal with its conception of eternal life here and now present to the faith, and of judgment as already accomplished in the world which Jesus brings.

My Jewish reading of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels puts him in history and not in divinity. The Jesus of different Christologies could never find support in Judaism, since the God-man of the "hypostatic union" is foreign to Judaism's teaching on absolute monotheism. As the promised Messiah, (88) he did not meet the conditions which the prophetic-rabbinic tradition associated with the coming of the Messiah. Indeed, there was no harmony, freedom, peace, and unity in the Land of Israel - signs of the Messianic Age - and enmity and strife abounded everywhere. Not a false but failed Redeemer of the Jews, as witnessed by the words of the "King of the Jews" at the cross: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ("My God, my God, why have You forsaken [italics added] me")? (89) Notwithstanding, he was a loyal son of Israel, whose commitment to the Torah (90) - albeit radical and reformist - and his remarks about the great commandment (91) were steadfast and comparable to Pharasaic Judaism of the day.

Arguably, the great flaw in pre-Vatican II Catholic traditionalism (as depicted in Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ) and Protestant fundamentalism in the teaching of the Easter Faith is the heinous role played by the crowd/people/Jews in the execution of Jesus. The cornerstone of supersessionist Christology is the belief that Israel was spurned by divine fiat for first rejecting and then killing Jesus. This permitted the apostolic and patristic writers and Protestant reformers to attribute to Israel the mark of Cain and the evil of the Sodomites, and more, to assign the worst dire punishment on judgment day. These are not words, just words, but they are links in an uninterrupted chain of antisemitic diatribes that contributed to the murder of the Jews in the heartland of Christianity and still exists in a number of Christian circles today. How to mend the cycle of pain and the legacy of shame? The key is to separate the crucifixion of Jesus from the contra Iudaeos tradition by demystifying the composite Passion narrative as taught and preached in ecclesiastical Christianity.

An illustration is in order. The nefarious words, "His blood be on us and on our children," (92) seen by many as the scriptural flash point to the charge that Gibson's film is antisemitic, were composed in the 90s, a generation after the death of Jesus. And if the words are credible, then may they not be seen as composed by an anti-Zealot Jewish Christian writer who opposed the Jewish revolt against Rome and reflected on the havoc wreaked on the Jewish people because of it? Similarly, to portray Pilate as meek, gentle, kind - a Jesus alter ego - who cannot resist the aggressive demands of the Jewish mob to crucify Christ, is historically unfounded and not true. (93)

Finally, why the obsessive passion in Mel Gibson to portray endlessly the bloodied body of Jesus? May it not be this traditionalist Catholic's rejection of reforms advocated by Vatican Council II to present tolerantly the Passion of Jesus Christ? Whether conscientious or not, co-writer, director, and producer Gibson revises scriptural anti-Judaism in visual media. He does so by portraying overtly a corrupt Jewish priesthood, and especially the High Priest, Caiaphas, a ferocious blood-thirsty Jewish mob, an effeminate Satan who hovers only among Jews, satanic-like Jewish children, and a complacent Roman leadership that does the bidding of Jews. The subliminal message: the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple (the film's climactic and penultimate scene) is sufficient proof for believers in Christ that God has pronounced dire punishment upon Old Israel and that He now dispenses his countenance to the New Israel, who accepts unhesitatingly Jesus as Lord and Savior. Hence, "Christ is the end of the Law," (94) in whose flesh [italics added] the law with its commandments and regulations" (95) are abolished. Thus, to flagellate unceasingly the body of Jesus is to rid Judaism unmercifully from the Body of Christ and provide salvation through the blood of Christ. (96) On Gibson's cross, replacement theology is reborn. And Satan/Mammon laughs aloud, a bitter laugh.
--- (64) The writings of S. G. F. Brandon, the late professor of comparative religion at the University of Manchester, have influenced my thinking on Jesus as a nationalist sympathizer and a political revolutionary. See, in particular, his Jesus and the Zealots (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967). Also influential is Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance (New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1981).

(65) Matt 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-71.

(66) Matt 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 2:3-5.

(67) Matt 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:17-25.

(68) Cf. "The Trial of Jesus in Light of History: A Symposium," in Judaism 20.1 (Winter 1971).

(69) Matt 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-65; Luke 22:67-70.

(70) Cf. Acts 6 where Christian tradition records that Stephen was guilty of death since he spoke "blasphemous words against Moses and against God" (Acts 6:7). See too Ex 22:27; I Kgs 21:10, 13 ("you have reviled God and king").

(71) A brief description of the crucifixion is found in Matt 27:33-44; Mark 15:22-32; Luke23: 33-43.

(72) Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3. Cf., also, Mark 15:9, 12 and the charge against Jesus inscribed on the cross (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; John 19:19).

(73) Cf. Matt 10:14; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:3. In Matthew and Mark it is written, "Simon the Cananaean" (Zealot). Matthew's Jewish audience can understand the Aramaism, but Mark, who normally translates Aramaisms (e.g., Mark 7:34) into Greek, purposely does not here. The writer of Luke-Acts, writing a generation after Mark, no longer sees the taint of political sedition about Jesus or is simply unaware of Mark's dilemma and unashamedly identifies Simon as a Zealot.

(74) Cf. the roles of Phineas (Num 25:7-10), Matthias (I Macc 2:15ff.), and Elijah (I Kgs 19:19ff) as zealot types.

(75) "Blessed be His Name, whose glorious kingdom is forever and ever," recited in the Temple during the Day of Atonement services, was added by the Rabbis to accompany the opening verse of the Shema (Deut 6:4). Since the period of Gaius Caligula (34-41), Roman emperors demanded from their subjects divine respect. The loyalist Jew (religious, nationalist) who refused did so on penalty of death. He submitted to the rule of God alone whom he proclaimed in "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone," and followed by the above doxology.

(76) Mark 11:15-19; Matt 21:21; Luke 19:45-48.

(77) A reference to Pilate's ruthless suppression of the rebellion may be found in Luke 13:1.

(78) Mark 12:17; Matt 22:21; Luke 20:25.

(79) The episode of Jesus taken captive is found in Mark 14:43-52; Matt 26:47-56; Luke 22:47-53.

(80) Mark 14:46; Matt 26:51; Luke 22:50; John 18:10.

(81) Mark 14:48; Matt 26:55; Luke 22:52.

(82) Matt 27:23; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:22.

(83) Also, Luke 22:50. A similar message is associated with national restoration and rebuilding the Second Temple (515 B.C.E.) in Zech 4:6, which is later linked to the Synagogue service of Chanukkah by the Rabbis in order to play down the militancy of the Maccabean victory and state imitated by the ill-fated revolt against Rome.

(84) The word Pharisees occurs over a hundred times in the New Testament (29 times in Matt; 12 times in Mark; 27 times in Luke; 19 times in John; 9 times in Acts; and once in Philippians). There is ample fodder in these references to portray Pharisaism as sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical petrified formalism, and a degraded religious system corroded by casuistry. The bitterest tirade against the Pharisees is found in Matt 23.

(85) Cf. Mark 8:27-33; Matt 16:13-23; Luke 9:18-22. The Petrine blessing found in Matt 16: 17-19 was added by a Jewish Christian to offset Mark's rebuke of Peter (The Jerusalem Church) as Satan by Jesus (Mark 8:33).

(86) Matt 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47.

(87) Matt 16:13; Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18.

(88) Cf., among others, Matt 26:62-64; Mark 14:60-62; Luke 22:66-70.

(89) Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34.

(90) Matt 5:17-20.

(91) Matt 22:37 = Mark 12:30 = Luke 10:27 - Deut 6:5; Mark 12:29 - Deut 6:4; Matt 23:39 = Mark 12:31 = Luke 10:27b - Lev 19:18; Mark 12:33 - cf. I Sam 15:22.

(92) Matt 27:25. In The Passion, these words are heard in the original Aramaic but deleted in the English subtitles.

(93) Philo Judaeus wrote about Pilate's "endless and intolerable cruelties"; no doubt why he was recalled to Rome in 37 A.D.

(94) Rom 10:4a.

(95) Eph 2:15.

(96) Adversely, blood fixation by Jews is not associated with suffering, torture, and death but with birth, hope, and life. Consider the Ezekielian verse recited at the Circumcision rite linking the birth of a Jewish male child (potential Messiah) with the birth of Jerusalem; "I (Lord God) said to you: 'In your blood, live.' Yea, I said to you, 'in your blood, live'" (Ezek 16:6).


Back to JESUS THE MAN