The Historical Jesus
[This was originally published in March, 2004. But I like it, and I think it makes an important point about so-called scholarly research into Jesus' life. So I will reproduce it on this blog, with some spelling corrections.]
With the recent blockbuster release of and controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, there has been a renewed interest in examining the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and searching for the "historical" Jesus. As a result of the film, both Newsweek and US News & World Report have recently published articles describing the "real" Jesus and addressing problems presented in the gospel accounts. While these articles are interesting and insightful, I have realized there is a basic flaw in the reasoning at least in regards their analysis of the events of the Passion. The authors essentially ignore parts of the gospel account then find confusion in understanding the events surrounding the death of Jesus, confusion which is taken to indicate errors in the gospel accounts. I believe the problem is the rejection of certain parts of the text. Taken in its entirety, I suggest the gospel accounts present a reasonable, understandable version of events.
The Scholarly View
Let us start by summarizing what the scholars in both articles are telling us. (Both articles present similar stories, and for the purposes of this analysis can be treated identically.)
Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over. Therefore, we would not expect the Jewish religious establishment to have a big problem with Jesus. In fact, Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the Pharisees on multiple issues. They may not believe in Jesus, but there is nothing to get excited about. Without such confrontation, there would be no reason for the Pharisees to actively seek Jesus' death. The gospel writers exaggerated the Jewish role in the Passion for political reasons.
The Romans, on the other hand, had much to fear from Jesus. He was building a following who hailed him as King of the Jews, a Messiah around whom the Jews could rally against Roman occupation. They had every reason in the world to desire Jesus' death. Pilate, his actions as presented in the gospel narratives being one of the major sticking points for the historical view, was a brutal man even by Roman standards. He executes thousands of Jews, with little regard to guilt or innocence, without hesitation, so he would not have hesitated to have Jesus killed as a political statement and assertion of Roman authority.
So the picture that emerges is of a Jesus that is no real threat to the Jewish establishment, but a significant threat to the Roman government of Judea. The Jewish leadership played little or no role in Jesus' execution; it was a purely Roman affair. Pilate ordered the execution with no reservations or hesitation. The gospel narratives diverge from this history because of political reasons by the authors who wanted to distinguish themselves from the Jews (in light of the Jewish revolt around 70 AD, according to the US News article) and/or to diminish the Roman role in the process as a means of making the message more presentable to a Roman audience (Newsweek article).
The Full Context
If one accepts the context, the view presented above makes some sense. The actions of the Jewish religious leadership indeed do not make sense, nor does the Pilate presented by the texts appear to agree with the figure we know from history. The problem is, however, the context the scholars are basing their analysis on is not the context given in the narrative. The problem is in the first two sentences of my summary: "Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over."
Jesus indeed claimed to be Messiah. It may well be true that such a claim is not blasphemy. But it is highly incendiary in that environment. The Jewish religion had developed an extensive set of expectations of what Messiah would mean, what his arrival would bring about. They expected a warrior king in the line of David who would throw off the Roman occupation, reestablish Israel as an independent kingdom, strong and secure. Jesus preached no such thing. He, on occasion, consorted with Romans. He preached submission to Roman authority. He talked about sin, not about the evils of Rome. He was a very different Messiah than the Jewish religious leaders had led them to expect. Therefore, for Jesus to be Messiah is to say that the religious beliefs of the Jews were wrong, that they didn't understand God. This is quite inflammatory, and would enrage many people.
But Jesus went beyond claiming to be Messiah. He frequently confronted the Jewish religious leaders and accused them of standing in God's way, of deceiving the misleading the Jewish people. These were men who lived lives of status, influence, power, comfort, and possibly wealth. All of that came from the perception that they were learned in the Scriptures, that they understood the ways of God and could lead them. Jesus was undermining all that by repeatedly telling them they did not understand God. He was basically challenging their social and political standing. It is little different that what the Catholic Church faced during the Protestant Reformation. The church leadership had great standing in society, political influence and power, all stemming from their supposed holiness and righteousness. When Martin Luther and later Reformers challenged the doctrines of the Church, he was challenging the foundation of their place in society. If the church was wrong, then they weren't so holy, so they would not be worthy of the exalted position and power they enjoyed. People in positions of power do not usually stand for having that position challenged or undermined.
Finally Jesus' claim to be Messiah was not his only claim. He was also claiming to be God incarnate. This is blasphemous (unless, of course, it was true). For those who rejected Jesus, this is the ultimate blasphemy, and the religious among them would have demanded his death for such blasphemy. For those who accepted Jesus, this would increase their enthusiasm for Jesus. The end result would be a highly divided population, with some enthusiastically embracing Jesus and others enthusiastically rejecting Jesus and calling for his death. For the religious Jews, there could be little middle ground.
Furthermore, a claim to be God would accentuate even more the confrontational elements of Jesus' ministry described above. It is one thing for a man to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong and misguided. It is something much more when God tells you this.
In making the scholarly analysis above, these elements of Jesus' ministry have been edited out. Jesus has been transformed from the man presented in the gospel narratives to an inoffensive teacher of love and brotherhood. This may our modern perception of Jesus, that he was a good man who taught us to love one another and who asked, in the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?" It is not, however, the Jesus described in the gospel texts.
The Gospel View
Now that we have a more comprehensive context to work from, let us consider how things might have gone.
Jesus' highly divisive ministry reaches Jerusalem on Palm Sunday where he is hailed by large, enthusiastic crowds as Messiah. The Jewish leadership sees this crowd and recognizes they are losing their grip on the people. If Jesus continues to grow in popularity, they stand to lose their elite status in society. Also keep in mind that the Romans have put these men into positions of leadership because of the supposed respect they command from the people, respect that is now eroding because of Jesus.
The more religious among them (and among the people) also see in Jesus' popularity a growing acceptance of blasphemy that risks God's wrath on the Jews as had happened previously in Jewish history. Because of this, the Jewish leadership decides Jesus must go.
The Romans see the crowd and, understanding the Jewish concept of Messiah, recognize the threat to peace that Jesus represents, and arrive at the same conclusion. But there is a problem. Jesus already has a large following. Previously, they have executed scores of insignificant men with small followings. Executing them was not risky and served a political purpose. Now they have a man with a large following who believe he is God incarnate, or at least a prophet of God. To execute him is risky because those followers would not take too kindly to having their God executed. All the Romans cared about was peace, and these followers in their anger could rise up against Rome.
Events proceed as described in the gospel narrative. The Jewish leaders have Jesus arrested and he is brought in for a show trial which concludes he should be executed for blasphemy. Not being able to legally carry out the execution themselves, they turn Jesus over to the Romans to do it for them. While this is happening, Jesus' opponents in the regular population have congregated and begin to call for his death.
Now we get back to Pilate and the indecision indicated in the gospel texts. We can now understand the indecision. It is not contradictory to his brutal nature. After all, in the end, he declares Jesus innocent and then indifferently hands him over to the soldiers for beating and execution anyway. (Many critics of the gospel account, and Gibson's film, say that Pilate is portrayed as a benign, benevolent soul. A ruler who has a man he himself has declared innocent brutally beaten and then sadistically executed is benign? This is gibberish. Do these writers actually think about what they are writing, or do they simply parrot what someone else has said?) His brutality is not in question. As we have already seen, Jesus' ministry sharply divided the Jewish population, some enthusiastically embracing Jesus as God, others vehemently rejecting him as a blasphemer, with little room in the middle. Pilate, whose overriding concern as we have seen is keeping the peace, is caught in a position between these two crowds of people. Execute Jesus and he enrages his followers who might rise up. Free Jesus and his opponents might rise up out of fear of God's wrath for allowing such a blasphemer to go unpunished. (For the Jewish opponents to take matters in their own hand and kill Jesus themselves would be murder; his death must come legally.) Pilate, being a politician (and politicians have not changed too much over the millennia), tries to find a middle ground. On the one hand, he declares Jesus innocent and distances himself and his government from the execution by washing his hands. Then he turns Jesus over to be executed to appease that crowd. Again, this is not a contradiction of the brutal tyrant we see in history. Pilate's behavior is actually consistent with the historical picture. It is just that he is caught in a unique situation and hesitates while he tries to find a way out of it.
Conclusion
This is, of course, the version of events presented in the gospel texts. I believe there is no contradiction here. The actions of all the principal actors (Jewish leaders, Jewish crowd, Roman governor) all appear understandable if we accept the full teaching of Jesus as revealed in the gospel text as the backdrop against which they occur. Inconsistencies and perplexing actions only arise if we edit Jesus' ministry to something the texts tell us it was not. The scholars who have presented the scholarly view described in the first section have skewed their analysis of the history by editing the context as they have. It verges on intellectual dishonesty to not acknowledge at the outset that they are making such assumptions which will so cloud their conclusions.
With the recent blockbuster release of and controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, there has been a renewed interest in examining the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and searching for the "historical" Jesus. As a result of the film, both Newsweek and US News & World Report have recently published articles describing the "real" Jesus and addressing problems presented in the gospel accounts. While these articles are interesting and insightful, I have realized there is a basic flaw in the reasoning at least in regards their analysis of the events of the Passion. The authors essentially ignore parts of the gospel account then find confusion in understanding the events surrounding the death of Jesus, confusion which is taken to indicate errors in the gospel accounts. I believe the problem is the rejection of certain parts of the text. Taken in its entirety, I suggest the gospel accounts present a reasonable, understandable version of events.
The Scholarly View
Let us start by summarizing what the scholars in both articles are telling us. (Both articles present similar stories, and for the purposes of this analysis can be treated identically.)
Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over. Therefore, we would not expect the Jewish religious establishment to have a big problem with Jesus. In fact, Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the Pharisees on multiple issues. They may not believe in Jesus, but there is nothing to get excited about. Without such confrontation, there would be no reason for the Pharisees to actively seek Jesus' death. The gospel writers exaggerated the Jewish role in the Passion for political reasons.
The Romans, on the other hand, had much to fear from Jesus. He was building a following who hailed him as King of the Jews, a Messiah around whom the Jews could rally against Roman occupation. They had every reason in the world to desire Jesus' death. Pilate, his actions as presented in the gospel narratives being one of the major sticking points for the historical view, was a brutal man even by Roman standards. He executes thousands of Jews, with little regard to guilt or innocence, without hesitation, so he would not have hesitated to have Jesus killed as a political statement and assertion of Roman authority.
So the picture that emerges is of a Jesus that is no real threat to the Jewish establishment, but a significant threat to the Roman government of Judea. The Jewish leadership played little or no role in Jesus' execution; it was a purely Roman affair. Pilate ordered the execution with no reservations or hesitation. The gospel narratives diverge from this history because of political reasons by the authors who wanted to distinguish themselves from the Jews (in light of the Jewish revolt around 70 AD, according to the US News article) and/or to diminish the Roman role in the process as a means of making the message more presentable to a Roman audience (Newsweek article).
The Full Context
If one accepts the context, the view presented above makes some sense. The actions of the Jewish religious leadership indeed do not make sense, nor does the Pilate presented by the texts appear to agree with the figure we know from history. The problem is, however, the context the scholars are basing their analysis on is not the context given in the narrative. The problem is in the first two sentences of my summary: "Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over."
Jesus indeed claimed to be Messiah. It may well be true that such a claim is not blasphemy. But it is highly incendiary in that environment. The Jewish religion had developed an extensive set of expectations of what Messiah would mean, what his arrival would bring about. They expected a warrior king in the line of David who would throw off the Roman occupation, reestablish Israel as an independent kingdom, strong and secure. Jesus preached no such thing. He, on occasion, consorted with Romans. He preached submission to Roman authority. He talked about sin, not about the evils of Rome. He was a very different Messiah than the Jewish religious leaders had led them to expect. Therefore, for Jesus to be Messiah is to say that the religious beliefs of the Jews were wrong, that they didn't understand God. This is quite inflammatory, and would enrage many people.
But Jesus went beyond claiming to be Messiah. He frequently confronted the Jewish religious leaders and accused them of standing in God's way, of deceiving the misleading the Jewish people. These were men who lived lives of status, influence, power, comfort, and possibly wealth. All of that came from the perception that they were learned in the Scriptures, that they understood the ways of God and could lead them. Jesus was undermining all that by repeatedly telling them they did not understand God. He was basically challenging their social and political standing. It is little different that what the Catholic Church faced during the Protestant Reformation. The church leadership had great standing in society, political influence and power, all stemming from their supposed holiness and righteousness. When Martin Luther and later Reformers challenged the doctrines of the Church, he was challenging the foundation of their place in society. If the church was wrong, then they weren't so holy, so they would not be worthy of the exalted position and power they enjoyed. People in positions of power do not usually stand for having that position challenged or undermined.
Finally Jesus' claim to be Messiah was not his only claim. He was also claiming to be God incarnate. This is blasphemous (unless, of course, it was true). For those who rejected Jesus, this is the ultimate blasphemy, and the religious among them would have demanded his death for such blasphemy. For those who accepted Jesus, this would increase their enthusiasm for Jesus. The end result would be a highly divided population, with some enthusiastically embracing Jesus and others enthusiastically rejecting Jesus and calling for his death. For the religious Jews, there could be little middle ground.
Furthermore, a claim to be God would accentuate even more the confrontational elements of Jesus' ministry described above. It is one thing for a man to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong and misguided. It is something much more when God tells you this.
In making the scholarly analysis above, these elements of Jesus' ministry have been edited out. Jesus has been transformed from the man presented in the gospel narratives to an inoffensive teacher of love and brotherhood. This may our modern perception of Jesus, that he was a good man who taught us to love one another and who asked, in the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?" It is not, however, the Jesus described in the gospel texts.
The Gospel View
Now that we have a more comprehensive context to work from, let us consider how things might have gone.
Jesus' highly divisive ministry reaches Jerusalem on Palm Sunday where he is hailed by large, enthusiastic crowds as Messiah. The Jewish leadership sees this crowd and recognizes they are losing their grip on the people. If Jesus continues to grow in popularity, they stand to lose their elite status in society. Also keep in mind that the Romans have put these men into positions of leadership because of the supposed respect they command from the people, respect that is now eroding because of Jesus.
The more religious among them (and among the people) also see in Jesus' popularity a growing acceptance of blasphemy that risks God's wrath on the Jews as had happened previously in Jewish history. Because of this, the Jewish leadership decides Jesus must go.
The Romans see the crowd and, understanding the Jewish concept of Messiah, recognize the threat to peace that Jesus represents, and arrive at the same conclusion. But there is a problem. Jesus already has a large following. Previously, they have executed scores of insignificant men with small followings. Executing them was not risky and served a political purpose. Now they have a man with a large following who believe he is God incarnate, or at least a prophet of God. To execute him is risky because those followers would not take too kindly to having their God executed. All the Romans cared about was peace, and these followers in their anger could rise up against Rome.
Events proceed as described in the gospel narrative. The Jewish leaders have Jesus arrested and he is brought in for a show trial which concludes he should be executed for blasphemy. Not being able to legally carry out the execution themselves, they turn Jesus over to the Romans to do it for them. While this is happening, Jesus' opponents in the regular population have congregated and begin to call for his death.
Now we get back to Pilate and the indecision indicated in the gospel texts. We can now understand the indecision. It is not contradictory to his brutal nature. After all, in the end, he declares Jesus innocent and then indifferently hands him over to the soldiers for beating and execution anyway. (Many critics of the gospel account, and Gibson's film, say that Pilate is portrayed as a benign, benevolent soul. A ruler who has a man he himself has declared innocent brutally beaten and then sadistically executed is benign? This is gibberish. Do these writers actually think about what they are writing, or do they simply parrot what someone else has said?) His brutality is not in question. As we have already seen, Jesus' ministry sharply divided the Jewish population, some enthusiastically embracing Jesus as God, others vehemently rejecting him as a blasphemer, with little room in the middle. Pilate, whose overriding concern as we have seen is keeping the peace, is caught in a position between these two crowds of people. Execute Jesus and he enrages his followers who might rise up. Free Jesus and his opponents might rise up out of fear of God's wrath for allowing such a blasphemer to go unpunished. (For the Jewish opponents to take matters in their own hand and kill Jesus themselves would be murder; his death must come legally.) Pilate, being a politician (and politicians have not changed too much over the millennia), tries to find a middle ground. On the one hand, he declares Jesus innocent and distances himself and his government from the execution by washing his hands. Then he turns Jesus over to be executed to appease that crowd. Again, this is not a contradiction of the brutal tyrant we see in history. Pilate's behavior is actually consistent with the historical picture. It is just that he is caught in a unique situation and hesitates while he tries to find a way out of it.
Conclusion
This is, of course, the version of events presented in the gospel texts. I believe there is no contradiction here. The actions of all the principal actors (Jewish leaders, Jewish crowd, Roman governor) all appear understandable if we accept the full teaching of Jesus as revealed in the gospel text as the backdrop against which they occur. Inconsistencies and perplexing actions only arise if we edit Jesus' ministry to something the texts tell us it was not. The scholars who have presented the scholarly view described in the first section have skewed their analysis of the history by editing the context as they have. It verges on intellectual dishonesty to not acknowledge at the outset that they are making such assumptions which will so cloud their conclusions.
posted by Doc @ 2:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home