FOREWORD<\/p>\n
The present volume marks the culmination of David Flusser\u2019s lifelong interest in and study of the historical Jesus. His unwelcome death on his 83rd birthday, September 15, 2000, has brought to a close a legacy of erudition that will not soon be seen again in Israel. This third edition of his biography of Jesus includes Flusser\u2019s final corrections and additions to the previous versions. In addition, there appears a new appended chapter, \u201cA New Portrait of Salome.\u201d
\nThe recent discovery of the face of the daughter of Herodias on a coin provided Flusser with the impetus to give fresh attention to the young girl who played such a pivotal role in the death of John the Baptist. The result is a correction to the distorted picture given to her by scholarship over the last 150 years. Flusser\u2019s study once again demonstrates his unique integration of multiple disciplines\u2014archaeology, history and philology\u2014to the study of the New Testament.
\nMy collaborative effort with Professor Flusser has been for me one of the most stimulating and fulfilling experiences during my years of research in Jerusalem.
\nI came here in 1983 to study with him at the Hebrew University under the notion that the issues of language, culture, history and physical setting make a difference in how we read the Gospels. I have not been disappointed. Often, we Christians read the stories and sayings of Jesus with little knowledge of the contemporary issues, personages and nuances of language that provide such an important element in molding our understanding of his life and teachings.
\nWhen first asked to assist in the re-publication of the 1968 English edition of Flusser\u2019s Jesus, I assumed that the task would merely involve improving and correcting the language problems in the previous English translation. However, we soon realized that with the passage of almost 30 years it would be necessary to rewrite the book, in effect, creating a new book. Not only has there been a wealth of new data, but Flusser\u2019s own thinking has evolved in light of this information. Thus, those who are acquainted with the 1968 book will find the present volume a new work.
\nOne novel contribution is Flusser\u2019s personal sketch of Pontius Pilate (pp. 151\u2013158). He pieces together the fragmentary evidence, mention of Pilate on the dedicatory inscription found at Caesarea and the scant references to the prefect in the literary sources. The result is a compelling psychological portrait of one of the central figures responsible for the death of Jesus. Flusser\u2019s study helps us to understand how Pilate\u2019s personal weaknesses played into the tragic chain of events and contributed to Jesus\u2019 eventual execution.
\nThe 1968 English translation, now out of print, represented the beginnings of Flusser\u2019s investigation into the historical Jesus, whereas the present volume is its culmination. Rarely does one encounter a scholar with such a passion to understand Jesus and his message. Nor are there many who have such a mastery of the classical sources and the ability to use them in such a way that the person and message of Jesus find fresh and simple clarity.
\nFlusser\u2019s philological-historical approach calls for a reconsideration of how we read the literary sources. He brings to bear the wealth of new information concerning the first-century setting in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, historical inquiry, and recent archaeological discoveries. What results from his biographical study is a portrait of Jesus which gains additional depth because it is viewed within the context of Jewish thought and life of the first century.
\nJesus was comfortable with the warp and woof of Jewish dialectic. Flusser demonstrates that he was familiar with\u2014and even skilled at\u2014the sometimes intricate nature of Jewish hermeneutic. Yet, while Jesus echoes many of the sentiments of his contemporaries, it would be a distortion to ignore his distinctive contributions to the landscape of first-century Jewish ideas. Nevertheless, what Flusser has advanced in this volume is a claim that even Jesus\u2019 most radical conclusions would have been unthinkable without the innovations of those in the generations before him and the nurturing environment of contemporary Jewish thought.
\nMuch has been written in recent years about the reclamation of Jesus by Jewish scholarship. It is difficult, however, to explain to those who do not know Flusser what it is about him that makes his work so distinctive. One feature which sets him apart is that while he understands Jesus to belong fully to the diverse and competing streams of Jewish thinking of the first century, Flusser feels no need to deny Jesus his high self-awareness. In his understanding, the historical Jesus was both identified with his people and the cornerstone of the faith of the early Christian community.
\nFlusser also has no hesitation to question the assumptions which are foundational to many contemporary New Testament scholars. He is an original thinker who is willing to give fresh consideration to the evidence\u2014even if it means challenging long-held opinions, sometimes even his own. I have little doubt that both Jewish and Christian readers will be challenged by the results of Flusser\u2019s study.
\nAnother characteristic of Flusser is his profound appreciation for \u201cthe historical Jesus.\u201d As Israel\u2019s foremost scholar on Jesus and nascent Christianity, he is often asked to give comment on \u201cthe Jewishness of Jesus\u201d or to provide the \u201cJewish perspective.\u201d Few requests irritate him more. Flusser\u2019s close attention to philology and textual analysis cuts against the grain of New Testament scholarship\u2019s penchant for \u201ctrendiness,\u201d in which Jesus is recreated in the mold of whichever psychological or political trend is in vogue. He reminds his students that his is not the study of \u201cthe Jewish Jesus\u201d but the Jesus of history. That Jesus was Jewish is a matter of historical record. His optimism that careful philological-historical research can produce fruitful results will surprise some skeptics.
\nFinally, whether reading the Greek philosophers, medieval theologians or the words of Jesus, Flusser does not work as a detached historian. He works as a man of faith who sees his scholarship as having relevance to the complex challenges of the present age. This facet of Flusser\u2019s character was illustrated by an incident which was related to me by Brad Young, who studied with Flusser for a number of years in Jerusalem.
\nFlusser had a student who went to study at the University of Z\u00fcrich. When a professor there discovered that he was Flusser\u2019s student, he failed him without warrant. The failing mark ruined the student\u2019s academic career. A few years later, a student of that same professor was studying in Flusser\u2019s class. He turned in a paper, the content of which was mediocre. Flusser instructed Brad, who was his teaching assistant at the time, to give the student an \u201cA.\u201d When Brad inquired why, he related the story of his own student and then repeated his instruction, \u201cGive the student an \u2018A.\u2019 This I have learned from Jesus.\u201d
\nDuring my years of study and work with Professor Flusser, I have observed his desire not only to understand the teachings of Jesus, but to see their relevancy in difficult circumstances. This was best illustrated to me on the eve of the Gulf War. On January 15, 1991, the streets of Jerusalem were virtually empty in anticipation of the outbreak of war and the consequent launching of scud missiles on the civilian Israeli population. I went to Flusser\u2019s home needing to discuss my dissertation. Upon opening the door, he pondered aloud, \u201cInteresting days we are living in. What would Jesus say? Let\u2019s go and find out.\u201d Without further explanation we proceeded to his study and he invited me to open the New Testament to the passage of the \u201cTwo Swords\u201d (Luke 22:35\u201338). He began to explain the words of Jesus, as if by understanding the relevant texts we could gain a glimpse of what Jesus might have thought\u2014and by extension what we should think\u2014about the current crisis. Flusser explained Jesus\u2019 delicate balance between pacifism\u2014the avoidance of conflict\u2014and the right to defend oneself. His exposition was concise, original and pertinent to the current situation.
\nWhat has struck me about Flusser is not simply his insights into Jesus\u2019 teaching, but his assumption that the study of the words of Jesus should make a difference in how we conduct our lives. Of course, most Christians will find nothing remarkable in that notion, but many students will testify how exceptional it is to find a scholar whose research has relevance for life. I hope that my own contribution to this book has made it more accessible to the readers and strengthened Professor Flusser\u2019s desire that this biography \u201cserve as a mouthpiece for Jesus\u2019 message today.\u201d
\nR. Steven Notley
\nJerusalem School of Synoptic Research<\/p>\n
PREFACE<\/p>\n
The present volume not only reflects the truism that Jesus was a Jew and wanted to remain within the Jewish faith but argues that, without the long preparatory work of contemporaneous Jewish faith, the teaching of Jesus would be unthinkable. This biography of Jesus has grown out of my earlier book also entitled Jesus, written in German, and first published in May of 1968 by Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. The new book is a completely rewritten, up-to-date expansion of the earlier work. When writing the German edition of Jesus, I stood more or less at the threshold of my research into the origins of Christianity. Since that time I have learned a great deal and have written extensively on the New Testament, especially on Jesus. Thus, the present biography is far from being identical with the original book. I believe that my new, English edition of Jesus is not merely longer, but also significantly better than its German forerunner.
\nAn English translation by Ronald Walls from the German was published by Herder and Herder in 1969. Not being widely read, this translation was never reprinted and is no longer available. The German book, however, was reprinted repeatedly and translated into dozens of other languages. The uneventfulness of the English translation in comparison to the success of the original German edition and its translation into other languages led me to conclude that a new, improved English version of my book about Jesus was badly needed. Thus, I have not only corrected the numerous inaccuracies in the previous English translation, but I have found it necessary to include fresh insights drawn from both rabbinic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although thoroughly revised and augmented, the structure of the German original and subsequent English translation remains largely intact.
\nThe illustrations are not identical with that which appeared in the earlier editions of Jesus. I have updated them to reflect the wealth of recent archeological discoveries in Israel and other places. The bibliography is intended to be \u201cuser friendly\u201d and provide assistance to the reader interested in additional information. Quotations from Josephus are taken from the bilingual edition to the Loeb Classical Library. The English translation of the Bible is taken mostly from the New International Version.
\nI have supplemented the book with articles that I have already published elsewhere. The short study about the ossuary of Caiaphas first appeared in Jerusalem Perspective 4\/4\u20135 (1991), pp. 23\u201328. It is intended to provide more information about the Sadducean High Priest Caiaphas and his clan, and includes illustrations of the ossuary itself. The study \u201cThe House of David,\u201d Israel Museum 5 (1986), pp. 37\u201340, is not only archeologically significant, but enabled me to correct a common error that I too committed regarding the existence of Davidids in Jesus\u2019 time. It is now clear that there were Jews in the late Second Temple period who knew that they had descended from the House of David. Jesus may have been one of them. Nevertheless, as there were probably many Davidids at that time, simply belonging to this famous family was not proof of any messianic claim.
\nThree other studies from my \u201cSelected Papers,\u201d which were collated and published in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes, 1988), have also been included. \u201cWhat was the Original Meaning of Ecce Homo?\u201d casts light on several new historical aspects of the person of Pilate, while \u201cWho is it that Struck You\u201d is a fresh treatment of the sequence of events between the time of Jesus\u2019 arrest and the hearing before Pilate. The most important emendation of my original German manuscript is found in \u201cThe Crucified One and the Jews.\u201d The description of Jesus\u2019 loneliness on his way to the Cross is an achievement of the author of the Gospel of Mark (who influenced the description given in Matthew\u2019s). In reality, on the way to the place of execution, Jesus was accompanied by the empathy of his people. It is easy to see how Luke\u2019s report was deliberately changed by Mark, whose attempts to sever Jesus\u2019 ties to his people are equally evident in his elimination of Jesus\u2019 laments over Jerusalem. I have traced the literary creativity of the author of the second Gospel in my concluding supplementary study, \u201cJesus Weeps Over Jerusalem.\u201d Finally, I have added in the appendix of the present volume an original contribution about the last way of Jesus, the so-called Via Dolorosa, written especially for this book by the eminent expert Magen Broshi.
\nThe German edition of my book was very well received in Europe, and encountered only slight opposition from some excessively conservative Christian circles. Their American counterparts should understand that, because of my Jewish background, I cannot be more Christian than the majority of believers in Jesus. My interpretation of the Gospels, however, is more conservative than that of many New Testament scholars today. I attribute my conservative approach to my training, which was neither that of a Jewish nor a Christian theologian, but of a classicist. My method is rooted in the discipline of classical studies whose interest is Greek and Latin texts. I am confident that the first three Gospels reliably reflect the reality of the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus. Moreover, I do not like the dichotomy made between the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus and \u201ckerygmatic\u201d Christ. I am not suggesting in any way that the texts should be read uncritically. This should become clear after reading the first chapter where I briefly discuss my critical method.
\nMy conservative approach to the Gospels also stems from my Jewish identity. As a Jew I have studied, as far as possible, the various trends within ancient Judaism. This course of study is very helpful for interpreting the Jewish aspects of the Gospels, particularly the words and deeds of Jesus.
\nI know that some readers will open this book in order to inquire what the prevailing Jewish opinion is about Jesus. I have not written this book to describe Jesus from the \u201cJewish standpoint.\u201d The truth of the matter is that I am motivated by scholarly interest to learn as much as I can about Jesus, but at the same time being a practicing Jew and not a Christian, I am independent of any church. I readily admit, however, that I personally identify myself with Jesus\u2019 Jewish Weltanschauung, both moral and political, and I believe that the content of his teachings and the approach he embraced have always had the potential to change our world and prevent the greatest part of evil and suffering.
\nHere a short explanation will not be out of place. As a boy I grew up in the strongly Catholic, Bohemian town of P\u0159\u00edbram. The town was one of the great centers of pilgrimage in Central Europe. Because of the humane atmosphere in Czechoslovakia at that time, I did not experience any sort of Christian aversion to my Jewish background. In particular, I never heard any accusation of deicide directed against my people. As a student at the University of Prague, I became acquainted with Josef Perl, a pastor and member of the Unity of Bohemian Brethren, and I spent many evenings conversing with him at the local YMCA in Prague. The strong emphasis which this pastor and his fellow brethren placed on the teaching of Jesus and on the early, believing community in Jerusalem stirred in me a healthy, positive interest in Jesus, and influenced the very understanding of my own Jewish faith as well. Interacting with these Bohemian Brethren played a decisive role in the cultivation of my scholarly interests; their influence was one of the foremost reasons that I decided to occupy myself with the person and message of Jesus.
\nLater in life I became interested in the history of the Bohemian Brethren, and I discovered links between this group and other similar movements in the past and present. I have since had the honor to become acquainted with members of one such movement having spiritual links to the Bohemian Brethren\u2014the Mennonites in Canada and the United States. When the German book on Jesus was first published, a leading Mennonite asked me if the book were Christian or Jewish. I replied, \u201cIf the Christians would be Mennonites, then my work would be a Christian book.\u201d What I have set out to do here is to illuminate and interpret, at least in part, Jesus\u2019 person and opinions within the framework of his time and people. My ambition is simply to serve as a mouthpiece for Jesus\u2019 message today.
\nThis new, English book on Jesus would not have seen the light of day without the invaluable assistance of my former student, Dr. R. Steven Notley, Assistant Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Jerusalem University College and visiting lecturer at King\u2019s College, London. He collaborated with me in correcting, revising and augmenting the earlier English edition, and he has added new essential contributions throughout the work. I also appreciate the initiative of Professor William Klassen of St. Paul\u2019s United College in Waterloo, Ontario and a guest lecturer at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem who made some valuable suggestions for the book, and Professor Brad H. Young of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nor can I forget the practical assistance of my student and friend Joseph Frankovic. I express special thanks to Dan Benovici of The Magnes Press, Jerusalem for his efforts. In matters of Rabbinics, as always, I am obliged to my colleague and long-time friend Professor Shmuel Safrai.<\/p>\n
David Flusser<\/p>\n
Jerusalem, Passover 1997<\/p>\n
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION<\/p>\n
The second edition of the book is by no means a mere reprinting of the first one. Necessary corrections were made, and the book was enriched by fresh insights. The pivotal innovation to the book is a new chapter about Jesus\u2019 messianic timetable. With this addition the origins of the eschatology of Jesus are presented and his task within the structure of salvation history becomes quite evident. In preparing this augmented edition, I was helped once again by my friend Dr. R. Steven Notley and encouraged by Dan Benovici, the director of The Magnes Press.<\/p>\n
David Flusser<\/p>\n
Jerusalem, Hanukkah\/Christmas 1997<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n
THE SOURCES<\/p>\n
The main purpose of this book is to show that it is possible to write the story of Jesus\u2019 life. True, we have fuller records about the lives of contemporaneous emperors and some of the Roman poets. With the exception of the historian Josephus Flavius and possibly St. Paul, however, Jesus is the one Jew of post-Old Testament times about whom we know most.
\nEvery biography has its own peculiar problems. We can hardly expect to find information about Jesus in non-Christian documents. He shares this fate with Moses, Buddha and Mohammed who likewise received no mention in the reports of non-believers. The only important Christian sources concerning Jesus are the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The rest of the New Testament tells us almost nothing about his life.<\/p>\n
The name of Jesus as it is written in the Hebrew script<\/p>\n
The first three Gospels are primarily based upon common historical material, while the fourth Gospel, John, is correctly regarded as more concerned with presenting a theological perspective. The parallels between Matthew, Mark and Luke are such that they can be printed in three columns to form a synopsis\u2014hence the name \u201cSynoptic Gospels\u201d given to the first three books of the New Testament.
\nIs the absence of non-Christian documents an insuperable obstacle to learning about the life of Christ? When a religious genius appears within an environment that allows the precise documentation of his development and the circumstances of his life, there is always a temptation to try to uncover the psychological background leading up to this religious phenomenon. However, such psychological studies are often unsatisfactory, because the Spirit blows where it wills. This is especially true of personalities who themselves are endowed by the Spirit. For example, who would dare to attempt a psychological analysis of the mystery of the personality of St. Francis? Our inability to provide a psychology of Jesus that would not sound a jarring note arises not so much from the type of sources at our disposal, as from the nature of his personality.
\nEven if objective documentation is plentiful, the most genuine sources concerning a charismatic personality are his own utterances and the accounts of the faithful\u2014read critically, of course. Together with these, the testimony of outsiders serves as a control. Let us take two modern examples. All that is significant about Joseph Smith (1805\u201344), founder of the Mormons, can be learned mostly from his words and from Mormon documents. There is also the case of the African, Simon Kimbangu, who performed miracles of healing in the Belgian Congo from March 18 to September 14, 1921. He died in exile in 1950. Following the Christian model, his followers believed him to be the Son of God, but the documents do not make it clear what he thought of himself. Because of the brevity of his public activity, no unequivocal answer can be given to the question of his own self-assessment. The testimony of the Belgian authorities in the Congo is as helpful in his case as are the archives of the governor Pilate, or the records in the chancellery of the high priest in the case of Jesus.
\nThe early Christian accounts about Jesus are not as untrustworthy as people today often think. The first three Gospels not only present a reasonably faithful picture of Jesus as a Jew of his own time, but they even consistently retain his way of speaking about the Savior in the third person. An impartial reading of the Synoptic Gospels results in a picture not so much of a redeemer of mankind, but of a Jewish miracle-worker and preacher. There can be little doubt that this picture does not do full justice to the historical Jesus. Obviously such a picture did not require the Resurrection experience of the post-Easter Church before it could be portrayed. A series of miracle-legends and sermons certainly cannot be interpreted to constitute a \u201ckerygmatic\u201d preaching of faith in the risen and glorified Lord, as most present-day scholars and theologians suggest. The only Gospel that teaches a post-Easter Christology is the Gospel according to St. John, and it is of less historical value than the three Synoptic Gospels. The Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels is, therefore, the historical Jesus, not the \u201ckerygmatic Christ.\u201d
\nFor Jewish Christianity\u2014even in later centuries when the Church in general regarded its view as heretical\u2014Jesus\u2019 role as miracle-worker, teacher, prophet and Messiah was more important than the risen Lord of the kerygma. At an early date, the emphasis began to change among the Hellenistic Christian congregations founded by Greek Jews, and composed predominantly of non-Jews. In these congregations, redemption through the crucified and risen Christ became the heart of preaching. It is no accident that the writings originating in these communities\u2014for example the letters of St. Paul\u2014scarcely mention the life and preaching of Jesus. It is perhaps a stroke of luck, as far as our knowledge of Jesus is concerned, that the Synoptic Gospels were written fairly late\u2014apparently around 70 A.D.\u2014when the dynamic creativity within the Pauline congregations had diminished. For the most part, this later stratum of the synoptic tradition found its first expression in the redaction of the separate evangelists and was styled in Greek. If we examine this material with an unprejudiced mind, we learn from its content and its manner of expression that it is concerned not with kerygmatic statements, but with Christian platitudes.
\nIs it indeed credible to suggest that when the Synoptic Gospels are studied scientifically they present a reliable portrayal of the historical Jesus, in spite of the kerygmatic preaching of faith by the Church? My research has led me to the conclusion that the Synoptic Gospels are based upon one or more non-extant early documents composed by Jesus\u2019 disciples and the early church in Jerusalem. These texts were originally written in Hebrew. Subsequently, they were translated into Greek and passed through various stages of redaction. It is the Greek translation of these early Hebrew sources that were employed by our three evangelists. Thus, when studied in the light of their Jewish background, the Synoptic Gospels do preserve a picture of Jesus which is more reliable than is generally acknowledged.
\nThe question of the literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels is called the \u201cSynoptic Problem.\u201d The scope of this book does not allow sufficient space to address this crucial issue thoroughly. My experience, however, chiefly based on the research of the late R. L. Lindsey, has shown me that Luke preserves, in comparison to Mark (and Matthew when depending on Mark), the original tradition. A critical reevaluation of the literary evidence thus indicates that Luke wrote before Mark. Mark then reworked the gospel material and unfavorably influenced Matthew who followed Mark\u2019s version closely. Finally, it is important to add that Matthew, when independent of Mark, frequently preserves the earlier sources of the life of Jesus that lie behind Luke\u2019s Gospel. Hence, Luke and Matthew together provide the most authentic portrayal of Jesus\u2019 life and teachings.
\nThe present biography intends to apply the methods of literary criticism and Lindsey\u2019s solution to unlock these ancient sources. In order to understand the historical Jesus, it is not sufficient to follow the literary development of the Gospel material. We also need to possess intimate familiarity with Judaism in the time of Jesus. The Jewish material is important not just because it allows us to place Jesus in his own time, but because it also permits a correct interpretation of his original Hebrew sayings. Thus, whenever we can be sure that there is a Hebrew phrase behind the Greek text of the Gospels, we translate that, and not the literal Greek.
\nThis book does not set out to build a bridge between the Jesus of history and the Christian faith. With no ax to grind, but at the same time not pretending to submerge the author\u2019s own personality and milieu\u2014for how can one do that when writing a biography\u2014it seeks merely to present Jesus directly to the reader. The present age seems especially well disposed to understand him and his interests. A new sensitivity has been awakened in us by profound fear of the future and the present. Today we are receptive to Jesus\u2019 reappraisal of all our usual values. Many of us have become aware of his questioning of the moral norm, which was his starting point. Like Jesus, we feel drawn to the social pariahs, to the sinners. If he says that one shall not oppose the wicked forces, he evidently means that by struggling against them one really only benefits the basically indifferent play of forces within society and the world at large (see e.g., Matt. 5:25\u201326). This, I believe, is the feeling of many today. If we free ourselves from the chains of dead prejudices, we are able to appreciate Jesus\u2019 demand for an all embracing love, not as philanthropic weakness, but as a realistic approach to our world.
\nThe enormity of Jesus\u2019 life also speaks to us today: the call at his baptism, the severing of ties with his estranged family and his discovery of a new, sublime sonship, the pandemonium of the sick and possessed, and his death on the cross. Therefore, the words which Matthew (28:20) places on the lips of the risen Lord take on for us a new, non-ecclesiastical meaning, \u201cLo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.\u201d<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n
ANCESTRY<\/p>\n
Jesus is the common Greek form of the name Joshua. In Jesus\u2019 day the name was pronounced \u201cYeshua.\u201d We find him named in ancient Jewish literature where he is sometimes called \u201cYeshu\u201d that, almost certainly, was the Galilean pronunciation. After the arrest of Jesus, Peter betrayed himself by his peculiarly Galilean pronunciation. In those days, \u201cJesus\u201d was one of the most common of Jewish names. For example, the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, mentions twenty men with this name. The first is Joshua of the Bible, Moses\u2019 successor who conquered the Holy Land. Out of religious awe the ancient Jews avoided certain important biblical names such as David, Solomon, Moses, and Aaron, and it may be that the name Yeshua\u2014Jesus\u2014in those days had gained popularity as a kind of substitute for Moses.
\nJesus\u2019 father and his brothers also bore very popular names. His brothers were called James, Joses, Judah, and Simon (Mark 6:3)\u2014the names of the biblical patriarch Jacob and three of his sons. The names were as common in those days as Jack and Bill are today. Joses is short for Joseph\u2014the name of Jesus\u2019 father. Today it would be almost impossible for a Jewish child to be named after his father, if the latter were still living. In ancient times, however, this was a fairly widespread custom. Jesus\u2019 mother was called Mary, which corresponds to the Hebrew, Miriam, another common name in those days. Although we know few women\u2019s names from ancient times\u2014none of the names of Jesus\u2019 sisters have come down to us\u2014Josephus mentions eight women called Miriam. The first is the sister of Moses, and the others are all named after her.
\nThe miraculous account of Jesus\u2019 birth is to be found in the two independent literary versions of Matthew and Luke. It is not mentioned in Mark and John and is not presupposed in any other part of the New Testament. Apart from the New Testament writers, the first to mention the virgin birth is Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107).
\nAs is well known, Jesus Christ means \u201cJesus the Messiah.\u201d According to ancient Jewish belief, the Messiah was to be a descendant of David\u2014the Son of David. Both Matthew (1:2\u201316) and Luke (3:23\u201338) provide a genealogical tree for Jesus leading back to David. In both of these genealogies, it is Joseph, not Mary, who is descended from King David. The most remarkable thing, moreover, is that Joseph\u2019s genealogies are to be found in those same Gospels\u2014Matthew and Luke\u2014that tell the story of the virgin birth. It would seem that neither of these evangelists sensed any tension between the descent of Jesus from David through Joseph, and the conception of Jesus without the agency of a human father. We should keep in mind that the two genealogies agree only from Abraham down to David. The internal problems of both lists and their considerable differences leave us with the impression that both genealogies were constructed ad hoc, so to speak, in order to prove descent from David.
\nIt would have been quite natural that any expected Messiah be retrospectively legitimized by his followers as the Son of David. On the other hand, it has become clear that in Jesus\u2019 time there were indeed many real descendants from the family of the famous king David (as there are today many descendants of Charlemagne). In recent years there has even been found an ossuary designated for the bones of the \u201cHouse of David.\u201d So, knowledge that one was from the family of David would not necessarily legitimize a person for messianic claims. It is important to reiterate, moreover, that even though there were those in the first century who could trace their lineage to David, we cannot be certain that Jesus himself belonged to David\u2019s line.
\nSince Matthew and Luke provide the Davidic genealogy of Jesus, it is no surprise that it is they who set the place of his birth in Bethlehem, the city of David\u2019s birth. Nevertheless, here the two accounts display important differences. According to Luke 2:4, Jesus\u2019 family traveled to Bethlehem only because of the census. Before the birth of Jesus, they lived in Nazareth to which they returned. According to Matthew 2:23, however, the family resided in Bethlehem in Judea before the birth of Jesus and settled in Nazareth only after their return from Egypt. It would seem, then, that both the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and the proof of his Davidic ancestry, arose because many believed that the Messiah would be of David\u2019s line and would, like David, be born in Bethlehem. This follows plainly from John 7:41\u201342. The passage tells of some who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, saying, \u201cIs the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?\u201d John, therefore, knew neither that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem nor that he was descended from David. At the same time, this incident shows how people demanded the fulfillment of these two conditions as legitimization of the messianic claim.<\/p>\n
The name of Nazareth in Hebrew (line 2) found at Caesarea, 3\u20134th century A.D.<\/p>\n
Historically, Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was probably born in Nazareth. Certainly that was where he lived for about thirty years until the time of his baptism by John (Luke 3:23). He was baptized either in 27\/28 A.D. or 28\/29 A.D. It is more difficult to determine the duration of his public ministry, namely, the period between his baptism and crucifixion. On the evidence of the first three Gospels, it appears that this period extended not more than one year. Following John, on the other hand, we would have to assume that it covered two, or even three years. It has become fairly clear today that John, the theologian, had little intention of being a historian, and thus it would be unwise to accept his chronology or his geographical framework without careful examination.
\nAt the same time, we have to ask whether even the first three Gospels intended to provide a historical and geographical scheme, or to what extent such a scheme was conditioned by the theological presuppositions of the individual evangelists. There is material evidence to suggest that on these chronological and geographical points the synoptists are to be trusted. Jesus may have ministered in Judea and in Jerusalem before his final journey to death, but his real sphere of operation was in Galilee on the northwest shore of Lake Gennesaret. It will also become evident that the events of Jesus\u2019 life are best understood on the presumption that the baptism and the crucifixion were separated by only a short space of time. There are scholars who suggest that Jesus died at Easter in the year 30 or 33. Most likely, Jesus was baptized in 28\/29 and died in the year 30.
\nAs we have mentioned, Jesus had four brothers and several sisters. The family at Nazareth, therefore, included at least seven children. If one accepts the virgin birth as historical and also concedes that the brethren of Jesus were his true brothers and sisters, one must conclude that Jesus was Mary\u2019s first-born child. Even those who regard the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as unhistorical must admit that Jesus may well have been the eldest of the family. Luke (2:22\u201324) reports that the parents of Jesus took him to Jerusalem shortly after his birth to present him to the Lord, as the law prescribed, \u201cEvery male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.\u201d It is true that one could redeem one\u2019s first-born through an offering to a priest anywhere, but there were devout people who took this opportunity to make a pilgrimage with their son to the Temple in Jerusalem. Did Luke or his source invent this story to proclaim the virgin birth, or was Jesus, in fact, Mary\u2019s eldest child?
\nIt is almost certain that Jesus\u2019 father died before Jesus was baptized. He may have died when Jesus was still a child. When Jesus\u2019 public ministry begins, we meet his mother and his brethren, but there is no mention of his father. According to Luke (2:41\u201351), Joseph was still alive when Jesus was twelve years old.<\/p>\n
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to the custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company they went a day\u2019s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.<\/p>\n
This anecdote from the childhood of Jesus has special significance. It is a story of a precocious scholar, one might almost say of a young talmudist. Today a Jewish boy is regarded as an adult when he turns thirteen, but in those days a boy of twelve could be regarded as grown up. Luke\u2019s story may well be true. I myself have heard the widow of a great rabbinic scholar, A. Aptowitzer, tell how her husband was lost when his parents were visiting an annual fair. In the early hours of the morning, they found him in a synagogue keenly disputing scholarly problems with the rabbis. This woman had certainly never read St. Luke. If I am not mistaken, the Indian philosopher Gupta tells a similar story in his autobiography.
\nThe account Luke tells of the boy does not contradict the rest of what we know about Jesus\u2019 Jewish education. It may be suggested with some justification that Jesus\u2019 disciples were \u201cuneducated, common men\u201d (Acts 4:13). This led to the assertion\u2014made, indeed, by the historically less reliable John (7:15)\u2014that Jesus himself was uneducated, that he had \u201cnever studied.\u201d When Jesus\u2019 sayings are examined against the background of contemporaneous Jewish learning, however, it is easy to observe that Jesus was far from uneducated. He was perfectly at home both in holy scripture and in oral tradition, and he knew how to apply this scholarly heritage. Moreover, Jesus\u2019 Jewish education was incomparably superior to that of St. Paul.
\nCan we say that Jesus was one of the Jewish Sages of his days? This at least is the conclusion of Josephus Flavius some decades after the Cross. Although it is generally recognized that the passage concerning Jesus in the extant Greek manuscripts of his Jewish Antiquities (18:63\u201364) was distorted by later Christian hands, \u201cthe most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator.\u201d As we will see below, the original wording is not completely lost. One can already detect the method of the Christian revisor in the beginning of the passage. \u201cAbout this time there lived Jesus, a wise man\u2014if indeed one ought to call him a man.\u201d It is precisely this unhappy interpolation that guarantees the authenticity of Josephus\u2019 statement that Jesus was \u201ca wise man.\u201d
\nEvidently by these words Josephus identifies Jesus with the Jewish Sages. The Greek word for \u201cwise\u201d has a common root with the Greek term \u201csophist,\u201d a term that did not then possess the negative connotation it has today. Elsewhere Josephus refers to two outstanding Jewish Sages as sophists, and this title was used regularly by him to designate prominent Jewish Sages. The Greek author, Lucian from Samosata (born ca. 120 and died after 180 A.D.) similarly refers to Jesus as \u201cthe crucified sophist.\u201d I am not sure that Jesus himself would have liked to have been seen as a Jewish rabbinic scholar, but this is not very important for our question. What is important is that Josephus\u2019 reference to Jesus as \u201ca wise man\u201d challenges the recent tendency to view Jesus as merely a simple peasant.<\/p>\n
A pagan derision of Christianity. The Crucified One has a head of an ass, because the Jews were then accused they adored an ass. A Graffito from the first half of the 3rd century A.D.<\/p>\n
External corroboration of Jesus\u2019 Jewish scholarship is provided by the fact that, although he was not an approved scribe, some were accustomed to address him as \u201cRabbi,\u201d \u201cmy teacher\/master.\u201d Nevertheless, it should be noted that according to the oldest sources, as reflected by Luke, Jesus was addressed as \u201cRabbi\u201d only by outsiders. Those numbered among the inner circle of his followers and those who came to him in need addressed him as \u201cLord\u201d (ha\u02beadon). Apparently this is the title that he preferred. This we know, again thanks to the report of Luke: \u201cHow can one say that the Messiah is the Son of David? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms (110:1), \u2018The Lord (God) said to my lord\u2019 (\u05dc\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9), Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.\u2019 David calls him Lord (\u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05df). How then can he be David\u2019s son?\u201d (Luke 20:41\u201344 and parr.). The title should not be confused as a sign of his deity (i.e. Adonai), but an indication of his high self-awareness.
\nThe epithet \u201cRabbi\u201d was in common use in those days and was especially popular for describing scholars and teachers of the Torah. It had not yet become restricted to expert and ordained teachers. The generation following Jesus was the first to employ the title as an academic degree. Jesus did not approve of the pleasure so many Pharisees took in being addressed as rabbi. \u201cDo not call yourselves master (\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9), for you have but one master (\u05e8\u05d1\u05db\u05dd, i.e., God); call no man on the earth father (or: Abba), for there is but one who is your father in heaven, and you are brothers\u201d (Matt. 23:6\u201312). In those days \u201cAbba\u201d was another common form of address. Even the famous Bar Kokhba was addressed in a newly published letter as \u05d0\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9 (Dear Father). In the generation before Jesus, a scribe had said much the same thing, \u201cLove manual work and hate mastery.\u201d Many others shared this view.
\nArrogance may have been prevalent among the scribes, but they were not effete academicians. They demanded that everyone teach his son a trade, and many of them were themselves artisans. Carpenters were regarded as particularly learned. If a difficult problem was under discussion, they would ask, \u201cIs there a carpenter among us, or the son of a carpenter, who can solve the problem for us?\u201d Jesus was a carpenter and\/or the son of a carpenter. This in itself is no proof that either he or his father were learned, but it counts against the common, sweetly idyllic notion of Jesus as a na\u00efve and amiable, simple, manual workman.
\nNietzsche was right when he wrote, \u201cThe attempts I know of to construct the history of a \u2018soul\u2019 from the Gospels seem to me to imply a deplorable psychological frivolity.\u201d There is, however, a psychological element in the life of Jesus that we may not ignore: the tension between Jesus\u2019 familial ties and his understanding of his divinely appointed task. This element is to be found even in the historically less reliable John. At the marriage feast in Cana, Jesus\u2019 mother asked him to produce wine, and he replied, \u201cO woman, what have you to do with me?\u201d (2:4). In a recently discovered apocryphal narrative, this theme of tension between Jesus and his family is heightened almost intolerably. The source reports that, as Jesus was being crucified, his mother Mary and her sons James, Simon, and Judah, came and stood before him. Hanging upon the cross, he said to her, \u201cTake your sons and go away!\u201d
\nThe heightening of this familial tension is also present in the Synoptic Gospels. According to Luke 8:21, Jesus recognized the religious piety of his family, \u201cMy mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.\u201d Yet, he elevated the importance of those who believe. On another occasion we hear that \u201ca woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, \u2018Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked.\u2019 But he said, \u2018Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!\u2019 \u201d (Luke 11:27\u201328). Even so, Mark\u2019s version of Luke 8:21 exaggerates Jesus\u2019 own familial tension and reads as a rejection by Jesus of his family, \u201c \u2018Who are my mother and my brothers?\u2019 And looking around at those who sat about him, he said, \u2018Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.\u2019 \u201d (Mark 3:34\u201335; cf. Luke 11:27\u201328).
\nNotwithstanding the evidence of the evangelists\u2019 editorial creativity, Jesus clearly understood that uncompromising religious commitment sometimes results in breaking family ties. \u201cTruly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life\u201d (Luke 18:28\u201330). To another he said, \u201cFollow me.\u201d But he said, \u201cLord, let me first go and bury my father.\u201d But he said to him, \u201cLeave the dead to bury their own dead \u2026\u201d Another said, \u201cI will follow you, Lord; but first let me say farewell to those at my home.\u201d Jesus said to him, \u201cNo one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God\u201d (Luke 9:59\u201362). There is one more pertinent saying that does not sound so inhuman in Hebrew as in translation. \u201cIf any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters \u2026 he cannot be my disciple\u201d (Luke 14:26).
\nAn emotion-laden tension seems to have arisen between Jesus and his family in Nazareth, and it would appear to have been this psychological fact\u2014the background to which we do not know\u2014that contributed powerfully to his personal decision that was so decisive for mankind. The impetus for his departure from Nazareth probably lies in the fact that his family regarded the mission that led Jesus to his death as a dangerous illusion (John 7:5). Jesus correctly suspected that his own kith and kin would not favor his mission, and for this reason he did not return home after his baptism, but went to Capernaum. Later, when he returned to visit his native town, he proved that no one is a prophet in his own country (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; John 4:44).
\nWhat happened to Jesus\u2019 family after his death? An interesting report (Acts 1:14) tells us that Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brethren joined the apostles in Jerusalem. The Lord\u2019s brother, James, came to believe as a result of a resurrection appearance. In 62 A.D. James died for his faith in his brother; he was murdered by a Sadducean high priest. The other brothers were later converted to faith, and with their wives they accepted the hospitality of the congregations (1 Cor. 9:5). Having recognized their deceased brother as the Messiah, the brothers of the Lord then realized that they, too, were of David\u2019s line. An old account tells us that the Emperor Domitian regarded the grandsons of the Lord\u2019s brother, Judah, with suspicion because they belonged to the Jewish royal house. The Emperor is supposed to have interrogated them in Rome, but then set them free when he discovered that they were only poor peasants. They were leaders of Christian churches, apparently in Galilee, and they lived until the reign of Trajan.
\nJames, the brother of the Lord, was succeeded as head of the Church in Jerusalem by Simeon, a cousin of Jesus. After Jesus\u2019 death, his family, therefore, overcame their disbelief, and assumed an honorable place in the young Jewish-Christian community. We can understand their action. It might be dangerous, indeed, to live as the Redeemer\u2019s relatives within an ordered society, but if they lived within a messianic community they would find it more compatible. Despite her inability to understand fully her son, this was also the case with the mother of Jesus. From her point of view, Mary\u2019s worries were justified, the dreaded catastrophe came and her own heart was pierced by a sword. Did she find complete consolation later through faith in her risen son, and in the hope that she would see him again?<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n
BAPTISM<\/p>\n
In those days, John the Baptist went out into the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. The prophecy of Isaiah (40:3) was being fulfilled, \u201cThe voice of one calling: In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord\u201d (cf. Mark 1:2\u20134). For the Essenes, whose writings were discovered near the Dead Sea, this prophecy was also a call \u201cto depart from the habitations of men of sin, to go into the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord.\u201d John\u2019s words were so close to that of the Essenes that it is possible that at one time he may have belonged to one of their communities. He left later because he disapproved of the sectarian separatism of the Essenes and wanted to offer the opportunity of repentance and forgiveness of sins to the whole of Israel. Crowds streamed from far and wide to this grim, austere prophet of the wilderness. They listened to his threatening penitential sermons, confessed their sins, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan.<\/p>\n
Isaiah 40:3 from the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/p>\n
John\u2019s powerful influence over the people led to his execution by Herod Antipas, son of King Herod the Great. Josephus reports,<\/p>\n
When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided, therefore, that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake.<\/p>\n
We can learn more about the death of John from the gospels.
\nThe thing that most attracted men to John was the baptism he conferred. Many hoped that the immersion would expiate their sins, and thus they would escape the coming wrath of God\u2019s judgment. John, however, first demanded true repentance. According to Josephus, John was a holy man who,<\/p>\n
had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be acceptable to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a purification of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior.<\/p>\n
Cave 4 from Qumran
\nCourtesy: Israel Government Press Office<\/p>\n
Mikveh (Jewish ritual immersion bath) from first-century Jerusalem
\nPhoto: David Bivin; Courtesy: Jerusalem Perspective<\/p>\n
This understanding of baptism is exactly in line with the Essene view.
\nTraditional Jewish baptismal baths merely washed ritual uncleanness from the body. In the Essene view, however, a sin committed brings ritual uncleanness, and so, \u201cno one may enter the water \u2026 unless he has repented of his evil, because uncleanness clings to all transgressors of His word.\u201d Only he \u201cwho bows his soul to the law of God, has his flesh purified by the sprinkling of the purifying waters, and is sanctified in the water of purity.\u201d Or again\u2014almost in the very words that express the view of John the Baptist\u2014water can cleanse the body only if the soul has first been purified through righteousness. But what is it in repentance that purifies the soul? \u201cBy the spirit of holiness \u2026 a man is cleansed from all sins.\u201d In this way, Essene baptism linked repentance with the forgiveness of sins, and the latter with the Holy Spirit. Just as John\u2019s notion of baptism coincided with that of the Essenes, he also reflects their understanding of the Holy Spirit at work in baptism.
\nWe can well imagine the holy excitement of that crowd who had listened to the words of the Baptist. Having confessed their sins and awaiting the gift of the Holy Spirit to cleanse their souls from all the filth of sin, they plunged their defiled bodies into the cleansing water of the river. Can it be that none of them would have had a special pneumatic-ecstatic experience in that hour when the Spirit of God touched them? \u201cNow when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, \u2018Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.\u2019 \u201d Thus spoke the heavenly voice according to Matthew (3:17) and Mark (1:11). Yet many scholars are right in thinking that in the original account, the heavenly voice announced to Jesus, \u201cBehold My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen, in whom My soul delights; I have put My Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations\u201d (Isaiah 42:1). This form is probably the original, for the reason that the prophetic word fits the situation.<\/p>\n
John baptizes Jesus (from a Roman catacomb)
\nPhoto: Rowohlt Archives<\/p>\n
The gift of the Holy Spirit assumed a significance for Jesus that was differerent than for others who were baptized by John. Heavenly voices were not an uncommon phenomenon among the Jews of those days, and frequently these voices were heard to utter verses from scripture. Endowment with the Holy Spirit, accompanied by an ecstatic experience, was apparently something which happened to others who were baptized in John\u2019s presence in the Jordan. If Jesus really did hear these words from Isaiah, the phrase \u201cI have put my Spirit upon him\u201d was a wonderful confirmation of the gift of the Holy Spirit. There was something else, however, that possesses unique significance.
\nIf we accept the traditional form of the heavenly message, Jesus is described as \u201cMy Son.\u201d If, however, the heavenly voice intoned the words of Isaiah, Jesus must have understood that he was being set apart as the Servant of God, the Chosen One. For him the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was part of John\u2019s baptism, held another special significance that was to become decisive for his future. None of the designations Son, Servant or Chosen One were exclusively messianic titles\u2014the last two could also denote the special status of the prophetic office. By these titles, Jesus learned that he was now chosen, called, set apart. Nothing that we have learned casts any doubt upon the historicity of Jesus\u2019 experience at his baptism in the Jordan.
\nAccording to Mark (1:9) and Matthew (3:13), Jesus came to John from his home in Nazareth. If we are to believe the words of the archangel reported by Luke (1:36), Mary was related to John\u2019s mother. We cannot learn any more than this about the psychological background to Jesus\u2019 decision to join the crowd and be baptized by John. On the other hand, if we use the documents properly, we can form a fairly clear idea of what happened to Jesus after his baptism and call. The only serious problem seems to be that we have no reliable report of the place of the Baptist\u2019s activities. Moreover, this prophet of the wilderness did not remain in the same place. Perhaps Jesus was baptized by John not far from the point where the Jordan enters the Lake of Gennesaret in the north. In the area is Bethsaida, the home of the brothers Andrew and Peter, whom according to John (1:40\u201344), Jesus met at his baptism.<\/p>\n
First century fishing boat from the Lake of Gennesaret<\/p>\n
The first disciples\u2014Peter, his brother Andrew, and the brothers James and John the sons of Zebedee\u2014were all fishermen on the Lake of Gennesaret. Peter was married to a woman from nearby Capernaum where they lived in the home of his mother-in-law. The disciple\u2019s mother-in-law became a believer after Jesus cured her of a fever. Her house became almost a second home for Jesus. Later, after the unsuccessful visit to his native Nazareth, Jesus returned to the district around Capernaum.
\nThe geographical setting for Jesus\u2019 public ministry may result from the vicinity of his baptism and from his acquaintance with Peter. This is not a theological, but a strictly factual background. It is confirmed by Jesus\u2019 own words.<\/p>\n
Ruins of the synagogue at Chorazin
\nCourtesy: Israel Government Press Office<\/p>\n
Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. \u201cWoe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes. But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you (Matt. 11:20\u201324; Luke 10:12\u201315).<\/p>\n
The northwest corner of the Sea of Galilee was densely populated and well cultivated. Nearby Chorazin\u2014whose wheat was famous\u2014is not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. The wretched Mary Magdalene \u201cfrom whom seven demons had gone out\u201d (Luke 8:2) came from the neighboring Magdala. Many fishermen lived there and sailed routinely across to the east bank where fish were plentiful. Contrary to popular notions today, the inhabitants of this district were not rude backwoodsmen.
\nMore important than establishing the geographical setting of Jesus\u2019 public ministry is defining the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus after the baptism. Only after correcting some common misconceptions can we portray Jesus in his true significance. The root of the distortion lies in the chronology of salvation history found in Mark. Because, in the Christian view, John the Baptist was justifiably regarded as the forerunner of Jesus, and because Jesus\u2019 entry on the scene did follow that of John, Mark makes John the precursor of Jesus in the literal sense. Thus, according to Mark, Jesus could appear publicly only after John had been arrested. \u201cNow after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God\u201d (Mark 1:14).
\nMatthew goes a step further. He followed Mark\u2019s chronological framework (see Matt. 4:12\u201313) which assumed that John had been seized before the first appearance of Jesus. Accordingly, only after John had been imprisoned was Matthew able to portray John sending messengers to Jesus to ask him if he was the \u201cone who was to come.\u201d Matthew\u2019s version \u201ccorrected\u201d the original chronology under the influence of Mark. Thus, Luke 4:1 is right while Matthew 11:2 is wrong. Moreover, Matthew displays a tendency to conflate John\u2019s words with elements of Jesus\u2019 speech (and vice versa). He thus puts Jesus\u2019 preaching, word for word, in the Baptist\u2019s mouth (Matt. 3:2; cf. 4:17). The change in the original chronology by Mark and Matthew, and the new distorted order of events has given birth to unnecessary reconstructions of Jesus\u2019 beginnings.
\nMark\u2019s mistaken chronology is usually taken to prove that Jesus\u2019 prime purpose in stepping into public life was to fill the gap left in Israel by the arrest of the Baptist. This impression seems to find confirmation in Matthew. At first, according to that Gospel, Jesus merely continued to preach John\u2019s message. If this were indeed so, it would have been the height of human tragedy that, shortly before his death, John, who had spent his whole life waiting for the Messiah, received news of Jesus\u2019 emergence, and sent messengers to him. No wonder that Flaubert described this moving scene in his story, Herodias!
\nAgain, the original historical picture is altered first by Mark and Matthew for theological reasons, then through the psychological reinterpretation of many scholars. Yet, even the less reliable Gospel of John knows that \u201cJohn had not yet been put in prison\u201d (3:24). Luke and his sources, too, never report that Jesus appeared only after John had disappeared. Having now removed the secondary distortions, we can proceed to tell the story of the beginning of Jesus\u2019 public ministry.
\nJohn the Baptist certainly had a circle of disciples, but obviously most of the men whom he baptized in the Jordan left him after their baptism and went home. John did not want to found a sect; he thought it better to send each man back to his own trade (Luke 3:10\u201314). On the other hand, Jesus did not return to his former lifestyle after the voice at baptism announced his election. \u201cFrom that time Jesus began to preach, saying, \u2018Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand\u2019 \u201d (Matt. 4:17). He called his disciples, taught in the synagogues, \u201cand they brought him all the sick \u2026 and he healed them\u201d (Matt. 4:17\u201325).
\nIt is possible that John the Baptist believed himself to be the prophet who was to come at the end of time. The people saw him as the biblical prophet Elijah who was to precede the Messiah. He himself preached that one would soon come who was stronger than he, and who would inaugurate God\u2019s judgment. When John heard of the excitement over Jesus in the villages around the Sea of Galilee\u2014so the sources tell us\u2014he sent two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus. In those days, it was a Jewish custom to send not one but two men on a commission. Jesus, too, sent his disciples out in pairs (Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1), and this custom was continued by Christians on their early missionary journeys.
\nJohn the Baptist asked Jesus through his two disciples, \u201cAre you the coming one or shall we look for another?\u201d The meaning of these words becomes clear when we read them in connection with the well-known verse from Daniel 7:13, \u201cI saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.\u201d Later on, in a separate chapter, we will treat the apocalyptic figure of the Son of Man. We will see that his main task in the eschatological future will be to separate the righteous from the sinners, to save the former and to cast the others into the fires of hell (see e.g. Matt. 25:31\u201346).
\nThis is precisely what John preached about the one mightier than he who is coming and \u201cwhose winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and so gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire\u201d (Luke 3:16\u201317; Matt. 3:11\u201312). The Son of Man is a figure that appears exclusively in Jewish apocalyptic writings, mostly in those that are close to the Essene movement. As we will see, Jesus himself also accepted this belief. Unlike the Baptist, however, he did not see the coming of the Son of Man and the last judgment as imminent. His different perspective is expressed in the \u201cParable of the Tares\u201d (Matt. 13:14\u201330; see also the \u201cParable of the Dragnet\u201d in Matt. 13:47\u201350).
\nThese parables stand in marked contrast to the acute eschatology of the Baptist, heard in the above-mentioned metaphor in Luke 3:16\u201317 and Matt. 3:11\u201312. Jesus\u2019 parable of the tares may have been meant as an indirect reaction to the words of the Baptist. According to John, the saving of the righteous and the destruction of the sinners will take place in the immediate future. Jesus, on the other hand, rightly saw that even in the period of the kingdom of heaven, which had begun to be realized, the good and the wicked coexist.
\nThe idea of the Son of Man belongs to an apocalyptic system of thinking in which there is no place for the concept of the present kingdom of heaven. As we will see, the idea of the kingdom of heaven is particularly rabbinic, and it is well known that this idea is pivotal for Jesus. It is precisely here that we see the clear difference between the prophet of doom and Jesus.
\nJesus sent his reply to the Baptist. \u201cGo and tell John what you hear and see. The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who is not wrong about me\u201d (Matt. 11:2\u20136; Luke 7:18\u201323). Jesus\u2019 doubts about the Baptist were justified. John never accepted Jesus\u2019 claim.
\nWhat is important is that Jesus affirmed in principle the Baptist\u2019s question about the eschatological meaning of his activities, without explicitly declaring that he was the coming Messiah. He established his claim to the eschatological office by pointing to his preaching of salvation and to his supernatural works of healing. Jesus saw these things as an unmistakable sign that the era of salvation had already dawned. \u201cBut if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you\u201d (Luke 11:20). Disease is of the devil, and the kingdom of God comes when Satan is conquered and rendered powerless.
\nAccording to Luke (10:18), Jesus once said, \u201cI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.\u201d According to a book which was written when Jesus was a child, \u201cThen will his kingdom over all creation appear, Satan will be destroyed and grief will depart with him.\u201d The coming of the kingdom is thus bound up with the overthrow of Satan and his spirits. When Jesus heals the sick and casts out unclean spirits, he is the victorious conqueror who makes real the kingdom of God. \u201cWhen a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace; but when one stronger than he assaults him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters\u201d (Luke 11:21\u201323).
\nIn addition to the miracles of healing, Jesus gives the Baptist a second proof of his claim. The poor have salvation preached to them. This is an allusion to words of the prophet Isaiah (61:1\u20132) which were especially important to Jesus. \u201cThe Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord\u2019s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn.\u201d These were the words that\u2014according to Luke 4:17\u201318\u2014Jesus read in the synagogue at the start of his ministry. Then he rolled up the scroll, and handed it back to the attendant, sat down and said, \u201cToday this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing\u201d (Luke 4:18\u201321).
\nThe words of the prophet ring out, too, in Jesus\u2019 beatitudes. He opens the kingdom of heaven to the poor in spirit and the meek, and gives comfort to them that mourn. It was to them that the good news of Jesus was sent. The word used in Greek was \u201ceuangelion,\u201d derived from the verb used in the verse from Isaiah to denote the preaching of salvation. For Jesus, this passage from scripture was the bridge between his calling, announced when he was baptized by John in the Jordan, and his present vocation. He knew that the Spirit of the Lord had come upon him, because the Lord had anointed him to proclaim salvation to the meek and the poor.<\/p>\n
As John\u2019s messengers were departing to report Jesus\u2019 answer, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John, \u201cWhat did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed swayed by the wind? Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, those who wear soft raiment are in kings\u2019 houses. Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, \u2018Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.\u2019 Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is breaking through, and those who break through, take it in possession. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear\u201d (Matt. 11:7\u201315).<\/p>\n
Buber once said, in a conversation, that if a man has the gift of listening, he can hear the voice of Jesus himself speaking in the later accounts of the Gospels. This authentic note can, I believe, be detected in Jesus\u2019 comments regarding the Baptist. These are at once simple and profound, naive and full of paradox, tempestuous and yet calm. Can anyone plumb their ultimate depths? Jesus was addressing those who had made their pilgrimage out into the wilderness to see the new prophet. That was no place to find finely clothed courtiers, who live in palaces, and bend like a reed in the wind to every change of opinion. We observe that the imagery is taken from a well-known fable of Aesop, with which the rabbis, too, were familiar.
\nThe reed outlives the storm because it bends to the wind, whereas a stronger tree, that refuses to bend, is often uprooted by the storm. Now we know who was the target of Jesus\u2019 scorn: Herod Antipas and his fawning courtiers, against whom the unbending, fearless desert prophet, dressed in a garment of camel hair, hurled his preaching of doom. It can surely be no accident that Jesus recast a fable of Aesop. Clearly he regarded the tetrarch and his court as a kind of \u201canimal farm.\u201d Later, in Aesop\u2019s style, he was to describe Herod as \u201cthat fox\u201d (Luke 13:32).
\nIn Jesus\u2019 view, John was a prophet, if you like, the one who was preparing the way of God at the end of time, the Elijah who was to return. With John, the end-time begins\u2014the decisive eruption into the history of the world. All the prophets have prophesied until the time of John the Baptist; but from now on, \u201cthe kingdom of heaven is breaking through, and those who break through, take it in possession.\u201d These enigmatic words are connected with the saying of the prophet Micah (2:13): \u201cHe who opens the breach will go up before them; they will break through and pass the gate, going out by it. Their king will pass on before them, the Lord at their head.\u201d
\nA medieval commentator, David Kimchi, offered the following interpretation for this verse. \u201cThe \u2018one who opens up the breach\u2019 is Elijah and \u2018their king\u2019 is the scion of David.\u201d According to this interpretation, an earlier form of which Jesus seems to have known, Elijah was to come first to open the breach, and he would be followed by those who broke through with their king, the Messiah. According to Jesus, Elijah-John has already come, and those men who have the courage of decision are now taking possession of the kingdom.
\nWith John\u2019s coming, the kingdom of heaven broke through. Yet, although John was the greatest among \u201cthose born among women,\u201d the least in the kingdom of heaven would be greater than he. John the Baptist made the breach through which the kingdom of God could break, but he himself was never a member of that kingdom. We may state it in another way. At his baptism Jesus was illuminated by the heavenly voice concerning the beginning of the messianic kingdom. John was the precursor, \u201cthe breaker,\u201d for the advent of that kingdom, but he himself did not belong to the kingdom. He was, so to speak, a member of the previous generation. This paradoxical insight on the part of Jesus highlights both the distinction between John and the messianic kingdom, as well as the historic link between Jesus and the Baptist. Nevertheless, Jesus\u2019 experience at his baptism invested him with a new and separate function. Jesus could not become a disciple of John. He would have to move on to the villages around the Sea of Galilee and proclaim the kingdom of heaven.
\nNow we understand why Jesus\u2019 reply to the Baptist\u2019s inquiry ended with a warning, \u201cBlessed is he who is not wrong about me.\u201d The Hebrew verb which in those days was expanded to mean, \u201cto be led into sin, to go astray from the right understanding of the will of God,\u201d was rendered in the Greek of the Gospel literally \u201cto stumble.\u201d Following a later document (1 Pet. 2:7\u20138), Jesus is, as it were, the touch stone, a cornerstone for believers, a rock of offense, and a stone of stumbling (Luke 20:18; cf. 2:34) for unbelievers. When the Baptist sent his inquiry to Jesus, Jesus rightly guessed that he could not go along with him, because John, the greatest member of the former generation, did not belong to the kingdom of God. It may even be that Jesus had concrete indications of John\u2019s hesitation. We are not told what the Baptist\u2019s reaction was to Jesus\u2019 message. Nevertheless, the movement he started carried on an independent life parallel to that of emergent Christianity.
\nAs we have seen, many thought that John was Elijah come again. The Old Testament itself tells us that Elijah never died, but was transported up to heaven. How, then, could this immortal one, having returned at the end of time as John, be irrevocably killed by Herod? There were indeed men who thought that John the Baptist had risen from the dead (Luke 9:1) and had reappeared in Jesus. It is obvious that many of John\u2019s disciples shared this belief in their master\u2019s resurrection. Nevertheless, John\u2019s own preaching rules out the possibility that he regarded himself as the Messiah. He looked for another to come who was greater than himself (Luke 3:16). Yet, there were those among his disciples who, even during his life, toyed with the idea that he was the greater. In any event, after his death there is evidence of belief in the Baptist as the Messiah. Clearly, however, because he belonged to a priestly line, he was regarded as the priestly, not the Davidic, Messiah.
\nThe logic of the accounts requires that Herod must have been quick to see the danger that the Baptist represented. He did not leave him free for long. Jesus\u2019 activity, too, after John\u2019s arrest, was obviously restricted to a short space of time. Herod, the fox, had not been asleep. After he had executed John, \u201cHerod, the tetrarch, heard about the fame of Jesus; and he said to his servants, \u2018This is John the Baptist, he has been raised from the dead\u2019 \u201d (Matt. 14:1). Later, some of the Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod was seeking his life. Thereupon, Jesus sent word to Herod that he would spend two or three days more in the district, and then move on to Jerusalem, \u201cfor it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem\u201d (Luke 13:31). As we shall see, Herod had his share in the blame for the crucifixion.
\nAfter John\u2019s execution, Jesus pointed out to his disciples the tragic connection between that execution and the end which threatened himself. \u201cAnd the disciples asked him, \u2018Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?\u2019 He replied, \u2018Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will suffer at their hands.\u2019 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist\u201d (Matt. 17:10\u201313).
\nEarlier than this, at the beginning of his ministry, when John the Baptist was still preaching in the wilderness, Jesus had compared himself with John the Baptist. \u201cBut to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places calling to their playmates, \u2018We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.\u2019 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, \u2018He has a demon\u2019; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, \u2018Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!\u2019 Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds\u201d (Matt. 11:16\u201319). It was impossible to please anybody. They said that the ascetic desert preacher, John, was mad\u2014as they said later that Jesus was using an evil spirit\u2014and they found fault with Jesus, too, on account of his openness to the world. From this saying of Jesus we learn indirectly that the content of each man\u2019s preaching was closely linked with his character. The good news of love was related to Jesus\u2019 Socratic nature; penitential preaching was related to John\u2019s somber inclination toward asceticism.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4<\/p>\n
LAW<\/p>\n
Paul and his entourage \u201cwent through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia \u2026; so, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; a man of Macedonia was standing beseeching him and saying, \u2018Come over to Macedonia and help us\u2019 \u201d (Acts 16:6\u201310).
\nThis episode in Paul\u2019s mission to the heathen in the West was of enormous importance. It was the will of God for Christianity to spread westward into Europe. Christianity, thus, penetrated into the Graeco-Roman world and from there later became a European religion. In contrast to the cultural setting of Judaism and the religions of eastern Asia beginning with Persia, Western culture contributed to Christianity\u2019s de-emphasis on ritual or ceremonial prescriptions concerning \u201cfood and drink and various ablutions\u201d (Heb. 9:10). In the European view one may eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the grounds of conscience. For \u201cthe earth is the Lord\u2019s, and everything in it\u201d (1 Cor. 10:25\u201326).
\nOne of the tasks taken up by Paulinism and other movements in early Christianity was the creation of an ideological framework based upon this concept of freedom from the law. In the course of Christianity\u2019s history, the superstructure has changed. On the whole, however, it has had to remain because this \u201cliberalism\u201d is an intrinsic characteristic of European civilization. Had Christianity spread first to the eastern Asiatic regions, it would have developed specific ritual and ceremonial practices based on the Jewish law in order to become a genuine religion in that part of the world.<\/p>\n
Moses as depicted in a mural from Dura Europas<\/p>\n
It would be a mistake, therefore, not to recognize the unease experienced by many Christian thinkers and scholars. They have felt obliged to deal with the fact that the founder of their religion was a Jew, faithful to the law, who never had to face the necessity of adapting his Judaism to the European way of life. For Jesus there was, of course, the peculiar problem of his relationship to the law and its precepts, but this arises for every believing Jew who takes his Judaism seriously.
\nIn the gospels, we see how Jesus\u2019 attitude to the law has sometimes become unrecognizable as the result of \u201cclarification\u201d by the evangelists and touching up by later revisers. Nevertheless, the synoptic gospels, if read through the eyes of their own time, still portray a picture of Jesus as a faithful, law-observant Jew. Few people seem to realize that in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is never shown in conflict with current practice of the law\u2014with the single exception of the plucking of heads of grains on the Sabbath. In this incident, Luke (6:1\u20135) is the closest to the original account. \u201cOn a Sabbath, while he was going through the grain fields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. But some of the Pharisees said, \u2018Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?\u2019 \u201d
\nThe general opinion was that on the Sabbath it was permissible to pick up fallen heads of grain and rub them between the fingers. According to Rabbi Yehuda, also a Galilean, it was even permissible to rub them in one\u2019s hand. Some of the Pharisees found fault with Jesus\u2019 disciples for behaving in accordance with their Galilean tradition. The Greek translator of the original evidently was unacquainted with the customs of the people. To make the scene more vivid, he added the statement about plucking the wheat and thus introduced the one and only act of transgression of the law recorded in the synoptic tradition.
\nIn the case of washing hands before a meal, the synoptic tradition is not to blame for the misunderstanding. The precept about washing hands was part of neither written nor oral teaching. In Jesus\u2019 time the precept ran, \u201cWashing hands before a meal is advisable, ablution after a meal is obligatory.\u201d This custom concerned rabbinic regulations that are first found, perhaps, in the generation before Jesus. Even the most bigoted, village Pharisee of those days would have shaken his head uncomprehendingly had anyone asserted that Jesus had broken the law of Moses because his disciples did not always wash their hands before eating. \u201cIt is reasonable to suppose that till the time of the Destruction of the Temple, and possibly even later, washing of the hands for ordinary food was not accepted by all the Sages nor practised by all Israel.\u201d
\nViewed from the standpoint of the gradation of Jewish precepts, the scribes in conversation with Jesus described the washing of hands as no more than \u201ca tradition of the fathers\u201d (Mark 7:5). Jesus, too, was using the concepts of his own time when he described the rabbinical prescription of washing hands\u2014not wholly obligatory in those days\u2014as \u201ca tradition of men\u201d (Mark 7:8) in contrast to the commandments of written and oral teaching. The prescription of washing hands before a meal was not generally binding in those days for the simple reason that it was one of those rules of purification that did not affect all Jews. It was only incumbent upon those particular groups of Jews who had accepted them as an obligation for life.
\nThe degree and extent of this obligation varied. The Pharisees were a society whose rules of ritual purity were still much looser than those of the Essene community. It would have been natural, therefore, that in the debate on washing of hands, Jesus enlarged the scope of our whole problem of ritual purity by saying, \u201cnot what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man\u201d (Matt. 15:11). By the way, this dictum is completely compatible with the Jewish legal position. A person\u2019s body does not become ritually impure even when one has eaten animals forbidden by the Law of Moses!
\nWhat Jesus said, thus, has nothing to do with a supposed abrogation of Judaic law, but is part of a criticism directed at the Pharisees. The general truth that strict observation of ritual purity can encourage moral laxity, was applicable even in Jesus\u2019 day. A Jewish writer of those days certainly had the Pharisees in mind when he spoke of \u201cpestilential and impious men \u2026 hypocritical \u2026 And although their hands and minds are occupied with things unclean, they will make a fine show in words, even saying, Do not touch me, lest you pollute me.\u2026\u201d Here, as with Jesus, the contrast between morally unclean thought and speech, and the craving for ritual purity is stressed.
\nJesus spoke on this topic on another occasion, \u201cWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisees! First clean the inside of the cup and plate, so that the outside also may become clean\u201d (Matt. 23:25\u201326). He also called them \u201cblind guides, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!\u201d (Matt. 23:24). This last saying sounds like a proverb. Perhaps Jesus\u2019 terminology about interior and external purity was not invented by him either.
\nIf we are right in thinking that this saying is an important one, we ought to inquire into the precise meaning it had for Jesus himself. Following the custom, Jesus used to pronounce a blessing over wine and bread. Could he, at the same time, believe that material things are in themselves religiously neutral? A few decades later Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to his pupils, \u201cIndeed, it is not the dead who make you unclean, nor is it water, but it is an ordinance of the King of kings. God has said, \u2018I have established My statute. I have settled My ordinance. No man has the right to transgress My ordinance.\u2019 For it is written, \u2018This is the statute of the law which the Lord has commanded.\u2019 \u201d
\nJesus would not have spoken thus\u2014for one thing, it is too rationalistic. We may say\u2014provisionally\u2014that for Jesus, moral values far overshadowed all ritual values, but that is far from the whole truth. Would Jesus, in any case, think in such sharply defined theoretical categories? On the matter of washing hands and plucking heads of grain, it was the disciples, not the master, who were less strict in their observance of the law. Even this is not usually noticed. When his disciples\u2019 negligence was pointed out to the master, he not only came to their defense, but replied with far more force than it would seem the case merits.
\nJesus seized the opportunity to elucidate an important point. His replies here and elsewhere were not so revolutionary as the uninitiated might imagine. His saying about purity and impurity is almost a piece of popular moral wisdom, and the kernel of Jesus\u2019 words in the debate about grain on the Sabbath are completely in harmony with the views of the moderate scribes. On that occasion, Jesus said, among other things, \u201cThe Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. So, man is lord even of the Sabbath\u201d (Mark 2:27\u201328). The scribes, too, said, \u201cThe Sabbath has been handed over to you, not you to the Sabbath.\u201d
\nJesus knew how to capitalize on a suitable occasion for a pedagogic offensive against the bigots. He did this, for example, when he performed a miracle of healing on the Sabbath. To understand the situation properly, we must keep in mind that if there was even a slight suspicion of danger to life, any form of healing was permitted. Moreover, even when the illness was not dangerous, while mechanical means were not allowed, healing by word was always permitted on the Sabbath. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus adhered to these restrictions in all of his healings. Not so with John, who was less interested in history. He reports the healing of the blind man, a story that is reminiscent of Mark 8:22\u201326. According to John 9:6, Jesus healed the man by placing mud made from earth and spittle on the blind man\u2019s eyes. In contrast to Mark, John adds, \u201cNow it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made clay and opened his eyes \u2026 Some of the Pharisees said, \u2018This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath\u2019 \u201d (John 9:14\u201316). If Jesus had acted thus, the objection of the Pharisees would have been legitimate. We have noted, however, that Jesus had no desire to oppose the law of Moses. He only wanted to expose the rigidity of the bigots, using this case as an example.
\nNot only did Jesus use the criticism of his opponents for teaching purposes, he actually knew how to create situations that would highlight aspects of his teaching. \u201cOn another Sabbath, when he entered the synagogue and taught, a man was there whose right hand was withered. And they watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath. But he said to them, \u2018Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a person or to let him perish?\u2019 And he said to the man, \u2018Stretch out your hand.\u2019 He did so, and his hand was restored like the other. But they were at a loss and asked one another, \u2018What are we to do with Jesus?\u2019 \u201d (Luke 6:6\u201311).
\nSince the mention of the Pharisees is inconsistent in all three of the synoptic traditions, it is probable that those who stood by watching were not in fact Pharisees. Their description as such is the product of the hand of a later redactor. Moreover, the statement regarding their motivation, \u201cthey were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus,\u201d is also secondary. Jesus\u2019 assertion that it is lawful to save a person and not to let him perish was surely not foreign to many of his hearers. Jesus alluded to a well-known classical expression of the Jewish humane approach to the other, as it is contained in the important rabbinical saying:<\/p>\n
Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world.<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 creative innovation was that he applied this common Jewish principle to the attitude toward the Sabbath and healing upon it. But for some of his hearers the allusion to the well-known sentence only strengthened their perplexity.
\nJesus, already known to be a healer, meets a man with a withered hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath. The man is chronically, not dangerously, ill. Is Jesus going to heal this man? Yes! But in a manner consistent with Sabbath observance. By this deed, and by what he said, he showed the true meaning of the Sabbath. Naturally, he roused the sanctimonious people who had been unable to catch him breaking the law. Furthermore, in the original account, which lies behind much of Matthew\u2019s narrative (Matt. 12:9\u201314), the Pharisees were not explicitly mentioned. The reference to the Pharisees in Matthew\u2019s conclusion (Matt. 12:14) is not drawn from the original account but is dependent at this point on Mark\u2019s Gospel. In Mark, the story ends not with the impotent confusion of the bigots, but in this way: \u201cThe Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.\u201d This is a plain reference to the coming crucifixion (cf. Mark 15:1). It is most unlikely that the Pharisees would have acted in that way. The most wicked among them would never have resolved to kill Jesus because he had performed a work of healing on the Sabbath\u2014a permissible deed anyway. For this reason Luke\u2019s version (6:11) is preferable here.
\nIf Jesus, then, emphasized the moral side of life in preference to the purely formal side of legal observance, we can give a little more depth to this provisional affirmation by leaving the question of the law and addressing two of his other controversial conversations. The first has the same polemical overtone as the saying on the occasion of the healing of the man\u2019s withered hand. \u201cAnd behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said, \u2018My son, your sins are forgiven.\u2019 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, \u2018This man is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God?\u2019 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts said, \u2018What are you thinking in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, \u201cYour sins are forgiven,\u201d or to say, \u201cRise and walk\u201d? But that you may know that man has authority on earth to forgive sins\u2019\u2014he then said to the paralytic, \u2018Rise, take up your bed and go home.\u2019 And he rose and went home. And all were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men\u201d (cf. Matt. 9:1\u20138).<\/p>\n
Healing of the man sick with palsy (Luke 5:17\u201326 and parr.) from the Church of Dura Europas, first half of the 3rd century A.D.<\/p>\n
As in the episode of the healing of the withered hand, Jesus again links word with deed. The healing was not intended as an end in itself but as a striking proof of his message. Because people believed that illnesses were a consequence of sins committed, forgiveness of sins could even imply healing. By healing the paralytic, Jesus proved that God had given authority to men to pronounce forgiveness of sins even when those sins had not been committed against them. It is also important that Jesus forgave the sick man his sins after having perceived the faith of those present, and also, apparently, the faith of the sick man. The original account makes no mention of belief in Jesus himself\u2014only later did it become an integral part of the Christian faith (e.g., in John\u2019s Gospel)\u2014but the power of faith itself was already recognized by Jesus. \u201cIf you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, \u2018Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea\u2019 and it would obey you\u201d (Luke 17:6).
\nThere is another controversy regarding the forgiveness of sins. It was alleged that Jesus\u2019 healing power came from Beelzebub, the prince of spirits, by whose power Jesus drove out the spirits. One of his replies to this calumny is reported in Matt. 12:32, \u201cAnd whoever says a word against the son of man (i.e., a man) will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come.\u201d The special significance of this saying, which has parallels in Jewish writings, lies in the fact that, since his baptism, Jesus knew he possessed the Holy Spirit.
\nThe saying is important, also, because it shows us the substance to which Jesus is pointing in his controversies, even in those concerned with the observance of the law; namely, with human sin and human dignity. In the course of subsequent stages of revision, the protagonists in Jesus\u2019 controversial dialogues become more sharply delineated\u2014and increasingly distorted. In the original account Jesus\u2019 opponents are often anonymous, self-appointed spokesmen of local bigotry. Later they are described unhesitatingly as scribes and Pharisees. It is worthwhile to follow the progressive development of the text in order to see how Jesus\u2019 opponents increasingly become his enemies, inspired by boundless wickedness, having as their ultimate goal his demise and destruction.
\nThere is some justification, however, in describing Jesus\u2019 opponents-in-argument as Pharisees. In the narrower sense, the Pharisees were a society whose members\u2014as we have said\u2014had voluntarily accepted certain prescriptions of purity, and other obligations. In Jesus\u2019 time, this society numbered about six thousand members in Jerusalem. They were founded in the turbulent period of the second century B.C. They had been the opponents of the Maccabean ruling dynasty which had made alliance with the politico-religious movement of the Sadducees.
\nEarly Sadducean ideology is reflected by drawings found in Jerusalem in a tomb of a certain Jason. This Jason bears a Greek name, and a Greek inscription in his tomb invites living men to enjoy their life. The man was evidently a Sadducee who did not believe in an afterlife. In the tomb is also a drawing of three ships, (see pp. 68\u201369). The middle ship is a merchant (or fishing) vessel. The warship on the right is pursuing the two other ships. Apparently, the scene portrays a sea battle between the pursuing ship and the merchant vessel before it.<\/p>\n
There is little doubt that the picture of naval action was meant to refer to the occupation of one important member of the family buried here \u2026 In the present instance, there is reason to assume that the scene is one in which the deceased took a leading part, and that it is he who is clearly shown on the forecastle of his ship.<\/p>\n
Thus, the man who is chasing the merchant or fishing vessel and another warship is Jason himself. Apparently Jason was a Sadducean buccaneer in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103\u201376 B.C.). We know of such activities which are depicted in the drawing through Pompey\u2019s expressed concern for Arab and Jewish attacks (i.e. by sea) on Syria. He finally disallowed the throne to the last Seleucid, saying \u201cthat he would not know how to defend, lest he should again expose Syria to the depredations (latrocinia) of the Jews and Arabs.\u201d
\nThe Pharisaic became involved in the civil war of the late Maccabean period, and by Jesus\u2019 time they had become recognized as the teachers of the masses, consciously identifying themselves with popular faith. The Sadducees, on the other hand, formed a small but powerful group among the priestly aristocracy of the temple in Jerusalem. Fundamentally, the Pharisaic philosophy of life was in line with non-sectarian universal Judaism, while the Sadducees turned into a counter-revolutionary group that denied the validity of the oral tradition and saw belief in a future life as an old wives\u2019 tale.<\/p>\n
Drawing of ships<\/p>\n
The Pharisees were not identical with the later rabbis, but the two groups may, in practice, be regarded as forming a unity. In the rabbinic literature the sages never designate themselves as Pharisees. We do, however, know two men who called themselves Pharisees: the historian, Josephus Flavius, and St. Paul. While Paul\u2019s teacher, Rabban Gamaliel, in the rabbinic sources is never called a Pharisee, in Acts 5:34 Luke speaks about \u201ca Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people.\u201d Gamaliel\u2019s son, Simon, is described as a Pharisee only in Josephus. These exceptions to the rule are because they were written in Greek. The term \u201cPharisee\u201d in Hebrew usually bore a negative connotation. In those days, if one said \u201cPharisee,\u201d one immediately thought of a religious hypocrite. On his deathbed, the Sadducean King Alexander Jannaeus warned his wife not against the true Pharisees, but against the \u201cpainted ones, whose deeds are the deeds of Zimri, but who expect to receive the reward of Phinehas.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Sadducean king spoke of \u201cthe painted ones.\u201d The Essenes called the Pharisees \u201cthe whitewashed,\u201d and Jesus said, \u201cWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men\u2019s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity\u201d (Matt. 23:27\u201328). The Sadducean king distinguished between the wicked deeds of the \u201cwhitewashed\u201d and their claim to be honored as righteous. The Essenes, too, condemned the deeds of the Pharisees, \u201cAnd they lead thy people astray, for they utter smooth speeches to them. False teachers, they lead astray, and blindly they are heading for a fall, for their works are done in deceit.\u201d
\nJesus identified the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in the discrepancy between their doctrine and their deeds, \u201cfor they preach, but do not practice\u201d (Matt. 23:3). It is worth noting that this same anti-Pharisaic polemic also occurs in rabbinic literature, which is an expression of true Pharisaism. The talmudic list of the seven kinds of Pharisee is a fivefold variation on the theme of hypocrisy\u2014the last two kinds of hypocrisy are replaced by two positive kinds of Pharisee. It is thus no accident that in the Pharisee discourse of Matt. 23:1\u201336, Jesus addresses seven \u201cWoes\u201d to the Pharisees. The first type in the talmudic list is the \u201cshoulder-Pharisee who lays commandments upon men\u2019s shoulders.\u201d Jesus likewise said that the Pharisees \u201cbind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men\u2019s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger\u201d (Matt. 23:4).
\nThe Essene writings are full of the bitterest attacks upon the party of the Pharisees\u2014although the name is not directly mentioned. The Pharisees were described as \u201cslippery exegetes,\u201d their actions were hypocrisy, and by means of \u201ctheir deceitful doctrine, lying tongues and false lips\u201d they were able to lead almost the whole people astray. In all this, \u201cthey closed up the fountain of knowledge to the thirsty and gave them vinegar with which to quench their thirst.\u201d This reminds us of Jesus\u2019 words. \u201cWoe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering\u201d (Luke 11:52; cf. Matt. 23:13).<\/p>\n
Seat of Moses from Chorazin (see Matt. 23:2)
\nPhoto: David Harris; Courtesy: Israel Antiquities Authority<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the gap between the Essene attack upon the Pharisees and Jesus\u2019 criticism of them is great. The Essenes sharply rejected the doctrine of the Pharisees, whereas Jesus said, \u201cThe scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice\u201d (Matt. 23:2\u20133). In the Pharisees, Jesus saw the contemporary heirs of Moses, and said that men should model their lives upon their teaching. This makes sense, for although Jesus was apparently indirectly influenced by Essenism, he was basically rooted in universal non-sectarian Judaism. The philosophy and practice of this Judaism was that of the Pharisees.
\nIt would not be wrong to describe Jesus as a Pharisee in the broad sense. Yet, even if his criticism of the Pharisees was not as hostile as that of the Essenes, nor as contradictory as that of the contemporaneous writing we have cited, (i.e., The Assumption of Moses, chap. 7), he did view the Pharisees as an outsider, and did not identify himself with them. We have still to discuss the inevitable tension between the charismatic Jesus and institutional Judaism. Neither dare we forget that the revolutionary element in his preaching of the kingdom heightened this tension. It will become evident also that the authentic teaching of Jesus questioned the very foundations of the social structure. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that this tension never implied negation, nor were the views of Jesus and the Pharisees contrary or did they ever degenerate into enmity.
\nEven if it were not possible to detect by philological method the heightening of tensions by the evangelists, it would be difficult to understand the existence of a genuine hostility towards Jesus from the \u201cscribes and Pharisees\u201d\u2014allegedly a contributory cause of his death. Obviously, there were some petty minds among the Pharisees\u2014such people are found in all societies\u2014who were suspicious of this wonder-worker. These would gladly have caught him in some forbidden action so that they could drag him before the rabbinic court. Yet, Jesus always succeeded in stating his opinion without giving them the slightest excuse for prosecuting him.
\nThose who have studied the scribes of those days are well aware that their leaders were not without faults. At the same time, they know also that they were far from being petty-minded. If Jesus had lived in the stormy days of the last Maccabean kings, it would certainly have been possible for him to have been persecuted by the Pharisees, because he was the leader of a messianic movement. When the Pharisees came to power under Queen Salome Alexandra, by no means did they spare their Sadducean opponents. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that they also unleashed systematic persecution against the Essenes. But all that belonged to a past of which the Pharisees were ashamed. Jesus has something fine to say on this topic. \u201cWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, \u2018If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of prophets.\u2019 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets\u201d (Matt. 23:29\u201331).
\nThe testimonial which Jesus has involuntarily given the Pharisees of his time is confirmed by the report of his trial. It is hardly ever pointed out that the Pharisees, so often mentioned in the Gospels as Jesus\u2019 opponents, do not appear in any of the synoptic accounts of the trial. The fact that it would have been easy to smuggle the word \u201cPharisees\u201d into these relatively late accounts is proved by the less historical John, who had no qualms mentioning them in Jesus\u2019 arrest. \u201cSo Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons\u201d (John 18:3). The reason that not only the original accounts, but the first three Gospels as well, avoid mentioning the Pharisees in the story of the trial of Jesus, becomes clearer if we recall the role of the Pharisees in the first decades of the Christian Church.
\nWhen the apostles were persecuted by the Sadducean high priest, Rabban Gamaliel took their side and saved them (Acts 5:17\u201342). When Paul was taken before the high council in Jerusalem, he found sympathy among his hearers by appealing to the Pharisees (Acts 22:30\u201323:10). When in 62 A.D., the Lord\u2019s brother James, and apparently other Christians, were illegally put to death by the Sadducean high priest, the Pharisees appealed to the king, and the high priest was deposed. Taking the last case along with the two earlier ones, we can hardly avoid the impression that the Pharisees regarded the Sadducean hierocracy\u2019s persecution of the early Christians as further proof of the manifestly unjust cruelty of this group. Out of it they forged a moral-political weapon against the Sadducean priesthood\u2014politics is not always an evil business. This explains the Pharisees\u2019 apparently consistent opposition to the persecutions of the Christians by the Sadducean high priests, one of whom lost his office as a result of this opposition.
\nThe reason that the early Christians became a bone of contention between the two Jewish parties is that the Pharisees regarded the handing over of Jesus to the Romans as a repulsive act of sacerdotal despotism. Moreover, the handing over of a Jew to the foreign power was generally considered a crime. We can assume also that the Pharisees do not figure as accusers of Jesus at his trial in the first three Gospel accounts because at that time people knew that the Pharisees had not agreed to hand Jesus over to the Romans. The synoptists could not name the Pharisees as present at the trial without risking credibility. On the other hand, the synoptists could not mention the protest of the Pharisees, because they had already portrayed Jesus as an anti-Pharisee in the earlier part of their narratives.
\nHow curious the changes a movement can undergo in the course of its history! As early as the second century, Christians of Jewish origin, who continued to follow the law of Moses, were being marginalized. Later, all Christians were forbidden to keep the precepts of the old covenant, even though Jesus had said, \u201cFor truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matt. 5:18\u201320).
\nThe abrogation of the Jewish laws within the early centuries of the Church is connected with the fact that already at an early stage Christianity was turning into a religion of non-Jews. It was possible for this to happen because, in the ancient world, many people, \u201cGod-fearers,\u201d regarded the God of the Jews as the one true God. While some in those days took the final step, and became fully converted to Judaism, others remained on the periphery. The expansion of Christianity into the Gentile world first reached these who already were sympathetic to aspects of ancient Judaism but not yet converted.
\nThe liberal school of Hillel was not distressed to see Gentiles becoming Jews. By contrast, the school of Shammai made conversion as difficult as possible. The following sayings show that Jesus shared the strict standpoint of Shammai. \u201cWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves\u201d (Matt. 23:15). A non-Jew who lives according to certain fundamental moral laws, without following the whole Mosaic law, is blessed. The proselyte, the Gentile who has converted to Judaism, however, is bound by the whole law. If a proselyte fails to fulfill the whole law, which formerly did not obligate him, his conversion to Judaism is itself the cause of his becoming a child of hell. Quite needlessly he has thrown away his blessedness.
\nAs far as the sources allow us to judge, Jesus had a poor opinion of the non-Jews, the Gentiles. They are anxious about their material future and do not know that \u201ctomorrow will be anxious for itself\u201d (Matt. 6:32\u201334). They \u201cheap up empty phrases\u201d in prayer, thinking \u201cthat they will be heard for their many words\u201d (Matt. 6:7). They know nothing of the Jews\u2019 command to love one\u2019s neighbor and mix only with their friends (Matt. 5:47). The first and the third sayings give us the feeling that Jesus is speaking about vices that still afflict European and Western society to some extent.
\nAnother profound saying seems directed chiefly against the Romans. According to Luke\u2019s wording (22:24\u201327), during the Last Supper Jesus indicated that he would be handed over. His apostles began discussing among themselves who would be Jesus\u2019 successor, or, in Luke\u2019s words, \u201cThen arose a dispute among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, \u2018The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them. But not so with you! Rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.\u2019 \u201d
\nFor a full understanding of these words of Jesus, some knowledge of Hebrew is necessary. The apostles were arguing over who would be their future leader (Hebrew: Rav, great one). Jesus opposed any kind of lordship over men, as was the custom of Gentile kings, \u201cBut not so with you!\u201d In order to express his opposition to any kind of nationalistic imperialism, Jesus alluded to Gen. 25:23: \u201cThe great one (Rav, here in the meaning of \u2018the elder\u2019) shall serve the younger.\u201d This was said in connection with Esau (\u201cthe elder\u201d) who would serve Jacob (\u201cthe younger\u201d), and was seen as a prophecy of the waning power of the elder Esau under the ascendancy of the younger Jacob.
\nIn Jesus\u2019 time Esau was taken as symbolizing Rome. Jesus, in an anti-imperialistic mood, purposely de-politicized the contemporary understanding of the biblical verse. He wanted to say, thereby, that the Roman rulers of the nations have power in their hands; but for us the biblical words mean that the greater, the leader, shall serve the lesser. It is self-evident that those who are sitting at the table are more important than the waiter. Nevertheless, Jesus, the master, now performs on the eve of the Passover the task of a waiter and serves the apostles at the table. Jesus\u2019 acted with uncommon humility, even if a similar act is reported about the grandson of Gamaliel mentioned in Acts.
\nIn any event, Jesus as a rule did not heal non-Jews. On one occasion a Syro-Phoenician woman entreated him to heal her daughter, and he reiterated what he had said to his disciples, \u201cI was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\u201d But she came and knelt before him, saying, \u201cLord, help me.\u201d And he answered, \u201cIt is not fair to take the children\u2019s bread and throw it to the dogs.\u201d She said, \u201cYes, Lord, even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master\u2019s table.\u201d Jesus was moved by what the woman said and her daughter was healed from that hour (Matt. 15:21\u201328).
\nThere is only one more report of Jesus healing a non-Jew, the servant of the Roman centurion at Capernaum (Matt. 8:5\u201313; Luke 7:1\u201310). Luke tells us that the centurion was no heathen, but a man who feared God. He said to Jesus, \u201cLord \u2026 I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; \u2026 but say the word, and let my servant be healed.\u201d This devout Roman wanted to avoid the possibility of Jesus contracting impurity through contact with a non-Jew\u2014the dwelling places of Gentiles were considered impure\u2014so he asked Jesus to heal his servant from a distance. He based his belief in the power of this wonder-working teacher to heal in this way, upon a comparison with his own office. \u201c \u2018For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, \u201cGo,\u201d and he goes; and to another, \u201cCome,\u201d and he comes; and to my slave, \u201cDo this,\u201d and he does it.\u2019 When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, \u2018I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.\u2019 \u201d
\nThese are the only two stories in which Jesus healed non-Jews. In both, the decisive words are spoken not by Jesus, but by the Gentile, and these words make a deep impression on Jesus. We ought to note as well that none of the rabbinical documents say that one should not or may not heal a non-Jew. The picture preserved for us by the first three Gospels is clear. Jesus, the Jew, worked among Jews and wanted to work only among them (cp. Matt. 10:5\u20137). Even Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, confirms this fact. Jesus was \u201cborn under the law\u201d (Gal. 4:4). He was \u201ca servant to the circumcised to show God\u2019s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs\u201d (Rom. 15:8).
\nThat Jesus worked only among the children of Israel was surely not a sign of his nationalistic narrow-mindedness. He acted so because this restriction was, as he believed, the will of the heavenly Father. He said it explicitly to the Syro-Phoenician woman, \u201cI was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\u201d (Matt. 15:24; see also Matt. 10:6). Jesus accepted this restriction, although he knew, as other Jews did, that Gentiles are more prone to repent than many of the children of Israel. In this spirit Jesus said about the cities of Galilee and their Jewish inhabitants, \u201cWoe to you, Chorazin, woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes \u2026\u201d (Matt. 11:20\u201324; Luke 10:13\u201315). The same attitude is expressed in Jesus\u2019 critique of his generation (Matt. 12:38\u201342; Luke 11:29\u201332). Perhaps, it was intended as divine providence that at the beginning the message was restricted to the children of Israel\u2014and Jesus accepted this restriction.<\/p>\n
An ancient synagogue from Jesus\u2019 days\u2014the synagogue of Gamala
\nCourtesy: Israel Government Press Office<\/p>\n
Were the various Jewish-Christian sects right then in thinking that by living as Jews they were following the will of Jesus? Expelled from the synagogues as heretics, stigmatized by the Gentile Church as unorthodox, these Jews lived by the firm conviction that they alone cherished the true heritage of their master. They were also confident that they were the only ones who grasped the true meaning of Judaism. History passed them by. They became embittered and so, among them, the preaching of Jesus gradually turned into a rigid, apologetic caricature. As late as the tenth century they were to be found somewhere in Mossul, utterly lonely in their superhuman loyalty.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5<\/p>\n
LOVE<\/p>\n
The germ of revolution in Jesus\u2019 preaching does not emerge from a criticism of Jewish law, but from other premises altogether. These premises did not originate with Jesus. To the contrary, his critical assault stemmed from attitudes already established before his time. Revolution broke through at three points: the radical interpretation of the commandment of mutual love, the call for a new morality, and the idea of the kingdom of heaven.
\nIn about 175 B.C. a Jewish scribe bearing the Greek name Antigonos of Socho said, \u201cBe not like slaves who serve their master for the sake of reward, but like slaves who serve their master with no eye on any reward; and may the fear of heaven be among you.\u201d This saying is characteristic of the change in the intellectual and moral atmosphere that had taken place in Judaism since the time of the Old Testament. At the same time, it exemplifies the expression of a new and deeper sensitivity within Judaism, which was an important precondition for the preaching of Jesus.
\nThe religion of Israel preaches the one righteous God; His iconoclastic exclusiveness is linked with his inflexible moral will. The righteousness of the Old Testament sought concrete expression in a new and just social order. God\u2019s righteousness is also his compassion. He espouses especially the cause of the poor and oppressed, for he does not desire men\u2019s physical power and strength, but rather their fear of Him. Judaism is an ethical religion in which the principle of justice is indispensable; that is why the division of mankind into the righteous and the sinners is so important. For the Jew, the concept that God rewards the just and punishes the wicked is the confirmation of God\u2019s steadfast truth. How, otherwise, could the righteousness of God rule in the world?
\nMan\u2019s destiny in this world, however, seldom corresponds to his moral endeavor. Often guilt goes conspicuously unpunished and virtue unrewarded. It is thus easy for us to conclude that something is amiss. No ethics and no religion has yet succeeded in solving the problem of evil. In the Old Testament, the Book of Job is devoted to the topic of the bitter lot of the righteous. Eastern pagan wisdom literature, too, knows the cry: \u201cThey walk on a lucky path, those who do not seek a god. Those who devoutly pray to a goddess become poor and weak.\u201d
\nIt was not this problem that caused the revolution that sparked the moral imperative of Jesus. As we have noted, the moral religious maxim, according to which the righteous flourish and the evil come to a bad end, is constantly refuted by life itself. For the Jew of ancient times, the statement was also doubtful from another point of view. Even if the maxim had been confirmed by experience, the question would still have to be asked: Is the simple division of men into righteous and sinners itself appropriate? We know that no one is perfectly just or utterly evil, for good and evil struggle within the heart of every person. The question also arises whether there are any limits to the mercy of God and His love for people. Even if there were no problems regarding the reward of the just and the punishment of the sinner, would one be performing a truly moral act if he or she were motivated to act because of a reward? As we have said, already Antigonos of Socho rejected such a shallow, slavish attitude as basically vulgar. One ought to act morally, and at the same time give no thought to the reward that will surely come.
\nThe rigid morality of the old covenant was clearly inadequate for the new sensitivity of the Jews in the Greek and Roman period. Having recognized that people are not sharply divided into the categories of the righteous and sinners, one is compelled to admit the impossibility of loving those who are good and hating the wicked. Because of the difficulty of knowing how far God\u2019s love and mercy extended, many concluded that one ought to show love and mercy toward all, both righteous and wicked. In this they would be imitating God himself. Luke puts this saying into the mouth of Jesus: \u201cBe merciful, even as your Father is merciful\u201d (Luke 6:36). This is also an old rabbinical saying.
\nLuke 6:36 is a parallel to Matthew 5:48: \u201cYou must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.\u201d The best way of translating this saying is, \u201cThere must be no limit in your goodness, as your heavenly Father\u2019s goodness knows no bounds.\u201d Matthew 5:48 is merely the conclusion to a short homily where Jesus teaches that God reaches out in love to all people, regardless of their attitude and behavior toward Him, \u201cfor He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.\u201d In this Jesus is not far from the humane attitude of other Jews. R. Abbahu said, \u201cGreater is the day of rainfall, than the day of resurrection. For the latter benefits only the pious, whereas the former benefits pious and sinners alike.\u201d R. Abbahu lived about 300 A.D., but there is a similar saying dating from Jesus\u2019 time. Thus, it is no wonder that in such a spiritual atmosphere Jesus drew his daring conclusion: \u201cLove your enemies!\u201d (Matt. 5:44). In other words, \u201cReturn love to those who hate you\u201d or: \u201cDo good to those who hate you\u201d (Luke 6:27).
\nIn those circles where, the new Jewish sensitivity was then especially well developed, love of one\u2019s neighbor was regarded as a precondition to reconciliation with God. One rabbi said shortly after Jesus, \u201cTransgressions between a man and his neighbor are not expiated by the Day of Atonement unless the man first makes peace with his neighbor.\u201d Similarly, we hear Jesus say, \u201cFor if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses\u201d (Matt. 6:14\u201315).<\/p>\n
Expression of the new sensitivity in the ancient world. A picture from a tomb in Ascalon, about 300 A.D.<\/p>\n
The best summary of the new Jewish ethics is found in its oldest manifesto, Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach (27:30\u201328:7).<\/p>\n
Wrath and anger are loathsome things
\nwhich the sinful person has for his own.
\nThe vengeful will suffer the Lord\u2019s vengeance,
\nfor He remembers their sins in detail.
\nForgive your neighbor\u2019s injustice;
\nthen, when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.
\nShould a person nourish anger against another,
\nand expect healing from the Lord?
\nShould a person refuse mercy to a man like himself,
\nyet seek pardon for his own sins?
\nIf one who is but flesh cherishes wrath,
\nwho will forgive his sins?
\nRemember your last day, set enmity aside;
\nremember death and decay, and cease from sin!
\nThink of the commandments, hate not your neighbor;
\nof the Most High\u2019s covenant, and overlook faults.<\/p>\n
The notion that a man must be reconciled with his brother before praying for himself is linked in Sirach with a modification of the old idea of reward, that is typical of the period. The old compensatory justice whereby the righteous man was rewarded according to the measure of his righteousness, and the sinner punished according to the measure of his sins, discomfitted many in those days. So, they began to think, if you love your neighbor, God will reward you with good; if you hate your neighbor, God will visit you with evil. Jesus too said something like this: \u201cJudge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back\u201d (Luke 6:37\u201338).
\nThe beginning of this saying reminds us of something the celebrated Hillel had already said, \u201cJudge not your neighbor lest you find yourself in his place!\u201d The saying, \u201cThe measure you give will be the measure you get back,\u201d was a Jewish proverb in those days. The saying of Jesus reported by Luke finds an important parallel in the Lord\u2019s words as reproduced by Clement of Rome about 96 A.D., \u201cBe merciful, and you will find mercy; forgive, and you will be forgiven; as you do, so it will be done to you; as you give, so it will be given to you; as you judge, so you will be judged; as you do good, so will good be done to you; with the same measure in which you give, it will be given to you\u201d (1 Clem. 13:2). This saying came from the Mother Church, or perhaps from Jesus himself.
\nThe themes in which the new sensitivity in Judaism expressed itself in those days were interwoven. This dynamic method of thematic interplay is recognizable within Jesus\u2019 own didactic style. By his manner of teaching, he was able to interlace his sayings as well as link them with the broader web of Jewish motifs. Clement of Rome reports the Lord to say, \u201cAs you do, so it will be done to you.\u201d That is to say, as you treat your neighbor, so God will treat you. This is a fascinating variation on the so-called Golden Rule, accepted as a moral imperative by many nations. Jesus quoted this maxim when he said, \u201cWhatever you wish that men should do to you, do so to them, for this is the law and the prophets\u201d (Matt. 7:12). Among the Jews, even before the time of Jesus, it was regarded as the summation of the entire law. Hillel had said, \u201cWhat is distasteful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor; that is the whole law, the rest is but deduction.\u201d The Jews of that time probably interpreted the precept as follows: God metes out to you in the same measure in which you mete out to your neighbor. The consequence is, \u201cAs a person makes request from the Lord for his own soul, in the same manner let him behave toward every living soul.\u2026\u201d
\nBoth Jesus and Hillel before him saw the Golden Rule as a summary of the law of Moses. This becomes intelligible when we consider that the biblical saying, \u201cYou shall love your neighbor as yourself,\u201d (Lev. 19:18) was esteemed by Jesus and by the Jews in general as a chief commandment of the law. An old Aramaic translation of this biblical precept runs like this, \u201cLove your neighbor, for whatever displeases you, do not to him!\u201d This periphrastic translation turns the phrase \u201cas yourself\u201d into the negative form of the Golden Rule. The saying, \u201cLove your neighbor,\u201d was understood as a positive commandment, and the words \u201cas yourself\u201d as the negative commandment included in it. You are not to treat your neighbor with hatred, because you would not like him to treat you in that way. Therefore, by means of Jewish parallels we are able to see how the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12) and the commandment to love our neighbor (Matt. 22:39) are related within Jesus\u2019 teaching.
\nThere was yet another explanation of the phrase \u201cas yourself\u201d in the biblical commandment to love one\u2019s neighbor, so important in those days. In Hebrew the phrase can also mean \u201cas though he were yourself.\u201d The commandment then reads, \u201cLove your neighbor for he is like yourself.\u201d Sirach knew of this interpretation when he demanded that one forgive one\u2019s neighbor his trespasses, for it is a sin to withhold mercy from \u201ca man like himself\u201d (Sir. 28:3\u20135). Rabbi Hanina, who lived approximately one generation after Jesus, explicitly taught that this commandment to love one\u2019s neighbor is \u201ca saying upon which the whole world hangs, a mighty oath from Mount Sinai. If you hate your neighbor whose deeds are wicked like your own, I, the Lord, will punish you as your judge; and if you love your neighbor whose deeds are good like your own, I, the Lord, will be faithful to you and have mercy on you.\u201d
\nA man\u2019s relationship to his neighbor ought, therefore, to be determined by the fact that he is one with him both in his good and in his evil characteristics. This is not far from Jesus\u2019 commandment to love, but Jesus went further and broke the last fetters still restricting the ancient Jewish commandment to love one\u2019s neighbor. We have already seen that Rabbi Hanina believed that one ought to love the righteous and not hate the sinner. Jesus said, \u201cI say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you\u201d (Matt. 5:44). It is true, that in those days semi-Essene circles had reached similar conclusions from different presuppositions, and Jesus\u2019 moral teaching was influenced by these circles. Yet, influences do not explain everything.
\nHe who avoided his parental home in Nazareth and became the \u201cfriend of publicans and sinners\u201d felt himself sent to \u201cthe lost sheep of the house of Israel.\u201d It was not simply his total way of life that urged Jesus to express loving devotion to sinners; this inclination was deeply linked with the purpose of his message. From the beginning until his death on the cross, the preaching of Jesus was, in turn, linked with his own way of life. The commandment to love one\u2019s enemies is so much his definitive characteristic that his are the only lips from which we hear the commandment in the whole of the New Testament. Elsewhere we hear only of mutual love, and blessing one\u2019s persecutors. In those days it was obviously very difficult for people to rise up to the heights of Jesus\u2019 commandment.
\nJesus mentioned the biblical commandment when he was explaining the sum and substance of the law of Moses. \u201cYou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind (Deut. 6:5). This is the great rule in the law. And the second is similar to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18). On these two commandments depends all the law\u201d (Matt. 22:35\u201340).
\nIt is almost certain that here Jesus was teaching an older tradition, because he saw it as important for his own message. This happened on other occasions, too. He simply borrowed a saying of a scribe. \u201cAnd he said to them, \u2018Therefore every scribe \u2026 is like a householder who brings out of his granary what is new and what is old\u2019 \u201d (Matt. 13:52). Jesus\u2019 saying about the double commandment of love clearly was coined before his time. We have already seen that the biblical saying about love of one\u2019s neighbor was also described elsewhere as \u201cthe great commandment in the law.\u201d This commandment is truly like the other\u2014the commandment to love God\u2014for both verses from the Bible (Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18) begin with the same word. It was typical of rabbinical scholarship to see similarly phrased passages from the Bible as connected in content also. The first great commandment of Jesus\u2014love of God\u2014was thus in harmony with the spirit of contemporary Pharisaism. In the list of the seven kinds of Pharisees which we have already mentioned, two positive types are named: the Pharisee of fear, like Job, and the Pharisee of love, like Abraham. The many rabbinical passages that compare fear of God and love of God elevate love much higher than fear, for it was in harmony with the new Jewish sensitivity to serve God out of unconditional love rather than from fear of punishment.
\nAll that has been said explains how the double commandment of love existed in ancient Judaism before, and alongside, Jesus. The fact that it does not appear in the rabbinical documents that have come down to us is probably accidental. Mark (12:28\u201334) and Luke (10:25\u201328) show that on the question of \u201cthe great commandment\u201d Jesus and the scribes were in agreement.
\nJesus\u2019 saying in Matt. 22:35\u201340 is but one example where the uninitiated reader mistakenly thinks he has found a uniquely characteristic teaching of Jesus. In fact, however, he has failed to recognize the sayings that are truly revolutionary. All the same, such sayings as \u201cthe great commandment\u201d fulfill a significant function within the total preaching of Jesus. From ancient Jewish writings we could easily construct a whole Gospel without using a single word that originated with Jesus. This could only be done, however, because we do in fact possess the Gospels.
\nThe same is true with the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus presumably defines his own personal attitude towards the law of Moses (Matt. 5:17\u201348). In the sermon, Jesus in a certain sense brings things old and new out of his granary. The sensitivity within ancient Judaism evolved a whole dialectic of sin, in contrast to the simple view of the Old Testament. When man ceases to be regarded as an unproblematic being, sins themselves become a problem. If a person is not careful, one sin can lead to another. Even an action that does not appear sinful can cause him to become entangled in a real sin. There was a saying, \u201cFlee from what is evil and from what resembles evil.\u201d If we apply this concept to the commandments, we discover that the lesser commandments are as serious as the greater.
\nJesus\u2019 exegesis in Matt. 5:17\u201348 should be understood in this sense. The exegesis proper is preceded by a preamble (Matt. 5:17\u201320) where Jesus justifies his method. It would seem that exaggerated importance has been attached to the first sentence (Matt. 5:17) of this introduction. Jesus simply intended to say, \u201cThink not that I come to cancel the law; I do not come to cancel, but to uphold it.\u201d Thus, following the customary language of his time, he avoided the accusation that the exegesis of the law which followed, abrogated the original meaning of the words of the Bible. He could not have wanted to do this because the law, as written, is mysteriously bound up with the existence of this world. Even the minor commandments are to be obeyed. This implies a tightening up of the law, not regarding ritual, but in respect to the relationships between people. This attitude was also present in Judaism at that time, as the following saying exemplifies: \u201cEveryone who publicly shames his neighbor sheds his blood.\u201d
\nThe first two biblical expositions of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are constructed on this conceptual and formal scheme. It is not just the murderer, but he who is angry with his brother, who is condemned (Matt. 5:21\u201322), and \u201cevery one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart\u201d (Matt. 5:28). According to a later traditional Jewish saying, three classes of sinners are consigned to hell for all eternity: the adulterer, he who publicly puts his neighbor to shame, and he who insults his neighbor. Jesus, too, had something to say regarding this last type: \u201cWhoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, \u2018You fool!\u2019 shall be liable to hell\u201d (Matt. 5:22).
\nThe continuation (Matt. 5:29\u201330) has an interesting parallel in rabbinical literature. Jesus said, \u201cIf your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, for it is better to lose it than for your whole body to go into hell.\u201d The same is said about the hand and the foot. Earlier (Matt. 5:28), Jesus said that every one who looked at a woman lustfully had already committed adultery with her in his heart. There was a Jewish opinion that the word \u201cto commit adultery\u201d in Hebrew had four letters in order to warn us that adultery could be committed by hand, foot, eye, and heart. Jesus began his exegesis of the scriptures by stressing the importance of the lesser commandments. In this spirit he was then able to equate anger with murder and lust with adultery.
\nIn the Jewish \u201cTwo Ways\u201d which is preserved in the early Christian document, the Didache, we read, \u201cMy child, flee all evil, and from all that is like unto it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leadeth to murder \u2026 My child, be not lustful, for lust leadeth to fornication \u2026 for from all these are generated adulteries.\u201d We have already met the first statement as a Jewish moral rule, and the two applications of the rule correspond to the sixth and the seventh of the ten commandments which Jesus expounds in exactly the same way in the Sermon on the Mount.
\nThe second half of the Decalogue can be seen as the background to Jesus\u2019 scriptural exegesis, as it is also seen in the \u201cTwo Ways.\u201d These biblical commandments speak of our relation to our neighbor, and so the real conclusion of Jesus\u2019 exegesis is his commentary (Mt 5:43\u201348) on the great commandment, \u201cLove your neighbor as yourself.\u201d Those who listened to Jesus\u2019 preaching of love might well have been moved by it. Many in those days thought in a similar way. Nonetheless, in the clear purity of his love they must have detected something very special. Jesus did not accept all that was thought and taught in the Judaism of his time. Although not really a Pharisee himself, he was closest to the Pharisees of the school of Hillel who preached love, and he led the way further to unconditional love\u2014even of one\u2019s enemies and of sinners. As we shall see, this was no mere sentimental teaching.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n
ETHICS<\/p>\n
One day someone said to Jesus, \u201cI will follow you wherever you go.\u201d To this he replied, \u201cFoxes have holes, and birds have nests; but man has nowhere to lay his head\u201d (Matt. 8:19\u201320). This answer is in reality a social protest. The African-American social outcasts knew well what Jesus meant, when they sang,<\/p>\n
De foxes have holes in de groun\u2019,
\nAn de birds have nests in de air,
\nAn ev\u2019ryting have a hiding place,
\nBut we poor sinners have none.<\/p>\n
With Jesus the social overtone is louder than with the rabbis. It forms the core of his authentic message. He, however, was no social revolutionary in the usual sense of the word. The Essenes were of a different stamp. Originally they were an apocalyptic revolutionary movement which developed an ideological amalgamation of poverty and double predestination. They were the true sons of light who were the divinely chosen poor. At the imminent end of time, by the power of arms and the assistance of the heavenly hosts, they would inherit the land and conquer the whole world. The sons of darkness\u2014including the rest of Israel, the Gentiles, and the demonic powers who rule the world\u2014would then be annihilated. Even if, by Jesus\u2019 time, the Essenes had mollified their activist ideology and become a more contemplative mystic sect, they still lived in communities with common ownership, prized poverty highly, and kept themselves strictly apart from the rest of Jewish society.
\nThe Essene sons of light restricted their economic ties with the surrounding world as much as possible. \u201cNone of them will eat of their food or drink of their drink or take anything from their hands, unless it has been bought from them \u2026 for, all who despise His word He will destroy out of the world, all their deeds are as filth before Him, and all their possessions are stained with uncleanness.\u201d The Essenes, then, were obliged \u201cto separate themselves from the sons of destruction and keep free from the possession of wickedness.\u201d
\nObviously, Jesus was unwilling to assent to their ideological and economic separation. \u201cThe sons of this world are wiser in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourself from the wealth of [the men of] unrighteousness \u2026 If then you have not been faithful with the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another\u2019s, who will give you that which is your own?\u201d (Luke 16:8\u201312). Using their own self-description\u2014sons of light\u2014Jesus made an ironic allusion to the Essenes.
\nLike the Essenes of his own time, Jesus too regarded all possessions as a threat to true piety. \u201cNo one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon\u201d (Matt. 6:24). The dualism of this saying is Essene in outlook. The Essenes endeavored \u201cto love everything that he has chosen, to hate everything that he has repudiated, to keep far from evil, and cleave to all good works.\u201d Between good and evil there is eternal enmity, and so also between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, between God and Belial, the devil. Jesus could not accept this attitude. He did not embrace Essene theology, but only certain social aspects of their philosophy of life. Therefore, the two masters who figure in his saying are not God and the devil, Belial, but God and mammon.
\nAccording to Jesus, possessions are an obstacle to virtue. \u201cChildren, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God\u201d (Mark 10:24\u201325). For both the Essenes and Jesus, poverty, humility, purity, and unsophisticated simplicity of heart were the essential religious virtues. Jesus and the Essenes thought that in the very near divine future, the social outcasts and oppressed would become the preferred, \u201cfor theirs is the kingdom of heaven,\u201d and \u201cthose who mourn will be comforted.\u201d Jesus certainly did not mean for us to give a sentimental slant to these sayings, as the immediately following \u201cwoes,\u201d addressed to the \u201crich,\u201d the \u201csatiated,\u201d and \u201cthose who laugh,\u201d prove (Luke 6:24\u201326). These people will have sorrow and weep when the end comes. Now for the first time, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can understand the phrase \u201cthe poor in spirit.\u201d It was a title of honor among the Essenes. These are the poor to whom the Holy Spirit is given. In one passage from the Essene hymnbook (1QH 18:14\u201315) the author thanks God for having appointed him preacher of his grace. He is destined \u201cTo proclaim to the meek the multitude of Thine mercies and to let them that are of contrite spirit to be nourished from the source of knowledge, and to them that mourn everlasting joy.\u201d These correspond to \u201cthe meek,\u201d \u201cthe poor in spirit,\u201d and \u201cthose who mourn\u201d of the first three beatitudes of Jesus.<\/p>\n
A parallel to the Beatitudes from the Dead Sea Scroll<\/p>\n
An even more significant parallel to Jesus\u2019 \u201cbeatitudes\u201d and \u201cwoes\u201d occurs in Jewish writings that are not Essene, but belong to the fringe of the Essene movement. These are the so-called Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs that we possess in a Christian recension. It is easy, however, to detect the Jewish provenance of these writings. The work is presented in the form of the valedictory speeches of the twelve sons of Jacob. Judah speaks about salvation at the end of time.<\/p>\n
And there will be one people of the Lord and one language;
\nAnd there will be no spirit of error of Beliar anymore,
\nFor he will be thrown into the fire for ever.
\nAnd those who have died in grief will rise again in joy,
\nAnd those who are in penury will be made rich,
\nAnd those who are in want will eat their fill,
\nAnd those who are weak will receive their strength,
\nAnd those who have been put to death for the Lord\u2019s sake will awake to life.
\nAnd the harts of Jacob will run with gladness,
\nAnd the eagles of Israel will fly with joy
\n(But the ungodly will mourn and sinners weep),
\nAnd all the peoples will glorify the Lord for ever.<\/p>\n
The similarity between the beatitudes and woes of Jesus, and the Testament of Judah is obvious. The Jewish author has poetically expanded the common tradition and especially elaborated on the resurrection of the dead. He says that those who have died for the Lord\u2019s sake will awaken to life, whereas Jesus promises that the persecuted will inherit the kingdom of heaven. This suggests that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are a semi-Essene work. It is true that genuine Essenes believed in paradise, and hell, and in eternal life; but they did not believe, as did the Pharisees and, later, the Christians, in the resurrection of the dead. It is remarkable that in the first three Gospels, Jesus too speaks about eternal life, but never explicitly of the resurrection of the dead\u2014with the exception of his conversation with the Sadducees \u201cwho say there is no resurrection\u201d (Luke 20:27\u201339 and par.), and when, in apparently secondary passages, he is speaking about his own resurrection. Is this coincidental?
\nHaving said this about the Essenes, we need to explain how it is that the profoundly human beatitudes of Jesus breathe the spirit of the Essenes who, although less hostile in his times, still had not discarded their misanthropic theological impulse. It should be noted in this connection that radical sects can often be quite amiable. The Essene writings are distinguished by their fervent piety. Both the Jewish ancient historian Josephus and the philosopher Philo of Alexandria are not far afield when they depict the Essenes as Tolstoy-like men. In the course of time, an inhuman ideology can produce almost human consequences. This happened with the Essenes. Humanization was fully realized in Jewish circles that existed on the fringes of Essenism and were simultaneously influenced by the sensitivity of rabbinic Judaism. Jesus was familiar with the ideas current in these circles, and incorporated them into his transvaluation of all values.
\nThe Essenes believed that their final victory and the annihilation of evil were predestined by God. If the end has not yet come, one is still subject to the evil powers of this world. Hence the way one lives in these times is regulated as follows: \u201cShow eternal, secret hatred to the men of destruction, leaving them property and the produce of labor, as a slave shows humility to him who rules over him. But at the same time let everyone be mindful of the predestined time\u2014the day of vengeance.\u201d This view gave rise to a kind of inhuman humanism, so that the Essenes could say of themselves, \u201cI will repay no one with evil; I will visit men with good, for God judges all things that live and he will repay.\u2026 I will not give up the struggle with the men of destruction until the day of vengeance, and I will not turn away my anger from wicked men and will not rest until God appoints judgment.\u201d
\nThe Essene discovery that evil can be overcome with good has proved a mighty weapon in the history of the world. As we shall see, this idea was developed further by Jesus, and adopted by Christianity\u2014even independently of Jesus\u2019 doctrine of love. The rule, \u201cDo not resist one who is evil\u201d (Matt. 5:39), has also penetrated into modern times. It reached Gandhi, who learned of it through Christianity and grafted it into ancient Indian ideas. This originally Essene idea thus helped to liberate India by passive resistance.
\nHistory has shown that an enemy can be overcome by goodness, even if one does not love him, and even if he becomes no better as a result of the good that is done to him. This was what the Essenes wanted; but it is hard to fulfill these two conditions. It is only human nature to begin to love the one for whom we are doing good. More importantly, when we genuinely do good for someone\u2014even though we might only love them a little\u2014as a rule, they become a better human being. Those groups which occupied the fringe of Essenism outgrew the Essene theology of hate, and eventually began to affirm these same consequences of doing good to one\u2019s enemy. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, especially in the Testament of Benjamin, the loving conquest of the sinner becomes an important moral imperative.<\/p>\n
The good man has not an eye that cannot see; for he shows mercy to all men, sinners though they may be, and though they may plot his ruin. This man, by doing good, overcomes evil, since he is protected by the good.\u2026 If, then, your minds are predisposed to what is good, children, wicked men will live at peace with you, the profligate will reverence you and turn towards the good, and the money-grubbers will not only turn their backs on the things they have been striving for, but even give what they have got by their money-grubbing to those who are in distress.\u2026 His good mind will not let him speak with two tongues, one of blessing and one of cursing, one of insult and one of compliment, one of sorrow and one of joy, one of quietness and one of tumult, one of hypocrisy and one of truth, one of poverty and one of wealth; but it has a single disposition only, simple and pure, that says the same thing to everyone. It has no double sight or hearing; for whenever such a man does, or says, or sees anything, he knows that the Lord is looking into his soul in judgment. And he purifies his mind so that he is not condemned by God and men. But everything that Beliar does is double and has nothing single about it at all.<\/p>\n
Coin with a lily<\/p>\n
The same spirit was expressed by Jesus when he said,<\/p>\n
You have heard that it was said, \u201cAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.\u2026 stripe for stripe\u201d (Ex. 21:24\u201325). But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. If any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, \u201cYou shall love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18) and hate your enemy.\u201d But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust \u2026 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:38\u201348).<\/p>\n
According to The Testament of Benjamin, one must not have \u201ctwo tongues, one of blessing and one of cursing \u2026 but everything that Belial does is double and has nothing simple about it at all\u201d (T. Benj. 6:5f). According to Jesus, in loving one\u2019s neighbor one must be undivided, as God is undivided. Even in the Old Testament the saying \u201can eye for an eye\u201d (Ex. 21:24) was not taken literally. Jesus wanted to take the interpretation of this verse from Exodus further by explaining \u201cstripe for stripe\u201d to mean turning the other cheek to receive yet another stroke. This, too, was in harmony with the pietistic spirit of the Essene fringe. According to The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the leading patriarch, Zebulon, went so far as to take a garment surreptitiously to a poor man he saw shivering in the winter\u2019s cold. On one occasion, being able to find nothing to give to a poor man, he accompanied him seven stages of his journey, wailing all the time, for his heart went out in sympathy to the man.
\nIt was from the Essene fringe, too, that Jesus took over both the idea that one ought not to resist one who is evil, and the concept of good news addressed particularly to the poor and the outcast. The doctrine of the Essene fringe about maintaining a consistent relationship with all men without distinction was developed by Jesus to become the command to love one\u2019s enemies, and in particular to love sinners. When the Pharisees upbraided him for eating in the company of publicans (who are sinners), he replied, \u201cThose who are well have no need of a physician, only those who are sick.\u201d And to this he added, \u201cI came not to call the righteous, but sinners\u201d (Luke 5:30\u201332 and parr.).
\nThe paradox of Jesus\u2019 break with the customary old morality was marvelously expressed in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1\u201316). A proprietor went out to hire workers for his vineyard, and promised each one a daily wage of one denarius. In the evening he paid them all the same wage irrespective of the length of time they had worked. Those who had started work early began to complain, and so the proprietor said to one of them, \u201c \u2018Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my kindness?\u2019 So the last will be first, and the first last.\u201d
\nHere as elsewhere the principle of reward is accepted by Jesus, but all the norms of the usual concepts of God\u2019s righteousness are abrogated. One might think that this comes about because God, in His all-embracing love and mercy, makes no distinctions between men. With Jesus, however, the transvaluation of all values is not idyllic. Even misfortune does not distinguish between the sinner and the just man. On one occasion someone brought the news to Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices. The bystanders obviously expected a political reply, but Jesus said, \u201cDo you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No! But unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No! But unless you repent you will all likewise perish\u201d (Luke 13:1\u20135).
\nIt was then, more or less, a general opinion that calamity\u2014and illness\u2014was a punishment for sin. It could be argued, therefore, that these men were greater sinnners than other Galileans. Jesus did not reject this general opinion, but at the same time he rejected the current application of this view as simplistic. Instead of the vulgar ethics, he called to Israel, \u201cRepent or perish!\u201d He illustrated his call for a national repentance by the following parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6\u20139). Later on, being in Jerusalem he saw the imminent catastrophe as almost inevitable (Luke 19:40\u201344). The future destruction of Jerusalem could have been avoided, if it had chosen the way of peace and repentance.
\nJesus\u2019 concept of the righteousness of God, therefore, is incommensurable with reason. Man cannot measure it, but he can grasp it. It leads to the preaching of the kingdom in which the last will be first, and the first last. It leads also from the Sermon on the Mount to Golgotha where the just man dies a criminal\u2019s death. It is at once profoundly moral, and yet beyond good and evil. In this paradoxical scheme, all the \u201cimportant,\u201d customary virtues, and the well-knit personality, worldly dignity, and the proud insistence upon the formal fulfillment of the law, are fragmentary and empty. Socrates questioned the intellectual side of man. Jesus questioned the moral. Both were executed. Can this be mere chance?<\/p>\n
A Jewish coin from the period of the war against the Romans (66\u201370 A.D.)<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7<\/p>\n
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN<\/p>\n
One day they sent spies to watch and to catch Jesus in what he said. \u201c \u2018Teacher,\u2019 they said to him, \u2018we know that you speak and teach rightly, and show no partiality. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?\u2019 But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, \u2018Show me a coin. Whose likeness and inscription are on it?\u2019 They said, \u2018Caesar\u2019s.\u2019 He said to them, \u2018Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar\u2019s, and to God the things that are God\u2019s\u2019 \u201d (cf. Luke 20:20\u201326).
\nOnce again Jesus had succeeded in evading capture, while at the same time making his meaning unmistakably clear. One cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. Money comes from Caesar, and so it must be handed over to him. Quite certainly the saying did not express friendship toward the Romans, but it also showed that Jesus was no supporter of revolt against them. His ethical teaching made that impossible. He was well aware of social reality, but that was not his most important concern. Once one has allowed oneself to enter the game, one must play according to the rules. \u201cSettle matters quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny\u201d (Matt. 5:25\u201326).<\/p>\n
\u201cGive unto Caesar what belongs to him\u201d (Luke 20:24\u201325 and parr.). Coin with the image of the Roman emperor, Tiberius<\/p>\n
It is hard to agree with those who maintain that Pilate was right when he executed Jesus because he was a political agitator, or the leader of a gang in the Jewish war of liberation against Rome. In addition to the trial of Jesus, the chief evidence cited in support of this view is that Jesus had preached the kingdom of heaven. \u201cHeaven\u201d is a circumlocution for \u201cGod\u201d and people in general believed that when the kingdom of God came, Israel would be freed from the yoke of Rome. At that time most Jews hated the occupying Roman power. The party known as the Zealots believed that armed struggle against Rome was divinely ordained, and their terrorist activists made the country unsafe. One of the twelve apostles had been a Zealot at one time.
\nThe fundamental teaching of the Zealots was \u201cthe demand for the sole rule of God, which led to a radical breach with the Roman Caesar\u2019s claims to sovereignty; it was linked with the expectation that, through battle with the Roman oppressor, the eschatological liberation of Israel at the end of time would be ushered in.\u201d Although it is possible that the Zealots, too, spoke about the kingdom of heaven, at that time the phrase had in fact become an anti-Zealot slogan. Because there are clear similarities between the rabbinic idea of the kingdom and that of Jesus, we may assume that Jesus developed their idea. This concept did not appear among the Essenes.
\nAmong the Jews, the kingdom or rule of God meant that the one and only God presently rules de jure. Only in the eschatological future, however, will \u201cthe kingdom of God be revealed to all the inhabitants of the world\u201d de facto. Although Israel now languishes under a foreign yoke, at the end God alone will rule in Zion. The anti-Zealot parties, too, cherished this hope, and the disciples of Jesus thought likewise. According to Acts 1:6 they asked the risen Lord, \u201cLord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?\u201d In the Book of Revelation (chap. 18) we hear jubilation at the fall of Rome, but the \u201chistorical Jesus\u201d of the Gospels is silent on this point. Could the friend of the poor and the persecuted be a friend to the Romans? It seems that Jesus indirectly hinted to the end of foreign occupation of his homeland. Yet, even if Jesus did foresee the fall of Rome, the evangelists might not have mentioned it, so as not to cast even more suspicion upon the founder of their religion.
\nThe domination of Israel by a foreign power was seen as a punishment for her sins. \u201cIf the house of Israel transgresses the law, foreign nations will rule over her, and if they keep the law, mourning, tribulation, and lamentation will depart from her.\u201d In other words, \u201cIf Israel kept the words of the law given to them, no people or kingdom would rule over them. And what does the law say? \u2018Take upon you the yoke of My kingdom and emulate one another in the fear of God and practice kindness to one another.\u2019 \u201d Thus, even at present, there may be individuals who are, so to speak, living in the kingdom of God. \u201cEvery one who takes upon himself the yoke of the law removes from his shoulders the yoke of government and daily sorrows. But whoever removes the yoke of the law will be burdened with the yoke of government and daily sorrows.\u201d
\nWhen Israel wants to do only the will of God, the kingdom of heaven will be revealed to them. \u201cIf Israel at the Red Sea had said, \u2018He is king for all eternity,\u2019 no nation or language would have ruled over them; but they said (Ex. 15:18), \u2018the Lord will reign for ever and ever.\u2019 \u201d This saying was apparently not only directed against the futuristic hopes of the apocalyptists, but against the Zealots who wanted to take heaven by force. When the Zealots had forcibly assumed government and the rebellion had been bloodily suppressed by Rome, one of the scribes complained of \u201cthe rulers of the cities of Judah, who have put off the yoke of heaven and assumed the yoke of the government of flesh and blood.\u201d This view was shared by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. After the destruction of Jerusalem, when he saw the daughter of Nicodemus assuaging her hunger with grains of barley picked from the dung of an Arab horse, he wept and said, \u201cAs long as Israel is doing the will of God, no nation or kingdom shall rule over it. But if they are not doing the will of God, he will deliver them into the hand of the lowest nation and not only this, but under the legs of the beast of the lowest nation.\u201d
\nAccording to rabbinic literature, the yoke of foreign domination would be permanently removed from Israel by the appearance of the kingdom of heaven. The apocalyptists believed that at that time Satan and his powers would also be destroyed, and so thought Jesus. In other respects, as we have mentioned, Jesus\u2019 concept of the kingdom of heaven was related to that of the rabbis. According to Jesus, the coming of God\u2019s rule, and hope in the eschatological savior were two different aspects of the expectation of the end. The idea of the kingdom of God and of the Son of Man were never confused in his mind. According to both Jesus and the rabbis, the kingdom of heaven emerges, indeed, out of the power of God, but is realized upon earth by men. Man, then, can and should work for the realization of the kingdom. \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand\u201d (Matt. 4:17).
\nThe first to point out the eschatological orientation of the message of Jesus through his preaching of the kingdom of God was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694\u20131768). G. E. Lessing, as we know, subsequently published fragments of his writings. Starting from Lessing\u2019s text, Albert Schweitzer then elaborated his own \u201cconsistent eschatology\u201d: \u201cTo be worthy of consideration, Jesus\u2019 mode of thought must be either completely eschatological or completely non-eschatological.\u201d Reimarus certainly would not have agreed with this. In the final version of his work, Reimarus distinguished between Jesus\u2019 non-eschatological moral preaching of repentance and \u201chis main purpose, which was to establish the kingdom.\u201d Modern portrayals of Jesus, however, often trace his eschatology along a different line. The warning of the great Christian and religious socialist, Leonhard Ragaz, was in vain.<\/p>\n
The notion is quite untenable, that Jesus built a kind of ethic and theology upon his expectation of the imminence of the kingdom of God. This sort of thing may well happen in the study of a theologian or a philosopher.\u2026 The relationship is quite the reverse from what the eschatological systematizers imagine. It is not the eschatological expectation which determines Jesus\u2019 understanding of God and of man.\u2026 but, conversely, his understanding of God and of man which determines his eschatological expectation \u2026 To fail to see this one must have already put on a professor\u2019s spectacles.<\/p>\n
Herman Samuel Reimarus<\/p>\n
Albert Schweitzer<\/p>\n
Schweitzer was still concerned with the painful truth, but the later eschatologists fell into a non-committal admiration of an alleged pan-eschatologism of Jesus. If we understand every saying of Jesus in a purely eschatological sense, so that eschatology becomes unrealistic and purely existential, then we arrive at the conclusion that the demands of Jesus are not morally binding. One New Testament scholar has said that turning the other cheek is only allowed because it is a \u201cmessianic license\u201d\u2014otherwise, this sort of thing would be revolutionary. This is a correct assessment, for the preaching of Jesus is indeed revolutionary and subversive: and Jesus knew it! (Matt. 10:16).
\nFor Jesus and the rabbis, the kingdom of God is both present and future, but their perspectives are different. When Jesus was asked when the kingdom was to come, he said, \u201cThe kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, \u2018Lo, here it is!\u2019 or \u2018There!\u2019 For behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you\u201d (Luke 17:20\u201321). Elsewhere he said, \u201cBut if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you\u201d (Luke 11:20). There are, therefore, according to Jesus, individuals who are already in the kingdom of heaven. This is not exactly the same sense in which the rabbis understood the kingdom. For them the kingdom had been always an unchanging reality, but for Jesus there was a specific point in time when the kingdom began breaking out upon earth. \u201cFrom the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is breaking through, and those who break through, seize it\u201d (Matt. 11:12). According to Luke 16:16, \u201cevery one forces his way in.\u201d Jesus\u2019 words are based upon Micah 2:13.
\nThis, then, is the \u201crealized eschatology\u201d of Jesus. He is the only Jew of ancient times known to us who preached not only that people were on the threshold of the end of time, but that the new age of salvation had already begun. This new age had begun with John the Baptist who made the great break-through, but was not himself a member of the kingdom. The eruption of the kingdom of God also meant its expansion among the people. \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till all was leavened\u201d (Matt. 13:33). On the growth of the kingdom of heaven Jesus also said, \u201cIt is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches\u201d (Luke 13:18\u201319).
\nA similar image is to be found in the Essene hymnbook. The poet compares the congregation to a tree, \u201call the beasts of the forest fed on its leafy boughs \u2026 and its branches sheltered all the birds, but all the trees by the water rose above it.\u201d This is a symbol of the wicked world all around. The tree of life itself is concealed\u2014\u201cthe seal of its mystery remains unobserved, unrecognized.\u201d God Himself guards its secret; the outsider \u201csees but does not recognize, and thinks but does not believe in the source of life.\u201d This reminds us of the words of Jesus. \u201cTo you it has been given to know the secrets of God, but to them it has not been given\u201d (cf. Matt. 13:11\u201315). What is much more important is that the parable of the mustard seed resembles the Essene symbol for the community.
\nThus, for Jesus, the kingdom of heaven is not only the eschatological rule of God that has dawned already, but a divinely willed movement that spreads among people throughout the earth. The kingdom of heaven is not simply a matter of God\u2019s kingship, but also the domain of his rule, an expanding realm embracing ever more and more people, a realm into which one may enter and find one\u2019s inheritance, a realm where there are both great and small. That is why Jesus called the twelve to be fishers of men and to heal and preach everywhere. \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is at hand\u201d (Matt. 10:5\u201316). For this reason he demanded of some that they should leave everything behind and follow him. We do not mean to assert that Jesus wanted to found a church or even a single community, but that he wanted to start a movement. Stated in exaggerated ecclesiological terms, we might say that the eruption of the kingdom of heaven is a process in which ultimately the invisible Church becomes identical with the visible.
\nThat which Jesus recognized and desired is fulfilled in the message of the kingdom. There God\u2019s unconditional love for all becomes visible, and the barriers between sinner and righteous are shattered. Human dignity becomes null and void, the last become first, and the first become last. The poor, the hungry, the meek, the mourners, and the persecuted inherit the kingdom of heaven. In Jesus\u2019 message of the kingdom, the strictly social factor does not, however, seem to be the decisive thing. His revolution has to do chiefly with the transvaluation of all the usual moral values, and hence his promise is specially for sinners. \u201cTruly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you\u201d (Matt. 21:31\u201332). Jesus found resonance among the social outcasts and the despised, just as John the Baptist had done before him.
\nEven the non-eschatological ethical teaching of Jesus can presumably be oriented towards his message of the kingdom. Because Satan and his powers will be overthrown and the present world-order shattered, it is to be regarded almost with indifference, and ought not to be strengthened by opposition. Therefore, one should not resist evildoers; one should love one\u2019s enemy and not provoke the Roman empire to attack. For when the kingdom of God is fully realized, all this will vanish.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Good Old Pilate\u201d from the Rossano Gospels<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 Real Opponents: Jesus presented by the priests and soldiers (from the Codex Egberti, Trier, and of the tenth century A.D.)<\/p>\n
Van Eyck, The Son of Man<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n
THE SON<\/p>\n
Jesus is portrayed in the gospels as a miracle-worker. Rabbinic literature tells us of four other such men who flourished before the destruction of the Second Temple. Two of these were Galileans. The rabbinic literature describes them as extremely poor men, and one of the two, Abba Hilkia, was a day laborer. On one occasion when two scribes had been sent to ask Abba Hilkia to pray for rain, he responded to them in a rather peculiar manner. The reason for this, in part, was undoubtedly the tension that existed between miracle-workers and scribes. The second Galilean, Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, lived a generation after Jesus and was famous for his miracles of healing. A heavenly voice said of him, \u201cThe whole world will be nourished because of my son Hanina\u2014and a morsel of carob-bean will satisfy my son Hanina for a week.\u201d
\nIt is no accident that the heavenly voice addressed Hanina as \u201cMy son.\u201d The miracle-worker is closer to God than other men. When Hanina healed the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai by prayer, the scribe\u2019s wife said, \u201cIs Hanina greater, then, than you?\u201d and he answered, \u201cNo, but he is like a slave before a king, and I am like a higher official before a king.\u201d
\nSomething similar is said about Honi the \u201ccircle-drawer,\u201d who died in the spring of 65 B.C. Once, when he was asked to pray for rain, he drew a circle round himself and prayed. \u201cRuler of the world, Your children have turned to me, because I am in Your presence like one of Your household. I swear by Your great name that I will not move from this place until You have pity upon Your children.\u201d Then, when rain came, the chief of the Pharisees at that time, Simeon ben Shatah, complained of his audacious behavior, \u201cWere you not Honi I would excommunicate you. What can I do with you? You ingratiate yourself to God and He does what you ask, as when a son curries favor with his father, who then does what the son wants.\u201d The miracle-worker is close to God\u2014like a household companion, like a son.
\nHoni was killed in the civil war between the two Maccabean brothers, Aristobulos and Hyrkanos. Josephus reports how he went into hiding because of the war, but was fetched to the camp of Hyrkanos and asked to curse Aristobulos who was besieged in the city of Jerusalem. Refusing Hyrcanus\u2019 demand to curse his brother, he was executed. A medieval Hebrew author was perceptive enough to detect that Josephus had misunderstood and expanded the oral tradition concerning Honi\u2019s death. In his redaction of the story, he left out the alleged reason for Honi\u2019s concealment. Honi hid not from fear of the war, but because such was the habit of this pious miracle-worker. He was a hidden saint, like Hanan \u201cthe hidden\u201d of a later date. \u201cWhen rain was needed the scribes used to send school children to Hanan to grasp the hem of his cloak and say, \u2018Abba, Abba, give us rain!\u2019 Then he would address God, \u2018Ruler of the universe, do this for the sake of those who cannot distinguish between a father (Abba) who can give rain and a father who cannot.\u2019 And why did they call him Hanan the Hidden? Because he used to hide himself.\u201d
\nThe story about Hanan has some points of contact with Jesus\u2019 activity. The holy man addresses God as \u201cAbba\u201d\u2014father. The motif of sonship is typical for this kind of Jewish holy man. Even more important is that Hanan used to hide himself, as Honi the Circle Drawer probably did. All who read the Gospels know that Jesus also hid himself from the multitudes and commanded the person who was cured to say nothing about his cure.
\nThe most important contact, however, between the two is in Jesus\u2019 teaching about little children (Luke 18:15; Mark 10:13\u201316). Hanan is the only ancient pious man about whom we are certain that children had easier access to than the rabbis did. When the children were brought for Jesus to touch them, he said that \u201cthe kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you that whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.\u201d This sublime saying naturally means that one has to accept the kingdom of God simply and without mental reservation. This was also the essence of Hanan\u2019s prayer. \u201cRuler of the universe, do this for the sake of those (the children) who cannot distinguish between the father who can give rain and a father who cannot.\u201d<\/p>\n
Healing of the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. 9:20\u201322). From a Roman catacomb, end of the 3rd century A.D.
\nPhoto: Alfred Bernheim<\/p>\n
We see, then, that in those days there was an understandable tension between the charismatic holy men and the Pharisaic establishment. Nor is it strange that such holy men would practice poverty, whether by compulsion or freely. Because of the scarcity of information about such pious men, it is impossible to know how far the way of life of Jesus and of his disciples, and Jesus\u2019 positive evaluation of the religious value of poverty, reflect the attitude of the whole group. One point is certain, namely that sociologically Jesus belonged with them. We have already seen (chapter six) that regarding the issue of poverty and wealth, Jesus accepted some Essene views. It is likely that these motifs were transmitted to him via John the Baptist.
\nIt was also in character for these people to perform their miracles in secret. Historically speaking, this applies to Jesus. For example, Jesus commanded the person who had been cured to say nothing about his cure (Mark 5:43; Luke 8:56). This apparently was also one of the reasons that he did not want to reveal completely the secret of his divine election.
\nWe have seen how the relationship to God of three of the miracle-workers belonging to the period of the Second Temple was described as that of a son to his father. The earliest, Honi, prayed to God as a member of his household, and he was likened to a son who was accustomed to ingratiate himself with his father. Hanina stood before God as his personal servant, and was addressed by a heavenly voice as \u201cMy son!\u201d Hanan the Hidden took up the children\u2019s word \u201cFather,\u201d and in prayer described God as \u201cthe father who can give rain.\u201d How could it have been otherwise that such men, who were like sons to God, should have addressed God as \u201cFather?\u201d Jesus spoke in the same way.
\nThe charismatic pious men believed that their ties with God were stronger than those of other men, although they certainly did not exclude the possibility that others were able to attain a similar position. By comparison, however, the self-awareness of Jesus was even higher. This can be seen from the first three gospels. Evidently according to the existing texts, Jesus distinguishes between God as the common father of the believer, and God as his father. He names God \u201cyour father,\u201d but on the other hand he speaks about \u201cmy father.\u201d The Lord\u2019s prayer is not an exception because \u201cour Father who art in Heaven\u201d (Matt. 6:9) is the opening of a prayer prescribed for others.
\nThis way of speaking surely betrays Jesus\u2019 own high self-awareness, because there is no evidence of a later hand introducing utterances about \u201cour Father.\u201d This is remarkable when we remember that the Church\u2019s Christology includes an understanding that Christ had given to the believer the Spirit of his sonship (Rom. 8:15). We read, \u201cTo all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God\u201d (John 1:17). Nevertheless, even John\u2019s Gospel, which bears signs of these later christological developments, is able to retain the distinctive sonship of Jesus in the statement of the resurrected Lord, \u201cI am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God\u201d (John 20:17). As we have seen, the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus did not speak in quite this way, but he evidently did distinguish between his unique sonship and the common fatherhood of God. This indication is described in a somewhat distorted manner in the Johannine Jews\u2019 expression of hatred of Jesus, \u201cbecause he called God his own father, making himself equal with God\u201d (John 5:18). Unfortunately this is not the place to show that the whole accusation is historically unrealistic. Nonetheless, Jesus evidently did understand his divine sonship as unique and decisive.
\nIf Jesus was like a son to God, this denoted more than the mere sonship of the miracle-workers. For him, sonship was also the consequence of his election through the heavenly voice at his baptism. As the son he knew his Father in heaven. \u201cI thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to the simple; Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the son except the father, and no one knows the father except the son and any one to whom the son chooses to reveal it\u201d (Matt. 11:25\u201327). Not until the discovery of the Essene writings at the Dead Sea did we know about any such high degree of self-awareness in ancient Judaism. Now we recognize that this jubilation of Jesus is in line with Essene hymn writing. Jesus\u2019 hymn begins with the same word as do most of the prayers in the Essene hymnbook, and even the rhythmic structure is similar. The Essene author, like Jesus, says that \u201chis message will be prudence to the simple\u201d; and like Jesus, the revelation consists in knowledge of the mysteries of God.<\/p>\n
Through me Thou has illuminated the face of many,
\nand hast shown Thy infinite power.
\nFor Thou has given me knowledge
\nof Thy marvelous mysteries,
\nand hast shown Thyself mighty with me
\nthrough the secret of Thy marvels.
\nThou hast done wonders before many
\nfor the sake of Thy glory,
\nthat they may make known Thy mighty deeds
\nto all the living.<\/p>\n
This is the mentality of the charismatic apocalyptist who has access to the mysteries of God, through which he is able to \u201cilluminate the face of many.\u201d
\nAccording to the Gospels, Jesus was addressed by the heavenly voice as \u201cSon\u201d as early as his baptism. The assumption is justified, however, that at that time he was simply being addressed as the chosen servant. Not until the voice at the Transfiguration was he truly named \u201cSon.\u201d Jesus took Peter, John, and James, and climbed with them up a mountain. His face became different, and his clothes turned shining white; and Moses and Elijah spoke to him. As they were departing, Peter said to Jesus, \u201cMaster, it is good for us to be here; let us make three huts, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.\u201d Then a cloud came and overshadowed them and a voice out of the cloud said, \u201cThis is my only Son, hear him.\u201d After the two departed, Jesus was alone (Luke 9:28\u201336).
\nEven E. Meyer regarded this vision as authentic. The heavenly voice is significant. The words \u201chear him\u201d are made intelligible by the prophecy of Moses. \u201cThe Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren\u2014listen to him\u201d (Dt. 18:15). The appearance of two great prophets of old, Moses and Elijah, underlined the significance of the voice. Jesus is the prophetic preacher to whom the Old Testament had pointed. The voice designated Jesus as the \u201conly Son,\u201d as God had said to Abraham, \u201cTake your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love \u2026 and offer him there as a burnt offering \u2026\u201d (Gen. 22:2). This designation of Jesus thus hints to his coming martyrdom. Luke (9:31) says, in fact, that on the occasion of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus about his imminent death in Jerusalem.
\nJesus linked his sense of sonship, his predestination as prophetic preacher, and his knowledge of his tragic end, in the parable of the tenants of the vineyard (cf. Luke 20:9\u201319). Jesus told this parable in the Temple in the presence of the high priests shortly before his death: \u201cThe master of the vineyard sent a servant to the tenants of the vineyard to collect his dues. The tenants beat him and sent him back. Again he sent another servant whom they beat and mocked. He sent yet another whom they wounded and threw out. At last he sent his son, thinking that they would respect him. But when the tenants of the vineyard saw him they said to one another, \u2018This is the heir, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.\u2019 They took him out of the vineyard and killed him. What will the master of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy these tenants and give the vineyard to others.\u201d Observing that the parable was aimed at themselves, the priests considered how they might apprehend Jesus, but they feared the crowd.<\/p>\n
Sacrifice of Isaac. Mosaic from Beth-Alpha Synagogue<\/p>\n
Here we are at the epicenter of Jesus\u2019 clash with the Sadducees, the Temple aristocracy\u2014the clash that was to lead to his death. The high priests interpreted the parable correctly. They were the wicked tenants of the vineyard, who on account of their office, held a monopoly over the people of God\u2014for the vineyard was the people of Israel. The high priests would be destroyed, and God would give his vineyard to others. This did indeed happen after the destruction of the Temple, when the priestly caste was destroyed, and disappeared. The servants who had been sent to the vineyard were God\u2019s prophetic messengers who had been persecuted and slain. Included in their number was Jesus, the Son.
\nYet, at the same time, Jesus was sure that the murder of the Son would not be the end of the tragedy. He closed the parable (Luke 20:17) by quoting Psalm 118:22: \u201cThe very stone which the builders rejected has become the head.\u201d Jesus was sure that even when the Son will be killed, his cause will be victorious. This is Jesus\u2019 unequivocal \u201cChristological\u201d utterance.
\nThere is a Jewish parable of a proprietor and his wicked, thieving tenants. The proprietor took the estate away from them and gave it to their sons, but these were even worse than their fathers. Then a son was born to the proprietor. He drove out the tenants, and put his son on the estate. Jesus apparently knew a similar parable, but he adapted it to become a tragedy. In his version the son is killed.
\nJesus\u2019 sonship therefore leads, not to life, but to the death that other prophets before him had suffered. After the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28\u201336), his awareness of the sonship of God was linked with the premonition that he had to die. Even before his entry into Jerusalem he sensed his tragic end, but for Jesus this knowledge of divine sonship was scarcely identical with his consciousness of being the Messiah. The Jews of those days were, it is true, acquainted with the image of martyrdom as an atoning sacrifice. Nevertheless, a careful philological analysis of the relevant texts shows that in the first three gospels there is no completely reliable utterance of Jesus in which he unequivocally expresses that he is to die in order to expiate the sins of his believers. Nor is it likely that he saw himself as the suffering, atoning servant of God described by the prophet Isaiah. This idea is heard retrospectively in the early Church\u2014but not until after the crucifixion. Jesus had neither subtly nor mythically worked out the idea of his own death from the ancient writings, let alone did he carry it out. He was no \u201cChrist of the festival,\u201d of a medieval sacred drama, for he wrestled with death to the very end.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 9<\/p>\n
THE SON OF MAN<\/p>\n
\u201cNow it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him; and he asked them, \u2018Who do the people say that I am?\u2019 And they answered, \u2018John the Baptist; but others say, Elijah; and others, that one of the ancient prophets has risen.\u2019 And he said to them, \u2018But who do you say that I am?\u2019 And Peter answered, \u2018The Christ of God\u2019 \u201d (Luke 9:18\u201320). According to Matthew (16:17\u201319) on this occasion he said to Peter, \u201cBlessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.\u201d
\nAccording to this report, the people regarded Jesus as a prophet. They had identified John the Baptist with Elijah who was to return. The belief in the return of Elijah was only one aspect of a hope in the renewal of prophecy which would be initiated by a prophet at the end of time. This expectation also lies behind Luke\u2019s account that there were people who believed that Jesus was one of \u201cthe ancient prophets who had arisen\u201d (Luke 9:19). The words are drawn from Deuteronomy 18:18, \u201cI will raise up for them a prophet.\u2026\u201d
\nAll of these opinions (i.e., the Baptist, Elijah, and the risen prophet) represent a single idea; namely, that Jesus is the prophet of the last days. The hope in an eschatological prophet was one held by many, and it originated in the fact that classical (biblical) prophecy had ceased. So thought rabbinic Judaism as well as other streams of Jewish thought in the period, e.g., the Essenes from Qumran. Throughout the New Testament we find unmistakable indications that many believed that Jesus was the eschatological prophet. One poignant passage is Acts 3:17\u201322. In this specific case it is possible that a tradition about John the Baptist has been shifted to Jesus.
\nThe opinion that Jesus is the eschatological \u201ctrue prophet\u201d was one of the central doctrines of the Jewish Christian sect of the Ebionites. Indeed, Jesus saw himself as a prophet. His remark, \u201cfor it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem\u201d (Luke 13:33), confirms this. His words reflect the notion that Jerusalem \u201ckills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it\u201d (Luke 13:34 and Matt. 23:38). Furthermore, Jesus speaks in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:9\u201319) about himself as a prophet\u2014and at the same time as the Son of God\u2014who would be killed, just like the prophets before him.
\nThe impression given by this parable is that the prophetic chain to which Jesus and others belonged had not been interrupted after the prophet Zechariah. This position does not fit the doctrine of either the Pharisees or the Essenes. One should note that Jesus never identifies himself as the prophet of the last days. Perhaps he did not accept the popular notion that prophecy ceased after the days of the Old Testament, and he may not have been the only person who declined to accept uncritically the prevailing opinion. In any event, these considerations do not have much bearing on the question of Jesus\u2019 messianic self-awareness, which certainly existed. We have heard that many recognized him only as the eschatological prophet, but there were obviously others who thought that he was (or aspired to be) the Messiah. This we learn indirectly from the inscription on the cross (\u201cthe King of the Jews\u201d).
\nMatthew\u2019s version of Jesus\u2019 words to Peter have an authentic ring about them. Can one, following the belief of the Church, think that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah, or must one agree with those who suggest that Jesus\u2019 life was \u201cnon-messianic\u201d? The latter opinion is based upon the fact that Jesus apparently never used the title \u201cMessiah\u201d to speak of himself. Moreover, he always spoke of the Son of Man in the third person, as though he himself were not identical with that person. The Gospel sayings about the Son of Man fall into three groups: 1) those referring to the coming Son of Man, 2) those referring to his suffering and resurrection, and 3) those in which the son of man is at work in the present. \u201cFoxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head\u201d (Matt. 8:19\u201320). In this and other sayings from the third group, the Aramaic or Hebrew term \u201cson of man\u201d means simply \u201cman.\u201d This group of sayings, therefore, has nothing to do with Jesus\u2019 eschatological hope. The second group is that in which the title, \u201cson of man,\u201d is used in connection with the passion, death and resurrection of the Lord. In the past I was sure\u2014as many still are\u2014that this group was a product of early Christianity. The three so-called \u201cpassion predictions\u201d (Luke 9:22; 9:43b\u201345; 18:31\u201334 and parr.) are evidently, in their present form, shaped by the early Church. Only the second prediction was seen by a prominent New Testament scholar as original. According to it (Luke 9:44) Jesus said to his disciples, \u201cListen carefully to what I am about to tell you. The son of man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.\u201d This is reminiscent of another authentic saying of Jesus. During the Last Supper he said, \u201cThe hand of him who is going to hand me over is on the table. The son of man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who hands him over\u201d (Luke 22:21). These two sayings are similar even in their form, and both are based upon a play on words in Hebrew.
\nIn both sayings Jesus speaks about the handing over of the \u201cson of man,\u201d and in both he speaks about his tragic end at the hands of men (in Hebrew: \u201csons of men\u201d). In the first case (Luke 9:44) Jesus (\u201cthe son of man\u201d) will be delivered into the hands of men (\u201csons of men\u201d), while in the second case (Luke 22:21\u201322) he speaks about the man (Hebrew: \u201cson of man\u201d) who shall hand him over. Nevertheless, the formal side of these two authentic sayings is less important than the fact that Jesus speaks about himself as the \u201csuffering son of man.\u201d This way of speaking about himself as \u201cthe son of man,\u201d either out of modesty or in a statement with an unwelcome content, can be seen elsewhere, and seems to fit the manner of Jewish expression in antiquity. Vermes has already drawn attention to the fact that in Aramaic one can designate oneself in such a situation as \u201cthat man\u201d (\u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d0). Often an unpleasant, frightening, or fateful statement employs this circumlocution. Nevertheless, Jeremias rightly observed that while it is the meaning of the term \u201cthat man\u201d to which Jesus alludes, there exists no clear example in which our title, \u201cson of man,\u201d is used in the known sources in such a purely euphemistic meaning. While Jeremias\u2019 objections are not out of place, they are not decisive, because much of the Hebrew and Aramaic material from the days of Jesus no longer exists.
\nWe have noted that according to the Gospels, Jesus used the title \u201cthe son of man\u201d with three meanings. The third type was used by Jesus, as it is in Hebrew discourse today, simply as a term for \u201cman.\u201d In the second type, he evidently referred to himself as the \u201cson of man\u201d as a euphemistic circumlocution. We have yet to consider the first meaning of the expression, in which he announced the coming of the Son of Man as an eschatological figure. In the second and third groups it is clearly a self-designation, but in the case of the eschatological Son of Man, it is not easy to demonstrate decisively that Jesus believed he would eventually be revealed as the heavenly Son of Man. I once tried to show that he indeed had such an aspiration. If I am right, then the threefold meaning of the designation \u201cson of man\u201d in the mouth of Jesus betrays his manner of sometimes creating a kind of fourth dimension behind his utterances. He is in solidarity with other human beings and is subject to the same humanity, but he personally has to suffer a cruel death, and he will also be revealed as an eschatological figure. All this is speculative. In any event, we do not recommend trying to harmonize and to seek for a consistency among the three meanings of the \u201cson of man.\u201d Our task is far more restricted. We need now to speak only about the coming of the future \u201cSon of Man,\u201d as this concept is relevant to Jesus\u2019 doctrine of the Savior.
\nBefore treating this subject more fully, allow me to make a linguistic remark. I belong to those scholars who believe that Jesus\u2019 teaching was in Hebrew and that the Semitic language behind the first three Gospels was Hebrew. On the other hand, the bar \u2019anosh or Son of Man in Daniel 7:9\u201314 is an Aramaic expression. Why? Because the whole of Daniel 7 is written in Aramaic. Are we obliged to believe that even if his teaching was in Hebrew, when Jesus was speaking about the \u201cson of man\u201d he used the Aramaic term? Surely not! As we will see momentarily, in the Testament of Abraham, the eschatological Son of Man is identified with Abel, the son of the first Adam. This is proof that the Son of Man was so called in Hebrew: ben adam.
\nThe phrase \u201cson of man\u201d appears in the Old Testament. In a vision, Daniel describes the coming judgment of God upon all the kingdoms of the world.<\/p>\n
As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was the Ancient of Days took his seat \u2026 the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened \u2026 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with clouds from heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:9\u201314).<\/p>\n
For Daniel, the son of man was a symbol of the \u201csaints of the Most High.\u201d Yet, as we learn from other writings, notably the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, this identification is secondary. Originally the Son of Man was the man-like eschatological judge. Jesus spoke of him.<\/p>\n
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, \u2018Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.\u2026\u2019 Then he will say to those at his left hand, \u2018Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.\u2026\u2019 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Matt. 25:31\u201336).<\/p>\n
In all of the sources, the one resembling a man is portrayed in a consistent manner. The Son of Man has a superhuman, heavenly sublimity. He is the cosmic judge at the end of time. Sitting upon the throne of God, judging the entire human race with the aid of the heavenly hosts, he will consign the just to blessedness and the wicked to the pit of hell. Whatever sentence he metes out, he will execute. Frequently he is identified with the Messiah, but he can also be identified with Enoch, who was taken up into heaven. According to The Testament of Abraham, the Son of Man is literally the son of Adam\u2014ben Adam\u2014Abel, who was killed by the wicked Cain. God appointed Abel to be the eschatological judge, because he desired that every man would be judged by his peer. At the second judgment the twelve tribes of Israel will judge the whole of creation. Not until the third judgment will God Himself judge. This apocalyptic tradition explains why Jesus said to the twelve. \u201cYou, who have persevered with me in my tribulations, when the Son of Man sits upon his glorious throne will also sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel\u201d (cf. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:28\u201330).
\nIn one of the Essene fragments Melchizedek, the Old Testament priest-king of Jerusalem in the time of Abraham, figures as the eschatological heavenly priest at the end of times. In company with the angels, from on high he will judge men and the wicked spirits of Belial. It is of him the psalmist speaks, \u201cGod has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods He holds judgment\u201d (Ps. 82:1). Elsewhere, too, in the Bible, Jewish tradition understands the word \u201cgod\u201d as simply \u201cjudge,\u201d but the Essene identification gives us a remarkable glimpse of what majesty could be attributed to the \u201cmanlike\u201d judge at the end of time.
\nThe view that the executor of the last judgment would be the biblical Melchizedek was based upon Psalm 110. \u201cThe Lord says to my lord, \u2018Sit at My right hand \u2026 You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.\u2026\u2019 \u201d The Hebrew phrase \u201cafter the order of\u201d could be understood to mean \u201cI (God) have said to you (Melchizedek).\u201d In this sense God is addressing Melchizedek himself in the psalm. Thus it was understood by the Essene author. According to the usual interpretation, he who will sit at God\u2019s right hand is not Melchizedek himself, but merely one who is the same kind of person as Melchizedek. That is how Jesus understood this psalm. On one occasion, reported in Luke 20:41\u201343, he quoted the beginning of Psalm 110 with reference to the Messiah. On another occasion, before being handed over to the Romans, he alluded to the words of this psalm when the high priest asked him if he were the Messiah. He said, \u201cBut from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God\u201d (Luke 22:69). Those present correctly understood this as Jesus\u2019 indirect admission of his messianic dignity.
\nIt is quite certain that in his own lifetime Jesus became accepted by many\u2014not just by Peter\u2014as the Messiah. Had it not been so, Pilate would not have written above the cross of Jesus, \u201cKing of the Jews.\u201d On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus sometimes referred to the coming Son of Man in the third person simply because he wanted to preserve his incognito. At first he was possibly awaiting another. In the end, however, the conviction prevailed that he himself was the coming Son of Man. Otherwise, Jesus\u2019 answer to the high priest makes no sense. According to Luke 22:67\u201370, Jesus was asked, \u201cIf you are the Messiah, tell us!\u201d Jesus answered, \u201cIf I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right of the power of God.\u201d This saying in particular can hardly be an invention of the Church, because the evangelists, thinking that it was not a sufficiently unequivocal confession of his Messiahship, enhanced it.
\nThe one like a man who sits upon the throne of God\u2019s glory, the sublime eschatological judge, is the highest conception of the Redeemer ever developed by ancient Judaism. Only one artist has captured it, Van Eyck. He depicted, above the altar at Ghent, the Son of Man as a human being who is divine. Could Jesus of Nazareth have understood himself thus? Let us not forget that he felt he was God\u2019s chosen one, His servant, the only Son to whom the secrets of the heavenly Father were open. This very sense of sublime dignity could have led him finally to dare that he would be revealed as the Son of Man; and in Judaism the Son of Man was frequently understood as the Messiah.
\nThe New Testament links Jesus\u2019 death with his Messiahship, but it seems that Jesus himself connected his tragedy on the cross with his own divine sonship. Moreover, both ideas of his sonship and his death were in his mind connected with his prophetic task. These links were evidently expressed by the heavenly voice at the Transfiguration. \u201cThis is my only (or: beloved) son, listen to him!\u201d (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35 with variants). The first part alludes to the sacrifice of Isaac, the only beloved son of Abraham (Gen. 22:2), and in the second half the heavenly voice hints at the eschatological prophet (Deut 18:15). Also, in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:9\u201319 and par.), Jesus speaks about the prophet, the son of the proprietor (i.e., God), who will be killed. I believe that this connection between Jesus\u2019 prophetic task, his sonship, and the final tragedy originated in Jesus\u2019 own intuition. He who had commanded us not to resist evildoers, went to his death without a fight. At the end, did he realize that his execution was the crown of his transvaluation of all the usual values? By it the highest was indeed made lowest and the lowest, highest. \u201cFor Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God\u201d (1 Pet. 3:18).<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n
JERUSALEM<\/p>\n
\u201cAt that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, \u2018Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.\u2019 And he said to them, \u2018Go and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem\u2019 \u201d (Luke 13:31\u201333).
\nHerod Antipas believed that Jesus was the Baptist whom he had beheaded, risen from the dead, and he was prepared to kill him \u201cagain.\u201d Jesus knew that his life was in danger\u2014a heavenly voice never comes out of the clear blue sky\u2014but he did not want to die in Galilee where he had been preaching the kingdom of heaven. He would die in Jerusalem, reputed for \u201ckilling the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you\u201d (Luke 13:34). The ostensible reason for his pilgrimage was something else, however. The Passover was approaching. Jews were accustomed to making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to sacrifice the paschal lamb and celebrate their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Jesus, too, longed earnestly to eat this festive meal with his disciples. So his way of the cross began.
\nAs Jesus approached the city he sent two disciples to fetch an ass. When they returned, Jesus mounted the animal and rode it into Jerusalem. Entering the city, he was greeted with \u201cHosanna!\u201d and a verse of a psalm (118:26), \u201cBlessed be he who enters in the name of the Lord!\u201d On pilgrimage festivals these words were sung and were used to greet pilgrims as they arrived in Jerusalem. Strewing garments in his path may have been the people\u2019s way of showing honor to the prophet from Galilee (Matt. 21:11). He entered Jerusalem, visited the Temple, and then went to Bethany, a village on the outskirts of the city. There, among friends, he spent his last nights. By day he went to Jerusalem and taught in the Temple. The Temple officials asked him, indeed, by what authority he did this, but he replied, \u201cLet me ask you a question. John\u2019s baptism, was it of God or of men?\u201d This answer sent his interrogators into disarray. The Sadducean Temple authorities had no love for the Baptist, so they could not say that John\u2019s baptism was of God. However, to say that it was of men was too dangerous, for they feared the crowd who believed John the Baptist to have been a prophet of God. Therefore they merely said. \u201cWe do not know.\u201d Jesus said to them, \u201cNor do I tell you by whose authority I do this.\u201d There the matter rested (Luke 20:1\u20138).
\nThis skirmish set off a series of clashes between Jesus and the Temple hierarchy in which he consciously took the initiative, and won over to himself the crowd who hated the Sadducean high priests. His prophetic anger was perfectly genuine; but what did he mean to accomplish, the victory of his cause, with the help of God and man\u2014and without having to die\u2014or the death of a prophet? According to Luke, Jesus\u2019 first attack followed immediately upon the conversation concerning John\u2019s baptism. In the parable of the tenants in the vineyard (Luke 20:9\u201318), Jesus spoke of his death at the hands of the high priests, and announced to them their own overthrow. \u201cThe scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people; for they perceived that he had told this parable against them\u201d (Luke 20:19).
\nThus he taught daily in the Temple. The high priests sought to destroy him, but they were afraid, for the crowd hung upon his words. On one occasion, when some people said of the Temple, \u201cWhat stones, what a building!\u201d Jesus announced, \u201cAs for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down\u201d (Luke 21:5\u20136). Forty years later, the Temple went up in flames at the hands of the Romans. The unbearable Roman oppression provoked insurrection and terrorism by fanatics, and the sanctuary in Jerusalem was the bulwark of the hated Sadducees who had made a pact with the Romans. Indignation sharpens vision, and many foresaw the destruction of the Temple. Thus, for example, in 62 A.D. on the Feast of Tabernacles, it happened that Joshua the son of Ananias, a simple peasant, was seized by the Spirit in the Temple, and suddenly poured forth a prophetic malediction in which he foretold its destruction. Like one possessed, he kept up his cry day and night in the streets of Jerusalem. The authorities dragged him before the Roman governor, Albinus, who had him scourged to the bone. Yet, the man only went on repeating his gruesome prophecy. The governor then let him go free, considering him to be out of his mind.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd he left them and went out to Bethany, where he spent the night\u201d (Matt. 21:17). \u201cSteps of Ascent\u201d leading to and from the Temple along the southern wall
\nPhoto: Joseph Frankovic; Courtesy: Jerusalem Perspective<\/p>\n
\u201cNot one stone will be left on another\u201d (Luke 21:6 and parr.)
\nPhoto: Dr. Steven Notley; Courtesy: Jerusalem Perspective<\/p>\n
Jesus expressed his opposition to the abuses in the Temple not only by words, but by deeds. As it often happens at shrines, a brisk trade went on at the Temple in Jerusalem in those days. Jesus was not the only one whose displeasure had been aroused by the tables of the money-changers, and the stalls of the dove-sellers at the place of sanctification. Nevertheless, it was not until after Jesus\u2019 death that the scribes adopted practical measures to keep the trade necessary for the Temple sacrifices out of the Temple precincts. When Jesus visited there, however, these measures were not yet in effect. Having entered the Temple area, he began removing those who were selling, by saying, \u201cScripture says, \u2018My house will be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers\u2019 \u201d (Luke 19:45\u20136).
\nJohn reports that at this point Jesus also said, \u201cI will destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands\u201d (Mark 14:58; cf. Matt. 26:61). In Mark (14:57\u201359), however, this is the testimony of a false witness. If it was true that Jesus really said that he would rebuild the Temple, then Caiaphas, the Sadduccee, was not listening to rabbinic fantasies. There is a biblical verse which was understood by all to speak about the Messiah, who would build the Temple. \u201cThe man whose name is Branch \u2026 he shall build the Temple of God (Zech. 6:12).\u201d The Branch was generally understood to be a designation for the Messiah. It is therefore logical to suppose that if Jesus said that he would build the Temple, he confessed that he was the Messiah. Likewise, it would be logical for the high priest to respond and ask him, \u201cAre you then the Christ?\u201d<\/p>\n
Model of Herod\u2019s Temple<\/p>\n
It would seem that we do not have the saying in its original form. The three days are connected with the belief that Jesus rose on the third day. Nevertheless, the saying was expressed originally in the first person. Jesus evidently spoke in the name of God, in the spirit of Jewish apocalyptism. The present Temple would be destroyed and another would be raised up by the hand of God. The saying is, then, another prophecy about the destruction of the Temple. As he was leaving Galilee, Jesus said, \u201cBehold, your house is forsaken,\u201d (Luke 13:35) and he was sent to Jerusalem to announce this. Seen from this angle, his removal of the traders and the connected saying about the Temple provide the climax of his prophetic mission to Jerusalem.
\nJesus\u2019 words and actions in Jerusalem precipitated the catastrophe. The Sadducean priesthood, despised by everyone, found its sole support in the Temple. This prophet from Galilee, in front of the crowd assembled for the festival in the Temple, had foretold not only its destruction, but the end of their priestly caste. Moreover, capitalizing on the bitter feelings about the trade that went on in the sanctuary, he struck a painful blow against the Temple authorities. As we have seen, thirty years later, the authorities handed over Joshua ben Ananias to the Romans because he too prophesied the Temple\u2019s ruin. Throughout their whole empire, the Romans diligently protected all religious sanctuaries. They also evidently made it their business to protect the high priests from importune agitators.
\nLuke states that Jesus merely began to remove the traders from the Temple. Apparently he was not able to carry out his intention, and we do not know how many obeyed his directions, nor have we any report of the reaction of the crowd of pilgrims who were present. It is almost certain that the Temple guard eventually intervened. We may also presume that the cleansing of the Temple took place shortly before the arrest of Jesus\u2014something he had been able to avoid on the first occasion.
\nAccording to the first three Gospels, the Last Supper was a paschal meal. Jesus had, therefore, already offered the paschal lamb. As it was prescribed that the roasted lamb be eaten within the walls of the holy city, on the last evening Jesus did not return to Bethany, but remained in Jerusalem. We have no record of the host\u2019s name, for in those days pilgrims were gladly received everywhere and anywhere. When night had fallen he reclined at the table with the twelve and said,<\/p>\n
\u201cWith all my heart I have longed to eat this paschal lamb with you before I die; for I tell you, I will never eat it again until a new one will be eaten in the kingdom of God.\u201d And he took a cup of wine, recited a benediction over it and said, \u201cTake it and share it among you; for I tell you, I will not again drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the kingdom of God.\u201d And he took bread, recited a benediction over it, broke it and gave it to them, saying, \u201cThis is my body.\u201d<\/p>\n
Catastrophe was imminent. Jesus made no secret about it to his disciples. He evidently hinted at his future martyrdom when he said over the broken bread: \u201cThis is my body.\u201d He told Peter that before the cock crowed he would deny him thrice. As they were eating the feast, begun under the shadow of death, he said, \u201cBehold the hand of him who hands me over is on the table\u201d (Luke 22:21). Had he discovered the betrayer? Earlier, probably after the clash in the Temple, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, had gone to the high priests to deliver Jesus over to them. They had promised to pay him handsomely for his deed (Luke 22:3\u20136 and par.). We do not know why he did this, and the accounts of his death are contradictory. Most likely he disappeared after the betrayal, for there were plenty of people at that time who would have repaid him in blood for handing a Jew over to the Romans.<\/p>\n
Gethsemane<\/p>\n
After the meal, the hymn of praise having been sung, Jesus left the city along with his disciples and went to the nearby Mount of Olives, to a place known as Gethsemane. There he bade the disciples to wait and watch. He walked on a little further, prostrated himself, and prayed, \u201cFather, if You will, let this cup pass me by; but not as I will, but as You will.\u201d Then he went back and found the disciples asleep, and said to them, \u201cWhy do you sleep? Get up and pray that I do not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak\u201d (cf. Luke 22:39\u201346). He was tempted to betray the voices that had proclaimed to him his election and divine sonship, but he overcame the impulse to flee into the darkness of that night from Gethsemane, and to eke out an anonymous, secret existence somewhere. He submitted to the will of his Father in heaven to drink the cup, which he had already guessed was predestined for him.
\nThe Temple guard approached, accompanied\u2014according to John 18:3\u2014by a Roman cohort, and Judas Iscariot. Judas greeted Jesus in the customary manner as a way of identifying him for the officers in the darkness. The treachery of Judas\u2019 actions and the irony of his greeting were exposed by Jesus\u2019 response, \u201cJudas, are you delivering the son of man (or: a person) with a kiss?\u201d (Luke 22:48). Suddenly, one of Jesus\u2019 followers struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear, but Jesus said, \u201cStop! no more of this.\u201d \u201cThen Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the Temple and elders, who had come out to arrest him, \u2018Have you come out as against a brigand, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the Temple, you did not lay hands on me\u2019 \u201d (Luke 22:52\u201353). Then Jesus was taken off and brought in custody to the high priest\u2019s house.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 11<\/p>\n
DEATH<\/p>\n
In 62 A.D., the Sadducean high priest, Annas, convened a session of the Sanhedrin at which the Lord\u2019s brother James and other Christians were indicted before the judges, and condemned to be stoned. The Pharisees engineered the deposition of Annas, because in their opinion, the session had been illegal\u2014called without their knowledge. The Sanhedrin was the Jewish supreme court and numbered seventy-one members. To pass a sentence of death, the presence of twenty-three judges was needed. If the Sanhedrin was in session at Jesus\u2019 inquiry, one must assume that the high priest had assembled a sufficient number of judges who were from among his Sadducean friends. We have noted earlier that in the first three Gospels, the Pharisees are not mentioned in connection with the trial of Jesus. And according to all that is reported about the Pharisees, they could not have acquiesced in the surrender of Jesus to the Romans. If, then, there was a session of the Sanhedrin before the crucifixion of Jesus, it must have resembled the arbitrary assembly of distinguished Sadducees who later condemned James, the Lord\u2019s brother, to death.
\nWas it an official assembly of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to death? John knew nothing about it, and in the whole of Luke\u2014not just in his description of the Passion\u2014a verdict of the supreme court is not even mentioned. Mark was the first to alter the ancient report. He attempted to portray a session of the judiciary passing judgment. Matthew subsequently based his account upon Mark. The time and place of the inquiry, however, vary in each of the different Gospel accounts.
\nAccording to Luke (22:66) the proceedings took place after that anguished night. In the morning Jesus was taken \u201cto their Sanhedrin.\u201d According to Mark (14:53\u201365) and Matthew (26:57\u201368), the proceedings took place during the night itself, in the high priest\u2019s house, where \u201call the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled\u201d (Mark 14:53; cf. Matt. 26:57). Later in the accounts (Mark 14:55; Matt. 26:59), the assembly is suddenly transformed into \u201cthe chief priests and the whole council.\u201d
\nOn the following morning\u2014so writes Mark (15:1)\u2014\u201cthe chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation. They bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.\u201d Matthew (27:1\u20132) omits \u201cand the whole council,\u201d which he apparently thought superfluous. Thus, Luke (22:26) and Matthew (26:59) explicitly mention the Sanhedrin only once, while Mark mentions it twice (14:55; 15:1). All this demonstrates that something disturbing has happened\u2014not in reality, but in Mark and Matthew. There was not a double session of the Sanhedrin. To be blunt, the night session in the high priest\u2019s house is a product of Mark\u2019s literary creativity, as is his notion of Jesus\u2019 condemnation to death by the Jewish Supreme Court. By contrast, Luke is free from the assertion that Jesus was formally condemned to death by the Jewish authorities. This presentation is consistent with his versions of the \u201cpassion predictions\u201d (Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31\u201334). Luke also lacks mention of any night session by the High Council. Thus, it is more reasonable to follow here the Lukan report.
\nOne final additional piece of evidence allows us to deduce that it was not the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to death. This is indicated by the fact that he was buried in neither of the two graves reserved for those executed by order of the supreme council. Joseph of Arimathea begged Pilate to let him have the corpse. He took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb cut out of the rock where no one had yet been laid (Luke 23:50\u201356). Matthew alone includes the questionable detail that the tomb in which Jesus was laid belonged to Joseph (Matt. 27:60). Nevertheless, this was a profound act of love, for one can find scarcely any ancient Jewish graves from that time in which there were not several occupants. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the city council of Jerusalem\u2014a rich man\u2014and as such was expected to dispense charity. This duty he fulfilled in the burial of Jesus.
\nAccording to John (19:39), Nicodemus, whom Jesus had met some time earlier (John 3:1\u201315), came too, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, and together Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus. Nicodemus, like Jesus, originated from the Galilee (John 7:52). We know from rabbinic sources that this Nicodemus, the son of Gorion, was also one of the Jerusalem councillors and one of the three richest patricians in the city. Later, during the Jewish-Roman war, the fanatical rebels burned down his granary. Nicodemus probably died in the war, and his daughter then lived in dire poverty. Her marriage contract was signed by the peace-loving pupil of Hillel, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. Nicodemus\u2019 son was most likely the Gorion who, at the beginning of the uprising, took part in negotiations that led to the surrender of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem. Then, when the insurgents had forced all to take part in the war, a certain Joseph\u2014son of Gorion\u2014and Annas the Sadducean high priest, who previously had had James the Lord\u2019s brother executed, and who was an opponent of the fanatics, were elected to supreme power in Jerusalem. The father of this Joseph was almost certainly Gorion, a man of outstanding respectability and nobility, who was later executed in Jerusalem under the reign of terror by the fanatics.<\/p>\n
The so-called \u201cHerod\u2019s Family Tomb\u201d<\/p>\n
In an earlier report, a man named Gorion, son of Joseph, and the Pharisee, Simeon son of the famous Gamaliel who came to the apostles\u2019 defense and was Paul\u2019s teacher, had tried in vain to oppose the fanatics. It would seem that all of these men belonged to the same propertied patrician families of Jerusalem. They distinguished themselves by their resistance to the extreme militant party of the fanatics, and they were close in outlook to the moderate Pharisees. The fact that two Jerusalem councillors performed the final act of charity for Jesus appears to contradict the conclusion that the Sanhedrin, functioning in its official capacity, had delivered Jesus up to the Romans.<\/p>\n
Herodian period villas\u2014Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem<\/p>\n
According to John (18:12\u201314, 24) Jesus was brought first from Gethsemane \u201cto Annas,\u201d who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, \u201cthe present high priest.\u201d Annas, even if he was no longer the high priest, was still a kind of very influential \u201cgray eminence.\u201d On this point, John is to be trusted. In any case, Jesus spent his last night in custody, in the house of the presiding high priest, Caiaphas. In order to pass the time and amuse themselves, \u201cthe men who were guarding Jesus mocked him. They beat him, they blindfolded him, and they asked him, \u2018Prophesy, who is it that struck you?\u2019 \u201d (Luke 22:63\u201364 and par.). The soldiers were playing a brutal, ancient game which is still played even today. In Jesus\u2019 case the behavior of the bodyguards was particularly offensive. The Sadducees did not believe in angels or in the spirit of prophecy. The bodyguards of the Sadducean high priest Caiaphas apparently thought as their master did\u2014a modern-day prophet was a superstitious absurdity.
\nWhen day broke, the elders of the people, the chief priests and the scribes met together and brought him into their sanhedrin (Luke 22:66), in other words, into the room where the Sanhedrin used to sit. Although the term \u201csanhedrin\u201d can designate here the chamber rather than the \u201ccouncil,\u201d does this exclude the possibility that on that morning the Sanhedrin actually met? Earlier (Luke 20:1) the \u201cJewish troika\u201d of the elders, chief priests, and scribes appeared in the Temple and asked Jesus about his authority to teach. The phrase reads as a formal designation for the Temple committee; the elders were the elders of the Temple and the scribes were the Temple secretaries.
\nThus, on that fateful morning, Jesus was brought from the custody of the high priest\u2019s house into the Temple before the Temple committee\u2014the same individuals who had previously decided to arrest him (see Luke 22:2 and par.). The aim of their session was not to reach a verdict. They merely functioned as a fact-finding committee. They wanted to collect from the mouth of Jesus sufficient evidence to justify their next move\u2014his extradition to the Roman prefect. They had attempted this before but were unsuccessful. On that occasion, hoping to ensnare Jesus in something he might say in order to hand him over to the Roman authorities, they had sent agents. The spies had asked him, \u201cAre we or are we not permitted to pay taxes to the Emperor?\u201d Jesus saw through their trick and foiled their attempt to catch him in public (Luke 20:20\u201326). This failure did not, however, prevent them later, when they brought him before Pilate, from accusing him, \u201cWe have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes the payment of taxes to the Emperor and claims to be the Messiah, a king\u201d (Luke 23:1\u20132). In the fact-finding session of the committee, they tried to discover only whether Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and they did not ask him about the payment of tributes to the Roman government. They already knew that he would decline to confirm such an accusation (Luke 22:67\u201371 and par.).
\nAt first they tried to find credible corroboration that Jesus had, in fact, uttered the dangerous saying about the destruction of the Temple. At last they found two men who gave reliable evidence that such a statement had been made (Matt. 26:57\u201361). Then the high priest rose to his feet and said to Jesus, \u201cYou answer nothing?\u201d But Jesus remained silent. The public announcement of the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus probably had made when he confronted the traders within the sanctuary, might well have seemed to the high priest sufficient reason for handing Jesus over to the Romans. It was in the Romans\u2019 interest to protect holy places. Nevertheless, of more interest to the Romans would be rumors that this Jesus was regarded as a Messiah. Messianic movements were suppressed by the Romans, because the Messiah was believed to be the King of the Jews. To make even more certain of getting rid of this troublesome incendiary, the high priest said to Jesus, \u201cIf you are the Christ, tell us.\u201d Jesus replied, \u201cFrom now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God\u201d (Luke 22:69).
\nHow could Jesus speak in this manner? He must have known that he had come to the end of his life. The Old Testament had recounted how both the prophet Elijah and Enoch never died, but were taken up into heaven. In Jesus\u2019 day this had captured popular imagination. People believed the same about Moses, although the Bible did speak of his death. It was also said of Melchizedek that not only had he neither father nor mother, but that he would appear as judge at the end of time. People likewise believed that the prophet Jeremiah had never died. We also have seen that there were men who were convinced that the beheaded John the Baptist had risen from the dead (Mark 8:28 and par.).
\nAccording to the Book of Revelation (11:3\u201312), two prophets would come, but \u201cthe beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them.\u201d Their bodies would lie in the streets of Jerusalem for three-and-a-half days. Then they would rise again and go up to heaven upon a cloud. Some twenty years after the death of Jesus, an Egyptian Jew appeared and asserted that he intended to liberate Jerusalem from the Romans. The governor Felix marched against him with an army, and dispersed his band of supporters. The prophet himself disappeared, but people believed that God was keeping him in hiding, and they awaited his return. When Paul came to Jerusalem he was asked if he were the Egyptian.
\nI am convinced that there are reliable reports that the Crucified One \u201cappeared to Peter, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time \u2026 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.\u201d Last of all, he appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus (1 Cor. 15:3\u20138). When Jesus answered the high priest\u2019s question about his Messiahship with the words, \u201cFrom now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God,\u201d did he believe that he, too, would escape the fate that threatened him. Or, as is more likely, did he believe that he would rise from the dead? In any event, the high priest correctly understood that by Jesus\u2019 words he was confessing that he was the Messiah. Therefore Caiaphas said, \u201cWhat need have we of further witnesses? You have heard it from his own mouth\u201d (Luke 22:71). Jesus was taken straightway to Pilate.<\/p>\n
Roman road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13\u201335)
\nPhoto: Richard and Lucinda Dale-Thomas; Courtesy: Jerusalem Perspective<\/p>\n
At this point I will digress in order to draw a character sketch of the famous governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. It is no accident that he is named in the early Apostles\u2019 Creed in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus. In two Jewish sources Pilate is described in similar terms, namely as a cruel villain. Even Luke (13:1) mentions a horrible incident instigated by him. \u201cNow there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.\u201d Philo, the Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, said that Pilate \u201cwas a man of an inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition.\u201d Philo further enumerated Pilate\u2019s seven mortal sins, \u201chis venality, his violence, his thievery, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.\u201d This negative assessment of the governor does not differ much from what Josephus reported about him. Once, in a private conversation with me, a New Testament scholar aptly and succinctly described Pilate. He said that Pilate was \u201ca butcher.\u201d
\nHow are we to reconcile this dark picture with the Pilate of the Gospels? There he appears as a sensitive and just man, as a pawn in the hands of the Jewish leaders. Moreover, Matthew intensifies this positive appreciation of Pilate in his Gospel. Matthew demonstrates elsewhere, however, a theological penchant to vilify the Jews as a whole. Must we be drawn into the old polarity, according to which there are only two opposite solutions? One sees the Jews (or a major part of them) guilty of Jesus\u2019 death and believes that there existed \u201ca good old Pilate.\u201d Or must we accept the contrasting view in which not a single Jew (with the exception of Jewish quislings) was involved in the so-called \u201ctrial\u201d of Jesus, and the only monstrous criminal was Pilate\u2014with the backing of Rome. This apparent antinomy can be resolved by taking seriously the numerous and cutting accusations against Pilate reported by Philo and Josephus, while recognizing the understandable, tendentious efforts to whitewash Pilate\u2019s person in the Gospels. Furthermore, one needs to pay careful attention to the actions of Pilate as reported in the Christian sources.
\nWhat one discovers is that Pilate\u2019 s behavior in the Gospels is not very different from what is reported about him in the other sources. This approach allows his true character to emerge. The results are not flattering for him, but among other important things, one learns that it is not sufficient to speak about the \u201cbanality of evil.\u201d One must distinguish between the various specifics of such banality. Not all evil is banal, but Pilate\u2019s wickedness does belong to the banality of evil.
\nBefore addressing the important issue of Pilate\u2019s involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus, I want to make some additional preliminary comments. The alleged report about Jesus in Josephus (Antiquities 18:63\u201364), the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, is rightly regarded in its present form as inauthentic, or at least \u201cChristianized.\u201d Nevertheless, I believe that a form of this witness about Jesus by Josephus did exist and has been discovered by Pines. In the tenth century, the Christian author, Agapius, wrote a history of the world in Arabic, in which he reproduced Josephus\u2019 statement about Jesus.<\/p>\n
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah (the Christ) concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. And the people of the Christians, named after him, have not disappeared till this day.<\/p>\n
I tried to show elsewhere that this form of the Testimonium Flavianum is basically that of Josephus. The fact that it was Pilate who condemned Jesus to be crucified is referred to even in the Greek text of Josephus. In the newly discovered Arabic version nothing is said about Jewish accusations against Jesus. Similarly, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus reports that Jesus was executed by Pilate \u201cin the reign of Tiberius.\u201d As did Josephus, Tacitus wanted to explain why the Christians received their name. \u201c \u2018Christus\u2019 was the name of the founder.\u201d In this connection Tacitus speaks about the \u201cprocurator\u201d Pontius Pilate. In reality, Pilate like the other governors of Judea before the time of Claudius, was officially called \u201cpraefectus Iudaeae,\u201d and not procurator. This is certain because of an inscription that was found in Caesarea. The inscription runs as follows:<\/p>\n
[Dis Augusti]s Tiberieum
\n[-Po]ntius Pilatus
\n[praef]ectus Iuda[ea]e
\n[fecit, d]e[dicavit]<\/p>\n
This inscription should lead to a reappraisal of Pilate\u2019s character and to a new understanding of what really happened in Jesus\u2019 condemnation. The new information obliges us to renew the analysis of Pilate\u2019s deeds according to both the Gospels and the Jewish reports about him.
\nA \u201cTiberieum\u201d is a temple\u2014in this case evidently a small one\u2014dedicated to Tiberius. This chapel was built by Pilate in Caesarea where the inscription was found. Caesarea was then the principal site of the governor of Judea (see e.g., Acts 23:23, 33). At the time of the temple\u2019s construction, Tiberius was the ruling Roman emperor. Roman rulers were normally deified only after their death, but the provincials and satellite rulers were permitted to erect sanctuaries even to a living emperor of Rome. Rome viewed such acts as an expression of devotion and fidelity to the emperor. An outstanding example of this foreign adoration of the living emperor by his vassals is Herod the Great. The temples which were built by Herod for this purpose were named in Greek, Kaisareia. Herod built one of his Kaisareia in Caesarea. It was erected in the center of the city on a hill and could be seen from afar by sailors on ships approaching the harbor. I suspect that later, in the vicinity of the temple of Augustus, Pilate erected the small sanctuary for Tiberius whose dedicatory inscription was discovered.<\/p>\n
Certain Roman emperors placed limits on the cult directed at themselves. Augustus permitted his cult in the provinces, but did not allow it in Rome itself. Tiberius was more than skeptical about a cult of his own person, even though it is true that the city of Tiberias was named after him by the \u201coriental\u201d ruler, Herod Antipas. According to Suetonius (Tiberius, chapter 26) he even forbade the consecration of temples to himself. The erection of the \u201cTiberieum\u201d in Caesarea surely would not have appealed to him. Even more distasteful was the fact that it had been erected by a Roman magistrate! Pontius Pilate is the only known Roman official who built then a temple to a living emperor. As we will see, this was not the only case of his exaggerated devotion to the emperor, and we will try to explain why he behaved in a manner that a twentieth century \u201cStalinist\u201d would have applauded.
\nA short survey of Pilate\u2019s career will show how his behavior in various situations was dictated by the interplay between his mental disposition and the structure of Roman administration of the provinces. As to Pilate\u2019s character, his brutality was evidently proverbial. He also apparently disliked Jews and Judaism. Minting their coins, other governors were careful not to offend Jewish religious feelings. Only Pilate may be regarded as exceptional on this point. Coins struck by him bore pagan symbols in the form of sacred vessels. Yet, Pilate\u2019s brutality was a kind of overcompensation for his basic weakness; he attempted to demonstrate his strength by cruel acts, but because of his weakness one could influence him to abandon his designs. Unfortunately, the episode with Jesus merely seems to be one in a series of Pilate\u2019s tragic comedies, but in this case his weakness changed the course of history.
\nThe first serious clash between Pilate and the Jewish people erupted when he introduced into Jerusalem military standards bearing the image of the emperor. By this action Pilate betrayed both his Stalinistic devotion to the emperor and his intrinsic weakness in the face of strong opposition by the Jews. The multitudes streamed in protest to Caesarea, and for many days they implored him to take away the images. Initially, Pilate refused to yield, since to do so would have been an outrage to the emperor. Nevertheless, he soon recognized the people\u2019s readiness to die rather than suffer a profanation of their faith. Finally, he removed the images from Jerusalem and brought them back to Caesarea. Incidentally, we hear of other similar mass demonstrations before Pilate, one of them in connection with Jesus\u2019 \u201ctrial\u201d (Matt. 27:11\u201323; Mark 15:6\u201312; Luke 23:18\u201321). The \u201cnatives\u201d easily discovered Pilate\u2019s innate weakness. Sometimes the demonstration succeeded in breaking his will, and sometimes it did not.
\nIn another case we find Pilate\u2019s tactics cruel and successful. He took money from the Temple treasury to finance the building of an aqueduct to supply water to Jerusalem. This step aroused resentment among the Jews who demanded that he stop using Temple money. Tens of thousands of the Jewish populace assembled and protested against him. Pilate, however, interspersed among the crowd a troop of his soldiers in civilian dress, with orders to beat any rioters with the flat of their swords. He gave his soldiers a prearranged signal and many of the unarmed participants of the demonstration perished. In this case the brutal strategies of Pilate were successful, and the \u201cgood old Pilate\u201d again demonstrated that he could master the situation by being really clever. By the way, one sees that it was then impossible to discern between the Jewish \u201crace\u201d and the Roman soldiers!
\nPhilo of Alexandria reports another clash between Pilate and the Jews. The governor brought to Jerusalem gilded shields and set them up in Herod\u2019s palace. They bore an inscription with the name of the dedicator, namely Pilate, and the name of Tiberius to whom the shields were dedicated. The Jews sent an embassy to the prefect. Among the delegates were Herod\u2019s four sons, but Pilate refused to remove the shields from Jerusalem. Pilate was \u201cin a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects.\u201d On the other hand, he feared that the Jews would send an embassy to the emperor, accusing him. \u201cWhen the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius pleading their case as forcibly as they could.\u201d Tiberius\u2019 reaction to the complaint was as the Jews hoped. Pilate removed the shields from Jerusalem to Caesarea, to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. \u201cIn this way both the honor of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.\u201d
\nThe two stories about Pilate and the Jews betray similar features, as also in the \u201ctrial\u201d of Jesus. It is in all three cases the same Pilate. Pilate\u2019s exaggerated dependence on the emperor in Rome was an important factor in his fatal decision about Jesus. According to John 19:12\u2014whom we may trust in this case\u2014when Pilate thought to release Jesus, his Jewish opponents cried out, \u201cIf you release this man, you are not Caesar\u2019s friend; every one who makes himself a king is defying Caesar!\u201d When Pilate heard this, he decided to execute Jesus.
\nWe have noted Pilate\u2019s \u201cStalinist\u201d devotion to Tiberius, his attempt to portray strength through his stubbornness, his weakness and indecisive hesitation, and his cowardly withdrawal before massive demonstrations. These qualities of Pilate were accentuated by the external circumstances of his difficult task. A governor of a province depended on influential groups within the local population, especially the local aristocracy which was the link between the province and the Empire. In the case of Jesus, this was the hierarchy of the Temple headed by the Jewish high priest. Such a governor, on the other hand, depended on the good will of the emperor who was the supreme judge when a complaint was sent to him. This configuration of forces, together with Pilate\u2019s character, eventually caused his downfall.
\nPilate\u2019s ruthless \u201cstrong-arm\u201d policy against the Samaritans was answered by a complaint of the Samaritan council to Vitellius, governor of Syria, when he visited Jerusalem at the Passover Festival in 36 A.D. Pilate was dismissed and had to go to Rome to justify his policy before the emperor. His final end is not known. Through Pilate\u2019s deposition, Vitellius wanted to restore Jewish popular confidence in Roman rule. Thus, he not only caused the downfall of Pilate, but also the deposition of the high priest, Caiaphas, the loyal ally of Pilate.
\nWe have recounted that Pilate brought the gilded shields to Herod\u2019s palace. This was also a fortress that was used as the governor\u2019s administrative headquarters when he went to Jerusalem, and soldiers were sometimes quartered there. The location of the palace is in today\u2019s Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. The question of where Jesus was brought by those who accused him still remains unanswered. Was he delivered to Pilate and imprisoned in the Antonia fortress that overlooked the Temple area? Or was he brought to Pilate in Herod\u2019s palace?
\nThe whole question is decisive for those who seek to know the course of the famous via dolorosa (the way of suffering), because Jesus was led finally to his crucifixion from the praetorium as a prisoner of the Roman governor. According to the research and archeological discoveries of the last decade, the traditional path of Jesus cannot be authenticated. The ancient relics that mark the via dolorosa date from a later period, during the reign of the emperor Hadrian. As to the Antonia fortress, its location is impossible to determine with certainty. Because of these and other considerations, today many scholars believe that Jesus was brought to Pilate while he was residing in Herod\u2019s palace.
\nThe Roman governor asked Jesus, \u201cAre you the king of the Jews?\u201d The sources tell us that Jesus answered, \u201cYou have said it.\u201d That is really all that has been handed down to us. According to John (18:29\u201338), this ambiguous saying signifies a denial. \u201cYou say that I am a king. Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?\u201d In fact, Jesus probably made no answer at all to the Roman. Because Pilate had heard that Jesus was a Galilean, and therefore a subject of Herod Antipas, he sent the prisoner to Herod who was also in Jerusalem for the Passover.
\nEvidently Herod Antipas stayed in the old Hasmonean palace, nearer to the Temple than Herod\u2019s palace. This palace served as the residence of the Herodian princes on their visits to the capital. The tetrarch questioned him thoroughly, but Jesus remained silent, and Herod sent him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6\u201312). The \u201cfox,\u201d who had sought to take Jesus\u2019 life in Galilee, confidently left him in Jerusalem in the hands of the Roman governor whose brutality was known far and wide. The formalities of the case were now over, but this courtesy on the part of Pilate led to the healing of the previous estrangement between himself and Herod Antipas (Luke 23:12).
\nJesus was incarcerated with at least three others. These were anti-Roman guerrillas, and chief among them was Barabbas. He had taken part in terrorism that had cost lives, and had been caught and imprisoned along with the others. The governor regarded it as his duty to crucify these terrorists\u2014especially Barabbas. If this were done on the great festival of the Jews, before the enormous pilgrim crowd, all would see the iron hand of Rome. However, the execution of a popular hero might lead to unrest. Indeed, the electric atmosphere of a pilgrim festival, especially the Passover, was always a potentially explosive time. In all probability the Jewish \u201cbrigands\u201d among the people would have wanted to avenge Barabbas\u2019 death, and if they had, scores of Jewish people would have fallen victim to a frenzy of Roman swords feeding off their flesh. The hated high priests for their part must have feared that such a scenario would indeed lead to a riot during the festival (Matt. 26:5). This could be avoided, only if Barabbas was kept alive.
\nAn ideal opportunity presented itself. The Roman governor was in the habit of releasing a Jewish prisoner on the Passover. From rabbinic literature we know that this amnesty often went by default, or was granted only after long weary entreaty. On this occasion, both the high priests and Pilate tried to manipulate the prisoner release to their own advantage. Before the hearing in front of Pilate, a select crowd\u2014undoubtedly not the general masses of Jerusalem\u2014had already gathered, and the people were clamoring for the customary clemency of a prisoner. We have seen that such mass demonstrations were usual in Pilate\u2019s time, because of his cruelty and his weakness. Pilate seized the opportunity and said to them, \u201cDo you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?\u201d (Mark 15:6\u201310).
\nIn this \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d Pilate saw little danger to the empire, and hoped that the Jews likewise would see that there was no sound reason for his execution. If he let this man free, he could have Barabbas crucified. But the high priests intervened; the crowd loved Barabbas, the freedom fighter. Thus, it was easy on this occasion for the high priests to appear on the side of the populace. Finally, the proposal for the amnesty of Barabbas was accepted (Mark 15:11). Pilate asked, \u201cThen what shall I do with the King of the Jews?\u201d The answer he got was, \u201cCrucify him.\u201d According to John (19:6) the cry came first of all from the high priests and their henchmen. It could be that the cry was a historical reality. In any case the acclamation was superfluous, for Pilate knew that if Barabbas went free, Jesus would be crucified. Once again Pilate tried his luck to salvage the situation. He said that he could find no charge against Jesus serious enough to justify execution. He would scourge him and let him go (Luke 23:22), but even that was of no use. He had to let Barabbas go free, and Jesus was scourged and handed over to be crucified (Matt. 27: 26).
\nRoman Law prescribed that \u201cinstigators of a revolt, riot, or agitators of the people\u201d were to be \u201ceither crucified, thrown to wild animals, or banished to an island.\u201d The punishment was determined by the perpetrator\u2019s position in Roman society. Jesus\u2019 status earned him crucifixion.
\nDisplaying a distorted sense of justice, Pilate freed Barabbas. This decision obliged him, for good or ill, to take the charge against Jesus much more seriously than before. Because of the incident at the Temple and Jesus\u2019 prophetic censure of the aristocratic priests, Pilate could easily crucify him as an agitator of the people. Furthermore, rumors were circulating that he was the Messiah.
\nApparently Jesus was handed over to Pilate without a verdict, and nowhere in the sources is a verdict by Pilate reported. In the catalogue of the crimes of Pilate, provided by the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, among others we find \u201cconstant execution without passing judgment.\u201d It would seem, therefore, that Jesus\u2019 tragic end was preceded by no verdict of any earthly judiciary. It was the outcome of a grisly interplay of naked spheres of interest in the shadow of brutal antagonisms. To outward appearance, it had no real connection with the man Jesus or his cause.<\/p>\n
Rembrandt, Jesus with Pilate before the Jews (earlier stage 1643)<\/p>\n
Only Rembrandt has captured the silent isolation of Jesus at his trial\u2014which was no trial. In an etching, he depicts Jesus as he is brought from Pilate out to the people, and hardly anybody is actually looking at this strange spectacle. Jesus is quite passive as though waiting until this senseless pantomime is over. His depiction of Jesus is in strong contrast to the noisy hatred of the crowd described in the Gospels, but it is historically more correct. Apparently, Rembrandt was not satisfied with his portrayal, and so in a later version he removed the detached mob almost completely. Now an empty and hideous arch adorns the foreground of the scene. A single Jew remains on the right of the balcony, viewing the whole thing with pathetic and dream-like intensity. \u201cWho is it? A friend? A good man? Someone who sympathized? Someone who wanted to help? Was it one person only? Or were they all there? Was help at hand? Where was the Hight Court to which he had never penetrated?\u201d<\/p>\n
Later stage (1655)<\/p>\n
Now the Roman soldiers had their turn at degrading Jesus. They led him into the interior hall of the palace and assembled the entire cohort. They dressed him in a purple cloak, plaited a crown of thorns, and set it on his head. They also placed a reed in his right hand. When the \u201cking\u201d had received all his insignia, the soldiers genuflected, prostrated themselves before him, as before an oriental despot, and saluted him: \u201cHail! King of the Jews!\u201d Then they spat on him, wrenched away his reed scepter, and struck him on the head with it (cf. Mark 15:16\u201320).
\nThe Roman soldiers made grisly sport of Jesus. As in the house of the high priest, when the high priest\u2019s bodyguards had played a brutal game with Jesus in order to ridicule the charisma of prophecy, the Roman soldiers used him to ridicule the Jewish hope of freedom.
\nThis was neither the first nor the last time that Gentiles would deride the messianic hopes of the Jews. A few years after Jesus\u2019 death, when the Jewish King Agrippa visited Alexandria, the Alexandrians took a harmless lunatic called Karabas and<\/p>\n
drove him into the gymnasium and set him up on high to be seen of all and put on his head a sheet of byblus spread out wide for a diadem, clothed the rest of his body with a rug for a royal robe, while someone who had noticed a piece of the native papyrus thrown away in the road gave it to him for his scepter. And when as in some theatrical farce he had received the insignia of the kingship and had been tricked out as a king, young men carrying rods on their shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him in imitation of a bodyguard. Then others approached him, some pretending to salute him, others to sue for justice, others to consult him on state affairs. Then from the multitudes standing round him, there rang out a tremendous shout hailing him as Mari, which is said to be the name for \u2018lord\u2019 used by the Syrians.<\/p>\n
A badly preserved papyrus contains another account of a similar mocking of a \u201cking of farce\u201d that also took place in Alexandria, after the Jewish uprising of 115\u2013117 A.D. Even the Roman governor himself seems to have participated on that occasion.
\nAfter degrading Jesus, the soldiers led him away to be crucified. On the way to the execution site, the Romans compelled a passing Jew named Simon to carry the cross for Jesus (Mark 15:21). Simon originated from Cyrene in North Africa. It was not uncommon for the Roman occupying forces to demand statutory labor of pilgrims during Jewish festivals. Heading toward Golgotha (the place of the skull), the procession left the city. Compassionate Jews, as their custom, offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh to help numb the agonizing death he faced; but he refused it (Mark 15:23).
\nThree men were crucified together, two brigands, one on the right and one on the left, and Jesus in the middle. The soldiers placed Jesus in the position of distinction on purpose. It was their parting, cruel gesture of \u201chonor\u201d to \u201cthe King of the Jews.\u201d
\nHanging upon the cross, Jesus said, \u201cFather, forgive them, for they know not what they do.\u201d As has been suggested already, Jesus was probably not interceding on behalf of those Jews who were responsible for his execution by the Roman government, but for the ignorant, gentile soldiers, who crucified him. The soldiers divided his clothing among themselves, and the people stood watching. The common folk pitied this most recent victim of Roman occupation; however, those who were Jesus\u2019 enemies were surely content. The rulers, who were probably Jewish aristocrats, jeered at him and remarked sardonically, \u201cIf this man, who wants to save others, is the Messiah, may he first save himself!\u201d The soldiers joined in the jeering. One even ran, and filling a sponge with vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Jesus to drink (Matt. 27:48, Mark 15:36 and Luke 23:36). The high priests also mocked Jesus among themselves. Even the criminals, who were crucified next to him, added their own insults. Finally, Jesus cried out loudly\u2014and died. \u201cAnd all the multitudes who had gathered to see the sight, when they saw what had happened beat their breasts\u2014as an expression of mourning\u2014and returned home\u201d (Luke 23:48).<\/p>\n
The suicide of Judas and the Crucifixion of Jesus<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 12<\/p>\n
EPILOGUE<\/p>\n
I will not speak here about Jesus after his death on the cross, except to address how, in the thinking of the early believing community, the high self-awareness of the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus began evolving into the Christology of the Christian faith. In this book I have challenged the modern prejudice that sees little connection between Jesus\u2019 understanding of his task in the divine economy and the \u201ckerygma\u201d of the Church. Facing imminent death, Jesus told the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Luke 20:9\u201316). At the end of the parable he added, \u201cHave you never read in the scriptures, \u2018The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone\u2019?\u201d By quoting from Psalm 118:22, Jesus informed his hearers that the Cross would not hinder the triumph of his cause. He was right.
\nNevertheless, in the early history of the Church two revolutionary trends brought about a change in the structure of the Christian faith. The first was the cognitive dissonance that arose in the wake of the tragedy of the crucifixion. Luke himself met some of the dramatis personae of the crisis and described their traumatic experience, especially in the Emmaus story (24:13\u201335) and the dialogue between the resurrected Lord and his apostles (Acts 1:1\u20139). If the fledgling community and its new faith were to overcome this crisis, one needed instinctively to find a solution. The compensation was found by stressing the divine character of Christ and the cosmic significance of his task. Thus, a metahistorical drama featuring the incarnation of the pre-existent Christ, his death on the cross, resurrection, and return to his heavenly Father until the time of his awesome coming as the eschatological judge, came into existence. The subsequent second revolution occurred when Paul was still actively preaching and teaching about the new faith. During this time the Gentile Church was birthed, and Christianity\u2019s formal ties to Judaism began unraveling. This second revolution fueled christological development.
\nYet it would be absolutely absurd to suppose that Christianity adopted an unambitious, unknown Jewish martyr and catapulted him against his will into the role of chief actor in a cosmic drama. I do not want to repeat here what has already been said about Jesus\u2019 high self-awareness and how it served as the germ from which the future Christology would sprout. I want only to mention the fact that Jesus himself was far from enjoying the cult of his personality during his lifetime: \u201cNot everyone who calls me \u2018Lord, Lord\u2019 will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my heavenly Father.\u201d Jesus\u2019 acute self-awareness cannot be denied, and I am convinced that he eventually embraced the conviction that he would be revealed as the Messiah of Israel. The inscription placed over Jesus on the cross, \u201cThis is the King of the Jews,\u201d suggests that others had reached the same conclusion about how he perceived himself. On the other hand, the first three Gospels show no clear indication of Jesus\u2019 demand that others accept his own high aspirations which grew out of his self-awareness. Nor can I find any clear sign in the first three Gospels that Jesus spoke about belief in himself. In the Synoptic tradition Jesus speaks solely of belief in God. After the Resurrection, however, belief in Jesus became essential, as can be seen in numerous New Testament passages.
\nDespite the difficulty of obtaining an accurate portrayal of Jesus\u2019 life and message apart from the Gospels, these two revolutions in early Christianity did not efface the solid tradition of Jesus\u2019 teachings. The core of the Gospels is the material that was preserved by Jesus\u2019 first disciples. Not long thereafter various individuals began making internal revisions to this precious nucleus of material, and eventually the Evangelists themselves revised and augmented it. Yet Jesus\u2019 message was never lost. It can still be heard today\u2014even if it has not been the focus of belief in Christianity throughout the ages. Over the long history of the Church, however, the religion of Jesus himself did become vital for small groups\u2014to one of these dear groups the present book is dedicated. I hope that somehow in the future the situation will improve, and the Church will begin placing more stress upon Jesus\u2019 message.
\nThe last point of this Epilogue is the question of Jesus\u2019 Jewishness. I am personally interested in this question because the exegesis of the Gospels is far more determined by prejudices than I once thought. Some exegetical distortions are already reflected in the extant text of the Gospels themselves. Thus, they are quite old. Moreover, I think that many of the false interpretations that have persisted through history have become second nature to most modern scholars, whether they are willing to acknowledge it or not. What I set out to accomplish in this book was sound scholarship in the quest for the historical Jesus, and not simply in the points of his Jewishness.<\/p>\n
SUPPLEMENTARY STUDIES<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 13<\/p>\n
\u201cTHE HOUSE OF DAVID\u201d ON AN OSSUARY<\/p>\n
An interesting inscription was found on an ossuary in a burial cave discovered at 53 Midbar Sinai Street in Jerusalem, during an excavation Amos Kloner carried out on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums from November 1971 to May 1972. It appears that the cave came into use in the first half of the first century B.C., a dating that is supported by the pottery found in the tomb, and evidently ceased to be used for burials around 70 A.D.
\nThe most noteworthy find is the ossuary M, found in burial niche no. 6. It bears an inscription that was deciphered by A. Kloner as \u05e9\u05dc\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3. The language of this inscription is Hebrew with an element of Aramaic, a linguistic mixture that is not uncommon during the period. The Aramaic component is the word \u201c\u05d1\u05d9\u201d which means \u201chouse\u201d (in Hebrew \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea). So the meaning of the inscription is that the bones in the ossuary \u201cbelong to the house of \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3.\u201d But how is one to understand the appellation, \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3? Kloner proposes two possible solutions. One is that the bones belong to the house (i.e., the family) of the uncle (\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05d3). In my opinion, this explanation is highly improbable; it is unlikely that the uncle would remain anonymous, even if the inscription on the ossuary was destined for the private use of the family. The other suggestion is that the inscription indicates that the bones contained in the ossuary \u201cbelong to the House of David.\u201d I imagine that the former, improbable proposal was prompted by two inhibitions. The first of these evidently stemmed from the concern that the mention of the House of David would tend to exaggerate the inscription\u2019s importance. The second difficulty was related to the opinion, held by some scholars, that no descendants of David would have known their pedigree in the later period of the Second Temple. But if it can be shown that real or supposed descendants of David existed during the period of the inscription, then no obstacle will stand in the way of using the inscription \u201chouse of \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\u201d upon the ossuary as epigraphic proof of this.<\/p>\n
The inscription, \u201cThe House of David\u201d<\/p>\n
As a first step, we want to recount briefly a strange story that is reported to have happened some time before the birth of Jesus. \u201cThere was a group of Jews priding itself on its adherence to ancestral custom \u2026 and by these men who were called Pharisees, the women of the court (of Herod) were ruled. These men were able to help the king because of their foresight, and yet they were obviously intent upon combating and injuring him.\u201d When Herod punished them with a fine, the wife of Pheroras, Herod\u2019s brother, paid the fine for them.<\/p>\n
In return for her friendliness they foretold\u2014for they were believed to have foreknowledge of things through God\u2019s appearances to them\u2014that by God\u2019s decree Herod\u2019s throne would be taken from him, both from himself and his descendants, and the royal power would fall to her and Pheroras and to any children that they might have.\u2026 And the king put to death those of the Pharisees who were most to blame, and the eunuch Bagoas and a certain Karos.\u2026 He also killed all those of his household who approved of what the Pharisees said. Now Bagoas had been carried away by their assurance that he would be named father and benefactor in a pronouncement made by the future king who, since all would lie in his hands, would grant him the ability to marry and to father children of his own.<\/p>\n
The future king who will supplant Herod\u2019s illegal dynasty, in whose hands all will be entrusted and who will restore fertility to the eunuch (see Isaiah 56:3) is naturally the Messiah. The story should have aroused more attention from those who are acquainted with the Gospels. It should have reminded them of the slaying of the infants in Matthew 2:16\u201318\u2014an act carried out by the same ruler, Herod the Great. This strengthens the probability that a historical event lies behind that, but even so we cannot be sure that the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem was really connected with Jesus\u2019 birth. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that some time before the birth of Jesus, in about 27 B.C., Herod ordered the execution of the sons of Baba \u201cand those who were accused with them, so that none was left alive of the family of Hyrcanus (the Maccabees), and the kingdom was wholly in Herod\u2019s power, there being no one of high rank to stand in the way of his unlawful acts.\u201d During the long course of Jewish history there is no other record of persecutions connected to the birth of a Messiah with the exception of the two reports concerning the same Herod.
\nNonetheless, the account concerning the Pharisaic messianic movement connected with Pheroras\u2019 wife is inaccurate and highly tendentious. The Pharisees were not believed \u201cto have foreknowledge of things through God\u2019s appearances to them,\u201d and the notion that, according to Jewish belief, a king would come and grant fertility to eunuchs was intended to demonstrate how superstitious the Jews are. Thus it is clear that the report is derived from the pen of a pagan, evidently Nicolaus of Damascus. But even so, if those who expected the birth of the Messiah were not Pharisees properly speaking, they were probably close to them. They believed that the future Messiah would be born of the House of David, and they could not have held that Herod\u2019s brother Pheroras came from Davidic ancestry because he was the son of Antipater, who was suspected of being Idumaean, and of Cypros, an Arab woman. Thus the only other candidate for a descendancy from David would be Pheroras\u2019 wife. Her Davidic origin could have been one of the reasons why Herod demanded that his brother dismiss his wife\u2014because this would prevent the birth of a messianic pretender. But Pheroras answered \u201cthat he would prefer death rather than endure to live without a wife so dear to him\u201d (Antiquities 17:49).
\nIf one rejects the idea that there were families in Herod\u2019s time who considered themselves to come from the lineage of David, then the story about Pheroras\u2019 wife has to be understood as follows: As the descendants of David are unknown, any man or woman who is not of priestly or levitic origin, can be declared by a messianic movement to be the Davidic Messiah (or to be one of his parents). Such an explanation does not seem plausible in the cases of Pheroras\u2019 wife. Those who hoped that she would become the Messiah\u2019s mother had to have a more solid justification for their claim than mere affection for the woman and hatred of Herod. But I admit that, without additional cases for evidence, the contribution of our story toward a solution of the question of whether Davidic families existed during the time of the Second Temple is not very strong.
\nIf it can be shown that in the last century of the Second Temple period there were families which claimed to be of Davidic origin, this would make us less questioning of Jesus\u2019 Davidic lineage. But if the title \u201cson of David\u201d is understood as merely a retrospective consequence of a messianic claim, then the Davidic genealogy of Jesus could have no historical basis. On the other hand, if the Davidic families were numerous, there is no place for the absurd image of Jesus as a prince in disguise. All in all, the origin of Jesus from the House of David remains a mere assumption.
\nA more reliable proof for Davidic ancestry during the period is what Eusebius says concerning the emperors Vespasian (Eusebius, Church Histories III, 12), Domitian (III, 19\u201320), and Trajan (III, 32:3\u20134). Basing himself upon Hegesippus (c. 180 A.D.), Eusebius noted that these emperors persecuted the family of David so that no descendant of the kingly line should remain. Thus we see that the number of those claiming Davidic origin was by no means small. But even here one should be somewhat cautious because all this information is more or less connected with Jesus\u2019 family, and thus all these persecutions of Davidics could have been caused by the spread of Christianity. On the other hand, the value of this information for our question is by no means negligible.
\nIt is important for our purpose to observe that during this period one discovers several references to a written form of genealogies. The existence of written lay genealogies is not disputed, and it is evident that there were both oral and written genealogical traditions about lay families, of both a private and public character. One scholar even deduced from rabbinic sources that during that period each Israelite could trace his ancestry back five generations. In such an atmosphere, the existence of the House of David would have been forgotten only if the family had disappeared physically, a small probability. According to a talmudic account, there was a custom for the members of certain families to bring wood for the Temple altar, an ancient privilege dating back to the time of the reorganization of the Jewish community after the Babylonian exile. This prerogative seems to have been jealously guarded by privileged families through the centuries, as we learn from a list preserved in Mishnah, Ta\u2018anit 4:5, of those who supplied wood for the altar and of the dates when these families fulfilled the noble task: \u201cThe wood offering of the priests and the people was brought nine times (in the year). On the first of Nissan by the family of Arah of the tribe of Judah. On the 20th of Tammuz, by the family of David, of the tribe of Judah.\u2026\u201d We have every reason to assume that the list preserves the names of eminent patrician families who retained the tradition of a centuries-old privilege. It indicates that the genealogical tradition was well preserved among the Jews at that time. It is also interesting to note that, besides the reference concerning membership in the line of David, the greater part of the attributions concern membership in the tribe of Judah.
\nThe task of the present study has been to place an ancient inscription upon an ossuary in the context of its time. Our aim surely has not been to strengthen the claim that Jesus was also from the House of David. On the other hand it cannot be denied that if there were some Jewish families who knew that they were descended from David, then the Davidic origin of Jesus ceases to be an absurd claim. Nonetheless, even if some families during the period viewed themselves as descendants of David, one would be permitted to conjecture that Davidic ancestry could have been attributed to Jesus at a later date on the basis of his messianic claim. But even those who suppose that Jesus was indeed one of the Davidics do not necessarily claim that there is some historical basis for the two divergent lists of Jesus\u2019 Davidic pedigree. In summation, the instances cited in the present study do not suffice to affirm with complete certainty that during the period of Jesus\u2019 life, families were able to claim Davidic ancestry. However, even before the discovery of our ossuary, enough evidence existed to make the opposite thesis\u2014namely that no Davidics survived\u2014seem somewhat unlikely. Now the inscription on the ossuary can diminish or even dissipate all doubts. The inscription says that the bones contained in the ossuary belong to \u201cthose who are from the House of David.\u201d Thus it becomes difficult to deny the existence of Davidic families in the last century of the Jerusalem Temple.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 14<\/p>\n
\u201cWHO IS IT THAT STRUCK YOU?\u201d<\/p>\n
We sometimes find a gap between a speculative theological approach and the serious study of historical reality. I do not wish to determine how often faith is strengthened precisely by the knowledge of reality, or when a theological consideration fosters religious progress. My experience has shown me that, at least with regard to Jesus and what he said and did, and what happened to him, the knowledge of \u201csecular\u201d reality is far from being a bad ally of faith. The Christian faith can evidently gain from scholarly scrutiny of Jesus\u2019 biography.
\nThe parodistic ceremony of Jesus\u2019 acclamation by the Roman soldiers, and possibly even by Pilate himself, was a kind of royal game. The macabre connotations of imprisonment and execution serve as an appropriate stimulus to grotesque rituals; an atmosphere of sadism is an apt breeding-place for fitting games. In Jesus\u2019 case, the humiliating show of his coronation as the King of the Jews was preceded in the house of the high priest by another cruel game. \u201cThe men who were guarding Jesus mocked at him. They beat him, they blindfolded him, and they asked him, \u2018Prophesy, who is it that struck you?\u2019 \u201d (Luke 22:63\u201364).
\nBefore drawing our main conclusions, however, we must attempt to understand the significance of the ignoble game recounted in the Synoptic Gospels. The sequence of events in Luke is clear enough. After his arrest, Jesus was brought by night into the high priest\u2019s house; Peter followed him and denied his master three times (Luke 22:56\u201362). In the high priest\u2019s house, the men guarding Jesus played this humiliating game with him (22:63\u201365). When day came, Jesus was taken out of detention to appear before the high priest\u2019s committee (22:66\u201371), and finally was turned over to the Romans (23:1\u20135).
\nMark (and Matthew, who follows him) displays a reversed order of events. After having been arrested (Mark 14:43\u201352), Jesus was led to \u201cthe high priest, where all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled\u201d (14:53). Peter followed him from a distance (14:54). There follows the night session of the council in the high priest\u2019s house, \u201cthey all condemned him as deserving death\u201d (14:55\u201364). Some of them then humiliated Jesus by asking him to prophesy, \u201cand the guards received him with blows\u201d (14:65). We again meet Peter in the courtyard and hear of his threefold denial of Jesus (14:66\u201372). Finally, \u201cas soon as it was morning,\u201d the whole council again held a consultation and turned him over to Pilate (Mark 15:1).
\nAs we have already noted, the sequence of events during that awful night as given in Luke makes sense, while in Mark (and Matthew) the description is at the very least strange and confused. After Jesus had been arrested, the assembly is gathered in the same house; after this Peter is mentioned; then Jesus is condemned by the council and some persons humiliate Jesus; then Peter reappears in order to deny his master three times. And, \u201cas soon as it was morning,\u201d the whole council meets again with the exclusive purpose of turning Jesus over to the Romans, after he had already been condemned to death in the session held during the night. My experience has taught me that this is by no means the only case in which Mark deliberately changes the wording and order of his Vorlage. I would guess that he did so here because the night following Jesus\u2019 arrest was almost uneventful. The prisoner was held under guard in the high priest\u2019s house, Peter approached from outside and thrice denied Jesus, and the men who guarded him performed a humiliating game. Mark was here misled by his feeling of horror vacui, and by his natural inclination to multiply the number of episodes in order to evoke the impression that the events are connected and follow one another in continuous action. He also often dramatizes by means of chiasmus. All this Mark has done here, and he even created a night session of the Sanhedrin, which is rightly seen by most scholars as highly improbable.
\nBut Mark\u2019s literary ambition led him to make a blatant blunder. His penchant for accumulation of simultaneous events prevented him from writing at the proper moment, \u201cExeunt members of the Sanhedrin.\u201d Thus they are made to be present when the prisoner Jesus was mocked. In Mark\u2019s account, among those who struck Jesus with their fists are also evidently some of the members of the Sanhedrin. But Mark had read in his source who these mockers actually were, and so his bad conscience led him to add in colloquial Greek, \u201cand the guards set upon him with blows\u201d (Mark 14:65b). Matthew (26:68) does not need this addition, and therefore omitted it. One eminent scholar writes about the episode of Jesus\u2019 humiliation in the high priest\u2019s house as follows. \u201cThe basis of the story is assured by the two independent narratives. Of these, that of Luke stands nearer to the actual facts.\u201d But why not admit that it was Mark who altered the original account of Jesus\u2019 last night, and was thus compelled to distort the episode of the humiliating game of Jesus\u2019 guards? As we have also already seen, only Luke cites all the components of the game itself.
\nThus, according to the original report, after Jesus was arrested during the night, he was brought into the high priest\u2019s house. There, the men guarding him mocked him, beat him, blindfolded him, and asked him, \u201cProphesy, who is it that struck you?\u201d (Luke 22:63\u201364). The members of the high priestly clan and the high priest himself were Sadducees, who denied the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:6). It is therefore easy to imagine that they mocked those who believed that men like Jesus possessed the spirit of prophecy. May we assume that the brutal mocking of the prophet from Galilee by the guard betrayed this contempt for the supernatural gift of prophecy, as well as of its master? While this seems probable, we will see shortly that the game was not invented ad hoc by the men who were guarding Jesus.
\nIf such a game already existed, it is not without interest to know whether these men were Jews or Gentile slaves. The latter possibility is far more probable. At least one of those who arrested Jesus was a slave of the high priest (Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:30); according to John 18:10 the slave\u2019s name was Malchus (see also John 18:26). From John 18:18, it is clear that some of those who guarded the arrested Jesus were slaves. We hear from a rabbinic source about the brutality of the slaves who constituted the private police force of the leading priestly families in Jerusalem; one is warned of their fists, and told that their slaves come and \u201cbeat us with rods.\u201d In a later rabbinic source, a legendary echo of the Gentile slaves of the priests in Jerusalem is preserved. In Jesus\u2019 time, there were no more Hebrew slaves, so that it is highly probable that the brutal guards of Jesus were Gentile slaves.
\nIt began to seem probable to me that the men guarding Jesus in the high priestly prison were playing a brutal, already traditional game with him, when I read the autobiographical novel Der Geh\u00fclfe (The Assistant), by the Swiss author Robert Walser (1878\u20131956), who was highly admired by Franz Kafka. Among other things, Walser refers to his own experience in the military prison in Bern in 1904, where he was the involuntary object of a rough game known in German as \u201cSchinkenklopfen\u201d (poking the bacon). The man condemned to be the object of the game is blindfolded and beaten on his bottom. When he succeeds in guessing who struck him, he is freed and the man whose blow was identified becomes his substitute. As far as I know, the game along with its name is common in German-speaking countries. During the First World War, Shmuel Safrai\u2019s father was compelled to participate in this game in a czarist prison in Poland. There is also an interesting report that in 1923, after the unsuccessful putsch, Hitler and his companions played this game in the prison in Landsberg. Although it later became a children\u2019s game, there is no doubt that the proper Sitz im Leben of this kind of brutal sport is and was in prisons. Therefore, it is no wonder that the men who guarded Jesus in the high priest\u2019s house evidently amused themselves with a variation of this cruel game during Jesus\u2019 final night. As we have already assumed, these men were the brutal Gentile slaves of the high priest\u2014who was himself, as far as we know, not exactly a gentleman.
\nBefore bringing further proofs, we must ask two questions, to the first of which I do not have any definite answer. The Gospels refer only in an aside to the brutal joking of those who guarded Jesus, so that our knowledge of this game is fragmentary. Jesus seems to have been unwilling to cooperate by giving the obligatory answer to the repeated question as to who it was who struck him, and thus spoiled the fun. It would be more important to know to what extent the men adapted the game to Jesus\u2019 person. In other words, was the demand, \u201cProphesy, who is it that struck you?\u201d dictated by the prophetic task of Jesus, or were even other ordinary prisoners addressed in the same way? The answer to this question depends upon whether or not the Hebrew verb \u201cto prophesy\u201d could have been used also in the wider sense of \u201cto guess.\u201d This seems to have been a possibility, but our restricted knowledge does not allow us to answer definitely in the affirmative. In any event, in the present case the main purpose of the game was clearly to humiliate the prophet from Galilee.
\nUntil now, I have not found any theological commentator who dared to suggest that what he reads in the Gospel can be seen in his own neighborhood. However, two writers on children\u2019s games have interpreted the scene correctly, bringing material which shows that the game already existed in antiquity, probably many centuries before Jesus\u2019 time. They cite this game under the name \u201cStroke the Baby,\u201d but it also has other names, and is (and was) played with some variants.<\/p>\n
\u201cWho struck you?\u201d (From an Egyptian tomb 2000 B.C.)<\/p>\n
It is almost an axiom that the more insignificant a game appears, the more remarkable is its history.\u2026 [In England, it has been popular] for anyway the past three or four centuries, usually under the name \u201cHot Cockles\u201d \u2026 Traditionally, the game was played at Christmas, the guesser being blindfolded and kneeling on the floor, the other players in turn slapping him with some force on his head or back, and hoping that their blow would not be identified.\u2026 In ancient Greece the game was \u201cKollabismos.\u201d Pollux [2nd century A.D.] says that one player covered his eyes with the [stretched] palms of his hands, while another hit him and asked him (as do the children today in Darlington) to identify which hand it was that dealt the blow (Onomasticon IX, 129). It seems more than likely that this sport was familiar to the men guarding Jesus, when they blindfolded him and \u201csmote him with the palms of their hands, saying, \u2018Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?\u2019 \u201d (Matt. 26:67\u201368; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64). Indeed, the game may have already been old then. One of the pictures on the wall of the tomb at Beni Hassan, c. 2000 B.C., shows a player on his knees while two others, unseen by him, thump or pretend to thump his back with their fists. It is difficult to think what kind of game they are playing if it is not one like \u201cKollabismos\u201d or \u201cStroke the Baby.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 life and death is paradigmatic precisely because of its human concreteness. It was during his Passion that he was mocked and humiliated in two brutal and grotesque plays. The first time was on his last night, in the high priest\u2019s house, when the men who were guarding him tried to compel him to play the prophet. The second was the next day, when Roman soldiers acclaimed him as king. It became clear that the first incident was an already old and known game. Because of its brutal aspect, this game fits the atmosphere of prisons, but it is also until today a children\u2019s game. The discovery of the secular background to this episode is helpful, not only for academic research but, it seems to me, also for the concreteness of the faith. However, the results of our inquiry also have broader implications. We have found further evidence for the great value of the Gospel of Luke, and I also hope to have shown that, in fact, no night session in the high priest\u2019s home took place. The correct sequence of events, from Jesus\u2019 arrest to the point at which he was turned over to the Romans, was that given by Luke.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 15<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026 TO BURY CAIAPHAS, NOT TO PRAISE HIM\u201d<\/p>\n
Caiaphas is the most prominent Jewish personality of the Second Temple period whose ossuary and remains have been discovered. I have used the occasion of this discovery to discuss Caiaphas\u2019 personality and place among the high priests, and to explain some of the background to his fateful decision to eliminate Jesus and his disciples. A careful reading of the Gospels report shows that the involvement of this high priest in handing Jesus over to the Romans and persecuting his disciples was more decisive than is commonly believed. Both rabbinic sources and the recently discovered ossuaries show that the name Caiaphas was the designation for this whole family. The Tosefta speaks about the house of Caiapha, and Josephus refers to Joseph surnamed Caiaphas.<\/p>\n
The Caiaphas Ossuary
\nCourtesy: Israel Antiquities Authority<\/p>\n
The surname \u05e7\u05e4\u05d0\/\u05e7\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 (Caiapha) appears on two of the ossuaries discovered in the tomb, and one of these is inscribed with the name \u05e7\u05e4\u05d0\/\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d9\u05e4\u05d0 (Joseph bar Caiapha). The family came from Beth Mekoshesh, a village in the vicinity of Jerusalem. This clan of high priests were descendants of the second wife of a family member from a levirate marriage. One of the family, Elionaeus, was appointed high priest in approximately 44 A.D. by King Agrippa I. Thus two high priests are known who belonged to the Caiaphas family, the earlier one being Joseph (18\u201336 A.D.). It is even probable that the high priest Elionaeus was the son of Joseph Caiaphas.
\nWas this priestly family important before Joseph\u2019s appointment to the highest task in Israel? Did he become high priest because he was born into one of the distinguished priestly families, or was there another reason for his precipitous promotion? A cause for Joseph Caiaphas\u2019 advancement could have been his marriage to the daughter of Annas, the head of a powerful high priestly clan. This connection is reported only by the Gospel of John (18:13), which is not completely reliable as a historical document. Nevertheless, I tend to accept John\u2019s statement that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and to believe that Joseph Caiaphas became high priest because he married Annas\u2019 daughter.
\nAnnas (Hanan) the son of Sethi was the founder of an important dynasty of high priests. Josephus writes, \u201cIt is said that the elder Ananus [Annas] was extremely fortunate. He had five sons, all of whom, after he himself had previously enjoyed the office for a very long period, became high priests of God\u2014a thing that had never happened to any other of our high priests.\u201d Annas was appointed by the Roman prefect Quirinius and held this office from 6 to 15 A.D. when he was deposed by the prefect Valerius Gratus. Thus, when Joseph Caiaphas was the high priest, Annas no longer served actively but still manipulated the power behind the \u201cthrone.\u201d
\nThe New Testament accounts of the last week of Jesus\u2019 life and the persecution of the Church in Jerusalem confirm the assumption that Caiaphas belonged to a faction of Annas\u2019 family. \u201cAnnas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander and all who were of the high priestly family\u201d are explicitly named in Acts 4:6. Annas and Caiaphas are at the head of the list, and they also appear together in John 18:13\u201324. The clan of Annas without doubt belonged to the Sadducean party, as is explicitly stated in Acts 5:17 which refers to \u201cthe high priest and all who were with him, that is the party of the Sadducees.\u201d Also the younger Annas, the son of our Annas, \u201cfollowed the school of the Sadducees.\u201d Thus it is reasonable to assume that other members of the family, if not the whole clan, were Sadducees.
\nJosephus, in speaking of the younger Annas\u2019 affiliation to the Sadducees, says that they \u201care indeed more heartless than any other Jews when they sit in judgment.\u201d The Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta list the woes caused by high priestly families. One of these is, \u201cWoe unto me because of the house of Hanin, woe unto me for their calumnies.\u201d The house of Hanin is a reference to the mighty family of Annas and one could easily include among these calumnies the persecution of Jesus and his first disciples, in which Caiaphas also played a decisive role. The New Testament indicates that those who were active in delivering Jesus to Pilate were members of the high priestly aristocracy. A further conclusion is almost inevitable, namely, that the leading figures in this fateful action were Annas and his clan, together with Joseph Caiaphas, probably his son-in-law.<\/p>\n
\u201cEnjoy your life!\u201d A Sadducean inscription found in a tomb in Jerusalem from the beginning of the 1st century B.C.<\/p>\n
In the first three Gospels, the \u201chigh priests\u201d are presented as the main enemies of Jesus. The plot to kill Jesus is described there as follows: \u201cNow the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death; for they feared the people. Then \u2026 Judas called Iscariot \u2026 went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might hand him over to them. And they were glad and engaged to give him money. So he agreed, and sought an opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of the multitude\u201d (Luke 22:1\u20136). And when Jesus was finally arrested, \u201cthey seized him away, bringing him into the high priest\u2019s house\u201d (Luke 22:54). There, in Caiaphas\u2019 house, Jesus passed the night in custody, and the men who were holding Jesus mocked him (Luke 22:63).
\nThe interrogation took place the next morning, and it was the high priest Joseph Caiaphas who asked Jesus the decisive question, \u201cAre you the Messiah?\u201d (Matt. 26:62\u201364; Mark 14:60\u201362). When he was turned over to Pilate, \u201cthe chief priests accused him of many things\u201d (Mark 15:3; Matt. 27:12), and when Pilate offered to release Jesus, \u201cthe chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead\u201d (Mark 15:11; Matt. 27:20).
\nThe first three Gospels do not explicitly indicate the cause of the hatred of those who delivered Jesus to death. One can only guess why the Temple hierarchy feared this prophet from Galilee and why they did everything they could to get rid of him. Jesus\u2019 presence in Jerusalem at Passover apparently represented a clear threat to them.
\nThe aim of Jesus\u2019 pilgrimage to Jerusalem was neither to perform healings nor to agitate against the Roman occupation; he conceived his task as similar to that of Jeremiah at the close of the First Temple period, namely as a prophet of doom to warn the people of the future destruction of the Second Temple (see for instance Luke 21:5\u20136). He described the Temple as \u201ca den of robbers\u201d and began to drive out those who did business there, and the Temple authorities seem to have been powerless to stop him, \u201cfor all the people hung upon his words\u201d (Luke 19:45\u201348).
\nJesus\u2019 parable of the vineyard and the tenants (Luke 20:9\u201318 and parallels) was clearly directed against the priestly establishment. \u201cHe [God] will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard [Israel] to others.\u201d The \u201cscribes and the chief priests\u201d well understood the threat; they \u201ctried to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people; for they perceived that he had told this parable against them. So they watched him, and sent spies who pretended to be sincere, that they might take hold of what he said, so as to deliver him up to the authority and jurisdiction of the governor\u201d (Luke 20:19\u201320). Although Jesus did not fall into their trap, he was finally handed over by one of his own disciples, arrested, and brought to Caiaphas\u2019 house.
\nThe fear felt by Jesus\u2019 opponents was not the only cause of the tragedy; it was also conditioned by their group disposition. They were Sadducees, and as we have seen, Josephus depicts them as \u201cmore heartless than any other Jews when they sit in judgment.\u201d Concerning the high priestly clan of Annas to which Caiaphas also belonged, we noted above that the Talmud mentions the venomous intrigues of that family. History teaches that those who are accused of acting viciously do not commonly respond with repentance. On the contrary, they generally become even more obstinate and react to the accusations by refusing to change their ways. This is what happened with Jesus\u2019 adversaries.
\nAt the beginning of the community of Jesus\u2019 disciples in Jerusalem, \u201cthe priests and the Sadducees came upon them and arrested them\u201d (Acts 4:1\u20133). We have already mentioned the list of these opponents in Acts 4:6, \u201cwho were all of the high priestly family,\u201d Caiaphas being among them. Later the Apostles were again arrested by Caiaphas \u201cthe high priest and all who were with him, that is the party of the Sadducees\u201d (Acts 5:17\u201318, 21). \u201cAnd when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest [i.e., Caiaphas] questioned them, saying, \u2018We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man\u2019s blood upon us\u2019 \u201d (Acts 5:27\u201328).
\nThus, according to the Book of Acts, Caiaphas recognized very well the danger menacing him and his friends when Jesus\u2019 disciples preached the new faith. In recounting the life and martyrdom of their Lord, the disciples could not avoid mentioning the guilt of the Sadducean high priests who had delivered Jesus to the Romans. In the eyes of Caiaphas, by preaching this message to the people, Jesus\u2019 disciples were attempting to make the high priests responsible for Jesus\u2019 death. In contrast to what we know about Caiaphas and his faction, especially from John 11:47\u201353, the Pharisees of his time did not launch persecutions of Jewish prophetic movements. This is attested by Jesus himself (Matt. 23:29\u201331), according to whom the Pharisees of his day used to say, \u201cIf we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.\u201d Indeed, when one reads the Gospels critically, one becomes aware that the Pharisees did not play a decisive role in Jesus\u2019 arrest, interrogation, and crucifixion. The Pharisees are not even mentioned by name in the context of Jesus\u2019 trial as recounted in the first three gospels, with the exception of the story about the guard at Jesus\u2019 tomb (Matt. 27:62).
\nWhen the Sanhedrin wanted to put Jesus\u2019 disciples to death, their lives were saved by \u201ca Pharisee called Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in high regard by all the people,\u201d in other words Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. The Pharisees evidently disagreed with the action taken by the high priests against Jesus because, according to their halakhah, handing over a Jew to a foreign authority was a sin that could not be forgiven. One can even assume that, to the Pharisees, the whole affair was further proof of Sadducean cruelty, and that the Pharisees\u2019 criticism only increased the Sadducees\u2019 persecution of Jesus\u2019 disciples.
\nA similar clash between the Pharisees and the younger Annas, probably the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, took place in the year 62 A.D. \u201cAnnas the Younger convened the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and certain others [probably Christians]. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them to be stoned.\u201d The Pharisees, whom Josephus describes as the \u201cinhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and were strict in the observance of the commandments,\u201d managed to have the high priest Annas the Younger deposed from his position as a result of the illegal execution of James.
\nAll four Gospels describe the decisive role of the high priestly group and especially of the high priest Caiaphas in the tragedy of Jesus, and also agree that Jesus\u2019 opponents feared him. However, only John clearly states the historical circumstances of Caiaphas\u2019 fear. \u201cThe chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, \u2018What are we to do? For this man [Jesus] performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.\u2019 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, \u2018You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.\u2019 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation\u201d (John 11:47\u201351).
\nIt is not clear to what degree this report was molded by John or his source. Although Caiaphas\u2019 statement that if many believe in Jesus \u201cthe Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation\u201d may be late, it is well known that in Caiaphas\u2019 time prophecies of doom about the future destruction of the Temple already existed; one of them was uttered by Jesus himself.
\nIt is very probable that Caiaphas decided to act because he feared that Jesus\u2019 movement and its possible success among the people would trigger violent Roman intervention. His anxiety was exaggerated but not unfounded. Roman military forces not only fought against Jewish rebels, but also crushed any enthusiastic Jewish prophetic movement whose aim was the freedom of Israel. The leader of one such movement, Theudas, is mentioned in Acts 5:36. Josephus described his career: \u201cHe persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage.\u201d Fadus \u201csent against them a squadron of cavalry \u2026 slew many of them\u201d and Theudas himself was executed by the Romans.
\nWhen Felix was the governor of Judea, \u201cdeceivers and impostors, under the pretense of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, persuaded the multitude to act like madmen and led them out into the desert under the belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance. Against them Felix, regarding this but the preliminary to insurrection, sent a body of cavalry and heavy armed infantry, and put a large number to the sword.\u201d Felix anticipated the attack of a similar prophet of Egyptian origin, meeting him and his followers with Roman heavy infantry. \u201cThe outcome of the ensuing engagement was that the Egyptian escaped with a few of his followers; most of his forces were killed or taken prisoner.\u201d Paul was later mistakenly held to be this Egyptian by a Roman tribune (Acts 21:38).
\nIt is certainly possible Caiaphas\u2019 fear of Jesus\u2019 activities leading to similar ends prompted him to arrest Jesus and deliver him to Pilate. However, in order to accomplish this, the high priest needed Jesus\u2019 confirmation that he believed himself to be the Messiah (Matt. 26:62\u201364; Mark 14:61\u201362). Caiaphas did not receive an explicit confirmation in full, but Jesus\u2019 opponents accused him before Pilate. \u201cWe found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king\u201d (Luke 23:2). Although Pilate evidently was not sure that Jesus was a rebel against Rome, he ordered an inscription to be put on the cross accusing Jesus of being \u201cthe king of the Jews\u201d (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; and John 19:19).
\nReturning to the account in John 11:47\u201351, Caiaphas justified his terrible decision by arguing that \u201cit is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish\u201d (John 11:50). I personally feel that Caiaphas was capable of so arguing. Many politicians and rulers before and after Caiaphas have believed that real or assumed expediency outweighs any moral scruple. This way of reasoning and acting was and is without doubt contrary to the Jewish faith\u2019s humane approach\u2014but a Sadducean high priest could disagree.
\nTo better understand Caiaphas\u2019 reaction in John 11:47\u201352 to Jesus\u2019 movement, one needs to be aware that the horror concerning handing over a citizen to a foreign power (which almost certainly meant exposing the victim to execution) was not restricted to Pharisaic rabbinism. According to the Essene Temple Scroll (64:7\u20138), \u201cIf a man slanders My people and delivers My people to a foreign nation and does evil to My people, you shall hang him on a tree, and he shall die.\u2026\u201d We also hear from the Jewish Sages, \u201cIf there is a group of people and Gentiles said to them, Deliver one of yourselves to us and we shall slay him; if you do not, we shall slay all of you; (the ruling is) let all be slain and do not deliver to them a single soul in Israel; but if they single him out \u2026, let them deliver him to them, that all of them be not slain.\u201d When in Gethsemane Judas approached to kiss Jesus, Jesus addressed him with tragic horror: \u201cJudas, are you delivering a person (lit. the son of man) with a kiss?\u201d
\nIt is almost impossible to believe that the Sadducees would not have been sensitive to the common, understandable opposition to handing over a fellow Jew to the hostile foreign powers. The danger that such a Jew would be executed by the Romans was not purely hypothetical\u2014as was proven in the case of Jesus. Caiaphas and his clan were surely not unhappy with the consequent violent solution. Even so, it seems that Caiaphas\u2019 proposal in John 11:47\u201352 was in reality a kind of fishy apology, when he said, \u201cIt is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish.\u201d The case of Jesus does not fit at all the exception that permits delivering a specified Jew to the Romans. Nevertheless, Caiaphas evidently felt obliged to justify his decision. Jesus himself considered his imminent handing over as an abominable crime (Luke 22:22).<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 16<\/p>\n
WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF ECCE HOMO?<\/p>\n
The Latin phrase in the title of this article is a translation of the Greek in the Gospel according to St. John 19:5; its English translation would be \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d In the course of time, this phrase has become a familiar one; but what does it actually mean? In the context of John, it is used by the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, when he presents Jesus to the people. We read how, at the time of Jesus\u2019 trial, \u201cJesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. \u2018Behold the Man!\u2019 said Pilate. The high priests and their henchmen saw him and shouted, \u2018Crucify! Crucify him!\u2019 \u201d
\nThis passage from the Gospel of John appears in a section paralleled in the Synoptic Gospels. The cry of \u201cCrucify! Crucify him!\u201d with which the Jewish crowd respond to Pilate\u2019s appeal, is also found in various renditions in Matthew (27:21\u201323), Mark (15:12\u201314), and Luke (23:21\u201323). Earlier, John relates that Pilate had Jesus flogged, and that the soldiers wove a crown of thorns for his head, clothed him in a purple cloak, and stepped up to him saying, \u201cHail, King of the Jews!,\u201d and struck him on the cheek (John 19:1\u20133). A similar story appears in Mark 15:16\u201320, where an entire cohort of Roman soldiers is said to have participated in this mock ceremony. They clothed Jesus in purple, crowned him with thorns, hailed him as \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d and then struck his head with a cane, spat on him, and kneeled and prostrated themselves before him. Matthew (27:27\u201331) received the story from Mark, but omitted the mock prostration by which the soldiers treated Jesus as they would a barbarian Eastern monarch. According to John, the incident with the soldiers took place before Pilate decided to crucify Jesus; in Mark and Matthew, however, the outrage by the Roman soldiers followed Pilate\u2019s decision.
\nWas there ever a connection between the words \u201cBehold the Man,\u201d and the mock acclamation on the part of the Roman soldiers? Pilate\u2019s words have given rise to some curious and farfetched interpretations, all of which stem from the assumption that Pilate found no case against Jesus and therefore endeavored to save his life. This tendency to mitigate or even to expiate Pilate\u2019s share of the guilt is already present in the Gospels. Thus, in John 19:4\u20135, after the soldiers had abused Jesus, robed him in purple and crowned him with thorns, Pilate is shown coming out and saying to the Jews, \u201cI am bringing him out to let you know that I find no case against him.\u201d At that moment, Jesus emerged in his purple robe and crown of thorns, and Pilate said to the people, \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d The most widely accepted interpretation of Pilate\u2019s words today is the following. The Roman Prefect displays the unfortunate Jesus, humiliated and looking ridiculous, in order to prove to the Jews that such a pathetic figure could never have been a rebel against Rome. There is no doubt that this modern interpretation, along with the other interpretations that have been proposed, have failed miserably to understand the intentions of Pontius Pilate. Indeed, it is difficult to know for certain whether even the Gospel writer himself understood the story which he transmitted here, presumably on the basis of an earlier source.
\nIt is clear to anyone who has studied the historical Pilate that he was a very brutal man, whose cruelty was specifically directed against the Jews. Nevertheless, it appears to me that Pilate was indeed reluctant to have Jesus killed\u2014though not out of any mercy or sympathy towards Jesus. At the time, he held prisoner at least three zealots condemned to crucifixion, the most important of whom was a man named Barabbas. Pilate had to decide which of his Jewish prisoners was to be pardoned in honor of the Passover festival. Shortly before the time set for the execution, Pilate turned to the crowd of Jewish demonstrators and proposed the granting of amnesty to Jesus, the Galilean prophet, whom he considered the least dangerous to his rule. But the high priests had already persuaded the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas, a popular hero; Pilate, who depended upon the support of the local leadership, was forced to give in and pardon Barabbas. From then on, his natural cruelty was directed towards Jesus. These appear to be the facts underlying the tendentious stories appearing in the Gospels; for obvious reasons, the authors of these stories interpreted the facts as evidence of Pilate\u2019s sympathy towards Jesus.
\nLet us now return to that mock acclamation of royalty staged by the Roman soldiers, of which Jesus was the unfortunate victim. It seems likely that such scenes were staged throughout the despotic Roman Empire, and that they victimized members of other peoples who were considered, rightly or wrongly, to be enemies of Rome. In Jesus\u2019 case, the brutal exercise was clearly understood; when he was finally crucified, a reminder of his guilt was affixed to the cross\u2014an inscription specifying that here was crucified \u201cthe king of the Jews.\u201d According to John (19:19\u201322), this inscription was written in three languages\u2014Hebrew, Latin and Greek\u2014at Pilate\u2019s own behest. He also relates that the high priests said, \u201cYou should not write \u2018King of the Jews\u2019; write \u2018He claimed to be king of the Jews,\u2019 \u201d to which Pilate answered, \u201cWhat I have written, I have written.\u201d The high priests understood clearly from this inscription that Pilate was deliberately mocking the hopes of the Jews, and they attempted to dissuade him\u2014but Pilate, of course, would not change his mind. It should be noted that the Gospel of John contains certain important historical details not found in the other Gospels. Some of these details, including the one just discussed, reflect a Jewish nationalist outlook and a concomitant hostility towards Pilate, the representative of Rome. Hence, this passage contradicts the overall tone of the Gospel of John, which is generally more antagonistic towards the Jews than the other Gospels and tends to present Pilate in a positive light.
\nThus, the inscription on the cross was an attack against the Jewish belief in a messianic king who would come to free Israel of the Roman yoke. The acclamation in which the Roman soldiers \u201chonor\u201d Jesus with the title \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d is a kind of prologue to the story of the insulting inscription later affixed to the cross. The parody of acclamation aimed at Jesus is not the only example of anti-Semitic theatrics from this period. Several years after our story, King Agrippa I visited Alexandria in Egypt. In order to satisfy the popular desire to mock this Jewish king, the mob got hold of a certain lunatic and drove the poor fellow into the gymnasium, where they set him on high to be seen by all. There, they crowned him with reeds, robed him in a coat of straw, and gave him a stalk of papyrus to serve as a scepter; thus, the pathetic madman earned himself the accouterments of royalty. Some of them called him \u201cking\u201d and, in the end, they cheered him and shouted \u201cmari,\u201d the Aramaic word for \u201clord.\u201d Hugo Grotius has already discussed the resemblance between this story and the soldier\u2019s acclamation at the time of Jesus\u2019 trial. In both cases, the mock acclamation was clearly intended to ridicule the messianic beliefs of the Jews.
\nNow a third piece of evidence concerning this sort of anti-Semitic incident has been discovered. A fragmentary papyrus describes a wave of anti-Semitic unrest in Alexandria towards the end of the year 117 A.D., during the reign of the Emperor Trajan; it refers to \u201cthe king\u201d and describes \u201chow they brought him forth and mocked him.\u201d The Roman Prefect himself ordered them \u201cto lead him forth \u2026 to make fun of the king of the scene and the mime.\u201d The fact that only fragments of this document are available has given rise to a variety of scholarly hypotheses. One scholar believes that the cruel comedy was intended to mock the captive leader of the Jewish revolt in Cyrene. Another opinion holds that the Greeks in Alexandria staged a comic performance aimed at the \u201cKing of the Jews,\u201d similar to the previously discussed mock acclamation staged in Agrippa\u2019s time. In any event, the papyrus indicates that the Prefect himself took an active part in this comic performance, a fact of considerable importance to our discussion.
\nIn order to solve the riddle of the phrase \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d we must turn our attention to ceremonies of acclamation in antiquity, but we must first try to explain why the Gospel of John so often contains diametrical opposites, as we have already seen to be the case with the presentation of Pilate\u2019s personality. I first became aware of the peculiar characteristics of this Gospel in connection with the expression under discussion here. In the course of my research, I came across an important book, which drew the same conclusion I had reached in an earlier study of this subject.
\nThe explanation of the recurring contradictions in the Gospel of John given in the above-mentioned book seems to me to be correct, namely, that the author of the Gospel had at hand a Jewish-Christian source with Jewish nationalist tendencies. This source emphasized the profound importance\u2014to the Jews themselves\u2014of the belief in Jesus\u2019 Messiahship. Its author was far more anti-Roman than were the other Gospel writers, and his views on this point may have even led him to occasional rhetorical distortion of the historical truth. Thus, in Mark 15:15 and Matthew 27:27, we are told that a cohort of Roman soldiers took part in the mock coronation of Jesus; in John (19:2\u20133), however, the technical term \u201ccohort\u201d is missing, because there it is self-evident that Roman soldiers were involved. Jesus spent the night in the home of the high priest before he was turned over to the Romans as a prisoner. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that he was imprisoned by the Temple guard, as suggested by the account in Luke 22:52. All three Synoptic Gospels mention the wounding of the high priest\u2019s servant, which occurred at the time (see also John 18:10\u201311). In John, on the other hand, we read, \u201cSo Judas [Iscariot] took a detachment [cohort] of soldiers [i.e., Roman soldiers], and police provided by the high priests and the Pharisees \u2026\u201d (18:3). Further on, \u201cThe detachment [i.e., cohort] with their commander, and the Jewish police, now arrested Jesus and secured him\u201d (18:12). It therefore seems that the Jewish-Christian source of John introduced Roman soldiers into the story of Jesus\u2019 capture, on the basis of the Roman cohort\u2019s involvement in the mock coronation of Jesus following his delivery to the Romans. In reality, however, Jesus was detained by the high priest\u2019s guards, and not by Roman troops.
\nThis example illustrates the character of John\u2019s Jewish-Christian source. The Evangelist worked parts of this source, which had a very different orientation from his own, into his Gospel. This process led to certain discrepancies in the flow of the narrative, which in turn produced\u2014deliberately, it seems\u2014the atmosphere of deep mystery that permeates the Gospel according to John. The very tension between the message of the Evangelist and the orientation of his source enables us to isolate the source fragments from the Gospel proper\u2014a procedure that can be applied to the passage under discussion. Moreover, the author contributes to the confusion by repeating the episode of Pilate\u2019s presentation of Jesus to the people and the conversations between the two men, thereby producing duplications. Thus, the influence of the Jewish-Christian source is felt even in those passages penned by the Evangelist himself. We shall treat this confusing aspect of the Gospel of John only insofar as it relates to our historical question.
\nAn examination of our passage (John 19:1\u201316) discloses two parallel sections, John 19:4\u20136 and 12\u201314. Each of these two sections seems to reflect, in its own way, the same passage from the original Jewish-Christian source. In both, Pilate presents Jesus to the Jews (v. 4\u20135; 13\u201314), and in both the Jews respond with the call for his crucifixion (v. 6, v. 15). The Jewish powers that called for Jesus\u2019 crucifixion were \u201cthe high priests and their henchmen\u201d (v. 6), the Jews (v. 7, 12, 14), and \u201cthe high priests\u201d (v. 15). To anyone familiar with the outlook of the author of this Gospel, it should be clear that the mention of \u201cthe Jews\u201d as Jesus\u2019 enemies, here and elsewhere, is the work of the final redactor. On the other hand, the reference to \u201cthe high priests\u201d seems to reflect the historical truth behind the trial of Jesus. The other Gospels indicate that the instigators of the trial by Rome were the high priests and the Sadducees, who considered Jesus\u2019 preaching in Jerusalem a direct threat to their status. The second parallel passage contains two examples of the motif of mentioning Caesar, once at the beginning and another time at the end of the passage. Verse 12 reads, \u201cFrom that moment Pilate tried hard to release [Jesus]; but the Jews kept shouting, \u2018If you let this man go, you are no friend to Caesar; any man who claims to be a king is defying Caesar.\u2019 \u201d In verse 15, Pilate asks, \u201cShall I crucify your king?\u201d and the high priests reply, \u201cWe have no king but Caesar.\u201d Above, I have tried to show that this particular line of argument was the most likely to move Pilate, whose loyalty and obsequiousness towards Caesar were salient features of his personality. Josephus relates that on one occasion at night, Pilate secretly attached busts of Caesar to military standards in Jerusalem. The Jews reacted by thronging to Caesarea and \u201cfor many days entreated him to take away the images. Pilate refused to yield, since to do so would be an outrage to the emperor.\u201d In the end, however, he gave in (Antiquities 18:53\u201359). With respect to our own passage, there is no doubt that anyone who put Pilate\u2019s loyalty to Caesar to the test would spur him to immediate action. If this is so, the contents of John 19:12 and 15 must have originated in the Jewish-Christian source and reflect the actual course of events.
\nLet us compare Pilate\u2019s presentation of Jesus to the Jews (before the call for crucifixion) in our two parallel passages. The second passage (John 19:13\u201314) reads, \u201cWhen Pilate heard what they were saying, he brought Jesus out and took his seat on the tribunal at the place known as \u2018The Pavement\u2019 (\u2018Gabbatha\u2019 in the language of the Jews).\u2026 Pilate said to the Jews, \u2018Here is your king.\u2019 \u201d We may understand the Greek word translated as \u201che sat\u201d [NEB: \u201ctook his seat\u201d] to mean \u201che seated him,\u201d i.e., that Pilate seated Jesus. If such is the intended meaning of the text, we have here a story of Pilate seating Jesus on the tribunal in order to display him to the people with the words \u201cHere is your king!\u201d However, the meaning of the Greek is by no means certain, and it is entirely possible that Pilate, not Jesus, was the one said to have taken his seat. What is clear is that the words \u201cHere is your king,\u201d in the second passage are parallel to Pilate\u2019s words in the first passage, \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d In the former passage (John 19:4\u20135), we find clear evidence of the writer\u2019s bizarre method of using the source story while reworking parts of it into his own words, a process producing a certain tension and obscure contradictory quality to the account. We repeat the first passage, \u201cOnce more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, \u2018Here he is; I am bringing him out to let you know that I find no case against him\u2019; and Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. \u2018Behold the Man!\u2019 said Pilate.\u201d
\nThe only explicit meaning of Pilate\u2019s words from this passage is that he finds no case against Jesus. This, of course, is the innocent Pilate, the one who sympathizes with Jesus, the partial Pilate whom the Evangelists love to describe by way of contrast to the guilty Jews. But how can the inconsistency between the benevolent Pilate and his cruel public display of Jesus be explained? According to John, Pilate took Jesus out to inform the Jews by this very act that he considered him guiltless. But while the author\u2019s intention is clear, the story itself is illogical and completely unrealistic. We must therefore suppose that the writer of the Gospel worked the motif of a kind and understanding Pilate into our source, and that the original story ran something like this. \u201cPilate brought Jesus out, and Jesus was wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. \u2018Behold the Man!\u2019 said Pilate.\u201d We have already seen that \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d is parallel to \u201cHere is your King!\u201d However, even more significant is the fact that Jesus is wearing the \u201croyal\u201d apparel in which he had been clothed by the Roman soldiers for their own ceremony of ridicule, in which he was hailed in mock acclamation, \u201cHail, King of the Jews!\u201d According to John, immediately after this episode Pilate took him out thus attired and declared, \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d If it can be shown that these words were appropriate to an acclamation, then, according to this Gospel\u2019s Jewish-Christian source, Pilate had no intention of pronouncing Jesus guiltless; on the contrary, it would demonstrate that the Prefect took an active part in the parody of acclaiming Jesus as the \u201cKing of the Jews.\u201d Here we have the same Pilate who ordered the provocative inscription, \u201cJesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews\u201d (in three languages) affixed to Jesus\u2019 cross, refusing to remove it despite the protests of the high priests. Even during the negotiations for the release of a prisoner, Pilate mockingly referred to Jesus as \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d (John 18:39; Mark 15:9). One scholar rightly points out that, \u201cIn John the episode develops the motif of Jesus\u2019 kingship. Acknowledged by Pilate as the \u2018King of the Jews\u2019 \u2026 crowned and invested by the soldiers \u2026 Jesus now undergoes another ceremony in the coronation ritual; he is brought out, royally bedecked and empurpled, to be presented to his people for acclamation. In John\u2019s eyes Israel\u2019s long wait for its messianic king thus comes to ironic fulfillment.\u201d In our opinion, however, what we have here is not a theological statement on the part of John; rather, it is the description of a parody of royal acclamation, a mock ceremony for Jesus staged by the soldiers which reached its climax with the active participation of the Roman Prefect himself. The story itself was not produced by John, but by his Jewish-Christian source.
\nThe meaning of the expression \u201cBehold the Man\u201d became clearer to me after hearing a lecture (subsequently published) by Saul Lieberman. The ceremony of acclamation (Latin: acclamatio) was a highly significant one in the ancient world; the kings of the various lands, as well as the Roman emperors, were traditionally acclaimed in antiquity. We have already discussed the two parodies of acclamation that occurred in Alexandria when Agrippa visited the city, and in Emperor Trajan\u2019s time after the Jewish rebellion against Rome had been quelled. We have also studied the mock-ceremony in which Roman soldiers acclaimed the captive Jesus of Nazareth prior to his crucifixion. The crucial question is whether \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d is a possible phrase of acclamation: Lieberman states that, \u201cfor the most part, pointing the finger and saying, \u2018That is he!\u2019 is nothing short of acclamation,\u201d and he presents instructive evidence on the basis of earlier research. In one Greek source, we read, \u201cEach one will point at him, saying, \u2018That is he.\u2019 \u201d A Latin poet writes, \u201cIt is very fine when one points at you and says, \u2018That is he.\u2019 \u201d Lieberman also brings comparable material from the rabbinic tradition. Thus, when we are told that Pilate brought Jesus out in royal apparel and said \u201cBehold the Man,\u201d this would indicate that he intended, by the use of that particular phrase, to mockingly \u201cacclaim\u201d Jesus King of the Jews, and to participate in the acclamation spoof initiated by his soldiers. In addition to these proofs, one must bear in mind that, according to John 19:6, the high priests and their henchmen reacted to Pilate\u2019s \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d with the cry of \u201cCrucify! Crucify him!\u201d Some scholars believe this call, too\u2014which is also found in the Synoptic Gospels\u2014to be another expression of acclamation; the parallel evidence certainly supports such a hypothesis. According to the story, Pilate\u2019s presentation of the beaten and humiliated Jesus is met by the vociferous response of the high priests to crucify him. The interpretation we have proposed for \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d is based on both internal analysis of the text and on historical and linguistic parallels; for the present, it remains the only reasonable interpretation.
\nThe picture described is thus both consistent and striking. The Roman soldiers clothed Jesus in a purple garment, put a crown of thorns on his head, and mockingly acclaimed him as King of the Jews. The Roman Prefect then brought him out and presented him, thus attired, before the assembled Jews, pointed at him and hailed him in the accepted formula of acclamation, \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d The high priests then responded by demonstratively crying out, \u201cCrucify! Crucify him!\u201d Of course, this picture was not painted by the Evangelist John, the author of this Gospel, but it underlies the story. As we have seen, it seems to be the description which was portrayed in John\u2019s Jewish-Christian source. However, one must ask whether this portrayal is a faithful one, or whether it was dictated by the nationalist Jewish-Christian bias of the author of this source. In other words, did Pilate himself take part in the mock acclamation of Jesus?
\nOur sources leave no doubt as to Pilate\u2019s cruelty and hatred for the Jewish people. Furthermore, it can easily be proven that the man loved pomp and ceremony. When it came to Jesus, not only did he order the inscription \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d affixed to the cross, but he himself used the term mockingly when he referred to Jesus as the king of the Jews earlier in the \u201ctrial.\u201d As to whether Pilate actually participated in the mock acclamation, we have already seen that, in a similar incident in Alexandria towards the end of the year 117, a Roman Prefect himself took part in a mock acclamation aimed at the Jews. It is not impossible, then, that Pilate, blinded by his hatred of the Jews and drawn by his predilection for pointless ceremonies, participated in this mock acclamation, thereby performing an act that was both provocative and politically unwise. However, it is precisely the folly of such a demonstration of might and derision on the part of Rome\u2019s official representative which should make us doubly cautious in our assessment of the story\u2019s authenticity. Caution is further dictated by another detail mentioned above. According to John\u2014here, again, based upon his Jewish-Christian source\u2014a cohort of Roman soldiers participated in Jesus\u2019 capture as well (John 18:3, 12), while in Mark (15:16\u201320) and, following him, Matthew (27:27\u201331), the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans, and the Roman cohort only appeared at the time of the acclamation. The latter seems more reasonable from a historical point of view for, as we have already noted, the story of the cooperation between the high priest\u2019s men and the Roman soldiers during Jesus\u2019 arrest appears to stem from the anti-Roman bias of John\u2019s source.
\nThe historical question of Pilate\u2019s participation in the mock acclamation of Jesus is interesting and important in and of itself. However, our primary concern is Pilate\u2019s exclamation \u201cBehold the Man!\u201d the meaning of which in the immediate context of the Gospel of John is by no means clear. These words can only be understood by assuming that here, as elsewhere, John has worked into his book a Jewish-Christian source imbued with hatred of Rome and her representatives. According to this source, Pilate\u2019s participation in the mock acclamation of Jesus was a kind of crowning touch of the Romans\u2019 vile debasement of Jesus, the messianic king of the Jews. Pilate\u2019s true character is portrayed faithfully in this role\u2014he is the same cruel, cynical hater of Israel we know from the Jewish sources. Furthermore, by means of the parallel evidence, we have been able to clarify the meaning of the phrase \u201cEcce Homo.\u201d This is the attested formula of acclamation in antiquity.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 17<\/p>\n
THE CRUCIFIED ONE AND THE JEWS<\/p>\n
Hostility towards the Jews is not a Christian invention, but it has been grossly intensified by Christianity; and Christian anti-Judaism is only slowly disappearing. Well-intentioned friends of the Jews often say, \u201cIf we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the Jews\u201d (cf. Matt. 23:30ff.). For obviously apologetic reasons, pseudo-historical constructions are added to excuse the terrible sufferings of the Jews at the hands of the Christians as a lapse. This theory is passed on, and the Jewish participant in the discussion is expected to live happily with the well-intentioned excuse. This might perhaps be bearable, but how is a researcher to react to it? Unfortunately it can easily happen that if he is Jewish, and his scientific conscience does not permit him to accept gratefully the \u201canti-Judaistica\u201d in the New Testament as \u201cprophetic rebukes,\u201d his Christian colleague may become aggressive! Should the Jewish researcher therefore deny the simple truth that speaks in the texts, just for the sake of preserving peace?
\nHowever, we do not want to deal here with general questions. We shall show, by means of one example, how the original fact of the sympathy of the Jewish people for the crucified Jesus was turned at a very early stage into the hostility of the mocking crowds. If we succeed in revealing this change in tendency in the scriptures we shall touch a sore point. It started perhaps with a tendentious shift, and the consequences are well known. I want to emphasize that it is the duty of the historian who comes upon a cruel injustice that contains the seed of future crimes, to evaluate it as such. Otherwise he is only a collector and not a scholar.
\nOne more preliminary remark. In my work I have assumed that the original report about Jesus is best preserved in Luke, that Mark made a thorough revision of the material, and that where Mark is available Matthew is mostly dependent on him. In my earlier German book about Jesus, unfortunately, I did not make use of this realization thoroughly enough in the report of the crucifixion. Only later did I recognize the special importance of the differences between Luke and Mark in the description of that event. The conclusions that I shall set down do not, therefore, have an ideological, but a philological, basis. They are founded on the method of literary criticism.
\nThe crowd is proverbially known to cry \u201cHosanna\u201d one day and \u201cCrucify\u201d the next. This saying comes from a particular interpretation of the Mark-Matthew report about the crucifixion. This popular sentence, however, does not express the true sense of these reports. If Luke had not been preserved we might have supposed that the groups of people who passed the crucified one were made up partly of the Sadducean high priest\u2019s party, but in the main simply of a sadistic mob who amused themselves at the expense of the crucified Messiah. I have even assumed that the words of the Psalm (22:2) which Mark (15:34) and Matthew (27:46) report as the last words of Jesus are an unfriendly interpretation of Jesus\u2019 last cry by the onlookers, which Mark then mistakenly puts in the mouth of Jesus himself. Why should it not be possible that there was a coarse mob among the Jews? The passers-by could really rail, the high priests could mock him, the two crucified with Jesus could revile him, and the onlookers could mockingly think that the dying man called upon Elijah. \u201cWait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.\u201d The scribes (Mark 15:31; Matt. 27:41) and the elders (Matt. 27:41), who joined with the high priests in mocking him could then either be considered a secondary addition, or they could be interpreted in another way. What we read in Mark does not, therefore, have to be a tendentious description; one could imagine such a thing really happening\u2014without its incriminating the Jews unhistorically. But it has once more been shown that an event can easily be wrongly evaluated historically if the sources are not first compared and examined in a literary-critical analysis. In our case it has a dangerous effect, in that we have all forgotten how to read Luke without being involuntarily influenced by Mark and Matthew.
\nNow let us see what Luke (23:26\u201349) was able to report about the crucifixion of Jesus. Or, to put it another way, who were Jesus\u2019 friends at the crucifixion and who were his enemies? On the way, the Romans forced a passing Jew, Simon of Cyrene in North Africa, to carry the cross of Jesus. It was not unusual for the occupying Roman forces to demand compulsory services of the pilgrims on Jewish holidays\u2014a terrible humiliation in this case, such as were also experienced at the time of the Nazis. \u201cAnd there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him\u201d (Luke 23:27). These and the following words of Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem (23:28f.) are peculiar to Luke. In the first instance it might be thought that Mark, and following him Matthew, left these words out because he also omits the other lamentations of Jesus over Jerusalem almost completely. Perhaps Mark\u2019s behavior becomes significant, however, if his description of Jesus\u2019 crucifixion is compared with Luke\u2019s. In any case, not only are the lamentations, the words of Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem, missing in Mark, but also references to the great multitude of the people and the women who wailed and lamented Jesus. Even the words of the crucified one, \u201cFather, forgive them; for they know not what they do\u201d (Luke 23:34) are only to be found in Luke, and even here not in all manuscripts. Since the second century these words have often been omitted by copyists who well knew what they were doing. They were obviously of the opinion that Jesus prayed to his heavenly Father for forgiveness for his Jewish opponents, and for this reason they did not consider the words genuine. Such a thing should not be allowed to appear in their manuscripts. If they had appeared in Mark\u2019s source, it is possible that for the same reason he could not let the words remain. However, it is not certain that Jesus prayed for his Jewish adversaries. Perhaps he was praying for the Roman soldiers who crucified him.
\nBut let us come to the point. On the way to his crucifixion, Jesus was followed by a multitude of the Jewish people and, as was usual at that time, the women showed their grief by singing laments. When Jesus was crucified, \u201cthe people stood by, watching\u201d (Luke 23:35). And when Jesus had died, the crowd is mentioned for the third time: \u201cAnd all the multitudes who assembled to see the sight, watching what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts\u201d (23:48). The threefold mention of the crowd is artistically linked with guiding words. The first (23:27) and second times (23:35a) Luke speaks of the \u201cpeople,\u201d the second (23:35a) and third times (23:48) he speaks of \u201cwatching,\u201d and he twice, in the first (23:27) and third (23:48) cases, reports the lamentations of the multitude of people present on Jesus\u2019 way to death and after the multitude saw that Jesus was dead. It is therefore certain that the same Jewish people are three times referred to as sympathizing with Jesus. We assume that this is how it was written in Luke\u2019s source, as was the additional piece of information, \u201cAnd all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance and saw these things\u201d (23:49). Here too the word \u201csaw\u201d is used, as it was earlier regarding the centurion: \u201cNow when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, \u2018Certainly this man was innocent\u2019 \u201d (23:47). That one of the executioner\u2019s helpers is deeply shaken by the execution of a pious man has often been reported in history, and this is understandable. That in Mark\u2019s report the centurion called Jesus \u201cthe Son of God\u201d and not, as in Luke, \u201cinnocent,\u201d is not very plausible and is an additional argument for preferring Luke\u2019s report.
\nLet us summarize what we have seen thus far. The sympathy of the Jewish crowd with the one to be crucified is expressed three times in Luke\u2019s report, which never mentions any mockery by the Jews present. The multitude of the people accompanies him and the women lament him, the people attend the crucifixion, and when the whole crowd sees that Jesus is dead they beat their breasts as a sign of grief and go home mourning. The sympathy of the people is understandable. The crowd was with Jesus the whole time he was in Jerusalem, and the high priests did not dare arrest him in public because \u201cthey feared the people\u201d (Luke 20:19; Mark 12:12). When the Romans crucified him and displayed the inscription that was so insulting to the Jews, could one of the Jewish people feel anything but grief for the martyr, the victim of Roman cruelty? What Luke tells us is also historically probable, and if it was not written thus, then this is how one ought to reconstruct it. We did not realize this before, because we interpreted Mark too benevolently.
\nBut who were Jesus\u2019 enemies at the crucifixion, according to Luke? After reporting (23:34b), following Ps. 22:19, that the Roman soldiers cast lots to divide Jesus\u2019 garments, Luke says, \u201cBut the rulers scoffed at him, saying, \u2018He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!\u2019 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar, and saying, \u2018If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!\u2019 There was also an inscription over him, \u2018This is the King of the Jews.\u2019 One of the criminals who was hanged railed at him, saying, \u2018Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!\u2019 \u201d (Luke 23:35\u201339). Then there follows in Luke the dialogue with the second, good criminal.
\nAs in the description of the sympathy of the people with the crucified one, the reaction of Jesus\u2019 opponents, as recorded in Luke, is artistic, and here too he makes use of the threefold repetition, although here they are not the same people three times, but three different kinds of adversaries. The description is fluent, and is only interrupted by the information about the inscription on the cross. This is understandable, since the soldiers deride the \u201cKing of the Jews,\u201d and this is what is written on the cross. There is an accomplished parallelism in the description. The words that signify the mockery vary (\u201cscoff,\u201d \u201cmock,\u201d \u201crail\u201d) but the meaning of the mockery is actually the same in all three cases\u2014the impotence of he who thought himself the Savior. \u201cSave yourself, you who wanted to save others!\u201d One of the criminals who will suffer the same fate on the cross adds, \u201cAren\u2019t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us.\u201d In all three expressions of mockery, Jesus is addressed as the Messiah. The Roman soldiers mockingly call him \u201cthe King of the Jews,\u201d a non-Jewish, Roman designation that could be read on the cross. If we are right, the messianic titles vary here as well. The Jewish rulers say, \u201cthe Chosen of God\u201d; the Roman soldiers, \u201cthe King of the Jews\u201d; one of the criminals, \u201cthe Messiah.\u201d
\nAs with the crowd of the Jewish people who are sympathetic to the crucified one, the mocking enemies of Jesus also correspond to historical probability in Luke. \u201cThe rulers\u201d (archontes) is Luke\u2019s name for the dignitaries who delivered Jesus up to the Romans, and the mockery of the Roman soldiers is natural. According to Luke, Jesus is only derided by one of the malefactors crucified with him, but according to Mark and Matthew he is mocked by both. In this case they are either criminals or, more likely, zealots from the group around Barabbas. A zealot is not likely to have had much sympathy for the crucified, nonpolitical, suffering Messiah.
\nTherefore Luke has given us a historically probable description of who mocked and who mourned the crucified one, and it seems as if this is what was written in his source. However, Luke\u2019s sketch gains immensely in importance\u2014also with regard to the question of the alleged guilt of the Jews in the crucifixion\u2014if it is compared with Mark\u2019s version (and with Matthew\u2019s, which is derived from this). In Mark there is no mention of the lamenting and mourning Jewish crowd, whereas he describes groups of mocking and deriding Jews, simple people who passed by or stood watching. As we shall see, this change probably came about by manipulation and invention. The old enemies from among the Jews in Luke\u2014the rulers, and the two (in this case) who were crucified with Jesus\u2014are also to be found in Mark, of course. The friends who remain are the Roman centurion, who now bears witness to Jesus as God\u2019s Son\u2014i.e., the converted Roman, so to speak\u2014and the many women \u201cwho, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him, and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem\u201d (Mark 15:40 f.; cf. Luke 23:49; Matthew 27:55f.), i.e., the women from the Christian community in Galilee, so to speak. According to Mark and Matthew, no other Jew stands by Jesus\u2014in stark contrast to Luke.
\nBefore Jesus\u2019 last words on the cross, he is reviled three times, according to Mark (15:29\u201332; Matt. 27: 39\u201343): \u201cAnd those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, \u2018Aha! You who would destroy the Temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!\u2019 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another, with the scribes, saying, \u2018He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross, that we may see and believe.\u2019 Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.\u201d
\nWe have been able to see that in Luke the three insults are constructed in parallel. In Mark (and Matthew) the third insult (that of the criminal) is missing. In Luke (23:39) one of the criminals is reported to say, \u201c\u2026 help yourself and us,\u201d which corresponds well with the situation. In Mark (and Matthew) the two insults are not constructed in full parallel, as is the threefold mockery in Luke. In Mark (and Matthew) the summons to come down from the cross is added both times to the mocking invitations to Jesus to save himself, but Luke\u2019s thrice-repeated mocking title of Savior, only appears once in Mark, in the words of the high priests and scribes, \u201cChrist, the King of Israel\u201d (Mark 15:32; Matt. 27:42). The high priests and scribes in Mark, to whom further the elders are added in Matthew (27:41), correspond to the rulers in Luke (23:35b). Here Luke uses a word that is typical for him, but he could just as easily have used the same term as Matthew and Mark. However, perhaps the mention of various \u201cguilty parties\u201d in Mark and Matthew is intentional. We have seen that throughout Mark\u2019s description, the intention is to put the blame on Jewish people, in contrast to Luke, according to whom the simple Jews show their solidarity with the crucified one.
\nMark\u2019s intention is already shown by the first mocking group (15:29; Matt. 27:39). \u201cAnd those who passed by derided him.\u2026\u201d Later, after the cry from the cross, Mark speaks of the \u201cbystanders\u201d who mock (15:35; cf. Matt. 27:47), and one of them is the one who makes sport of Jesus with the sponge filled with vinegar (Mark 15:36; Matt. 27:48). All Jews, therefore! But let us return to the group of passers-by. They do not mockingly call Jesus the Savior, but \u201cthey wagged their heads, and said, \u2018Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days.\u2026\u2019 \u201d (Mark 15:29). Mark repeats the accusation, which according to him was pronounced by the High Council (14:58), through the passers-by. In Luke, it is absent in both cases.
\nMark interprets mockingly the words of the Psalm spoken on the cross (15:35f.; Matt. 27:47f.). \u201cAnd some of the bystanders hearing it said, \u2018Behold, he is calling Elijah.\u2019 And one ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, \u2018Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.\u2019 \u201d
\nThis mocking on the part of the Jews is absent in Luke! That the twofold scorn relating to Elijah is an invention of Mark\u2019s is very probable, because of the act of the single mocking Jew, who allegedly gave the man on the cross vinegar to drink. Luke, however, reports this of the Roman soldiers (23:36f.). This manipulation seems to betray Mark\u2019s intention. Here it should be noted that the important point is the incrimination of the Jews, and not the fact that in Mark (and Matthew) the mocking of the already crucified Jesus by the soldiers is missing, since according to Mark (15:16\u201320; Matt. 27:27\u201331), the Roman soldiers mock Jesus before the crucifixion (cf. Luke 23:11).
\nIn the part of the report we have dealt with, it would therefore be difficult to find anything in Mark that would add to our knowledge of Jesus\u2019 crucifixion as gained from Luke\u2014perhaps with one exception. According to Mark (15:23) Jesus was offered wine mingled with myrrh on the way to the crucifixion, but he did not take it. It was in fact the custom, at that time, to anesthetize the condemned person before death with such a drink. Mark has heard of this custom, but whether it actually happened in Jesus\u2019 case, we do not know.
\nLet us summarize the results of our investigation. As we have seen, the threefold mention of the Jewish crowd (Luke 23:27, 32, 35, 48), which laments and bewails Jesus of Nazareth on his way to death, is absent in Mark (and Matthew). After the third mention of the crowd, the information (Luke 23:49a) that all his acquaintances stood at a distance is missing. If we assume that Mark had a similar text, we might suppose that he carelessly omitted the information about Jesus\u2019 acquaintances along with the mention of the whole crowd that lamented his death (Luke 23:48). As already stated, the only friends of Jesus who remain are those who, so to speak, represent the Christian community, the converted heathen, the centurion (Mark 15:39), and the Christian women from Galilee (15:40). The enemies to be found in Luke are also present in Mark, although the mocking soldiers are absent (Luke 23:36f.), probably because Mark has transferred the motif of the Roman soldiers offering vinegar to an anonymous Jew (Mark 15:36). The other old enemies, the Jewish ones from Luke, are still present in Mark: the Jewish rulers (Luke 23:35b; Mark 15:31f.), and the two malefactors (Luke 23:39; Mark 15:32b). The fact that both of the latter deride Jesus in Mark, and only one in Luke, does not seem to indicate an increase in the guilt of the Jews in Mark. In this connection, however, the difference in the behavior of the crowd in Luke and in Mark is of particular importance. In Luke, the crowd empathizes with Jesus in his suffering and death. In Mark we only hear of the deriding and maliciously mocking Jews, once before the cry from the cross (Mark 15:29f.) and twice thereafter (15:35f.). And finally, in Luke there is no single Jew who is not affected by the death of Jesus, whereas in Mark all the \u201cnon-Christian\u201d Jews are enemies of Jesus, and his followers there are only the Christian women from Galilee (and the centurion).
\nThe most important difference between the crucifixion as described by Luke and by Mark could be explained if we assumed that Mark was Luke\u2019s source of information, and that Luke revised his source to give it a pro-Jewish tendency, by changing the hostile Jewish mob into a crowd that sympathizes with the crucified one. This does not work out, however, as the preceding description of Jesus\u2019 condemnation in Luke shows. \u201cPilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people\u201d and wanted to let Jesus go (Luke 23:13f.). \u201cBut they all cried out together, \u2018Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas\u2019 \u2026 Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus; but they shouted out, \u2018Crucify, crucify him.\u2019 A third time he said to them, \u2018Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death\u2019; \u2026 But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voice prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that their demand should be granted.\u2026\u201d (Luke 23:18f.; see also 23:4f.).
\nWe have seen that at the crucifixion Luke (23:27, 35) speaks of the sympathetic \u201cpeople,\u201d whereas earlier (23:13), when sentence is passed on Jesus, Luke names \u201cthe people\u201d together with the high priests and the rulers, i.e., together with Jesus\u2019 enemies. These shouted all together and demanded the death of Jesus. Three times Pilate turns to them, and three times the answer is hostile to Jesus. The second and third times the answer is \u201cCrucify!\u201d The cry gets stronger in Luke\u2014and only here\u2014until it becomes unbearable. \u201cBut they were urgent, demanding with loud voices that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed.\u201d There is therefore no reason to believe that Luke changed the story of the crucifixion as it appeared in his source, because of his sympathy towards the Jews.
\nIn this connection, something else should be noted. We can see from the Acts of the Apostles what Luke thought about the participation of the Jews of Jerusalem in the crucifixion of Jesus. There (2:22f.) Peter says to the people dwelling in Jerusalem, \u201cThis Jesus \u2026 you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.\u201d And later (3:13f.) Peter says of the death of Jesus to the men of Israel, \u201cGod \u2026 glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Author of life.\u2026 And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.\u201d This refers mainly to the passing of sentence on Jesus (Luke 23:13f.) of which we have spoken. In any case, if this is Luke\u2019s thinking about the guilt of the Jews, it is difficult to suppose that the description of the sympathy of the Jewish crowd at the crucifixion (Luke 23:26f.) originates with him. This is how Luke found it in his source, since the parts of his story, in the Acts of the Apostles quoted above, show that Luke himself would not have had anything against the hostile, mocking crowd depicted in Mark. Therefore Luke\u2019s source in the description of the crucifixion is not Mark.
\nThe description of the sympathy of the Jewish crowd with Jesus at the crucifixion is certainly stylized, as can be seen by the threefold mention of the crowd; the second reference (Luke 23:35a) does not say much, and is in fact unnecessary. However, the fact of this sympathy is certainly historical and not constructed by the source. We know that in Jesus\u2019 last days in Jerusalem the Jewish crowd was on his side. According to Luke (21:38), \u201cAll the people came to him in the early morning, to hear him.\u201d And as the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover, the chief priests and the scribes were \u201cseeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people\u201d (Luke 22:1f.; Mark 14:1f.; Matt. 26:1f.). Before Jesus\u2019 capture we only read in the Gospels of the sympathy of the Jewish crowd for him, and not of a hostile tension among the people. \u201cHe was teaching daily in the Temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him; but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people hung upon his words\u201d (Luke 19:47f.; Mark 11:18f.; cf. also Luke 20:19; Mark 12:12; Matt. 21:45f.). It was natural for the people to mourn the martyr of Roman cruelty. For this reason too, Luke is reliable and Mark distorts the facts.
\nWhat is the connection between the two descriptions of the crucifixion, that of Mark and that of Luke? Should we assume that there were two sources, one more historical and friendly towards the Jews, a \u201cproto-Luke,\u201d and one more hostile and less historical, our Mark? Or are both Luke and Mark based on the same source? Both possibilities indicate a progressive movement away from the reality, in the sense of a hostile estrangement with Jewry. This is true of Mark\u2019s report, even if something else might play a part here.
\nIt is possible that, with his inventions, Mark also wanted to express that Jesus was forsaken by everyone, other than the Christian women and the converted centurion; apart from these, Jesus died in a hostile world. However, even someone who is willing to accept this as Mark\u2019s main intention cannot avoid noticing the hostile, mocking Jews around the cross in his accounts, whereas in Luke the crowd of people mourn Jesus. We have listed enough reasons for finding the mockery of the simple Jewish people at the crucifixion unhistorical. One thing is certain. If it is true that Mark invented the mocking Jews, in order to emphasize the \u201cexistential\u201d loneliness of Jesus on the cross, then it is improbable that he was well-meaning towards the Jewish crowd. He was near to the idea that the Jewish crowd \u201crejected\u201d Jesus. Recognition of this fact appears significant to me.
\nThe question whether Luke here draws on a special source, or whether Mark is dependent on the same source as Luke, which was then altered to suit his inclination, is not as difficult to answer as it first seems. In the course of my work, I have found at times that the Gospel according to Mark represents a thorough revision of old material and is hardly identical to the old report, whereas Luke gives us that old report without being dependent on Mark; and perhaps Mark even depends on Luke. In short, Mark and Luke did have a mutual source, but Luke\u2019s version is much preferable to Mark\u2019s. The present investigation confirms the other results of my research; there, too, Luke is more true to the original, more historical, whereas Mark has thoroughly revised his source.
\nI believe that in the passage dealt with here, there is also an indication that Mark based his report on a text similar to that from which Luke worked, but that he personally rewrote it. Particular attention should be paid to the excellent construction of the tale in Luke, which has been spoiled in Mark. The threefold mention of the crowd that was sympathetic to Jesus is lacking, as we have seen, in Mark. As a result, the profound words of Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem about the future destruction (Luke 23:27f.) disappeared along with the first mention of the sympathetic crowd of people. The other lamentations of Jesus about future doom are also almost completely erased in Mark. With the third mention of the lamenting crowd (Luke 23:48) the following words (23:49a), \u201cAnd all his acquaintances stood at a distance \u2026\u201d are removed. What remained in Mark (15:40) is, \u201cThere were also women looking on from afar.\u201d Mark has not noticed that his source contained a Psalm (Ps. 38:11): \u201cMy friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my kinsmen stand afar off.\u201d Therefore he has omitted the first part of the biblical reference, without realizing it.
\nIn contrast to the crowd that stands by Jesus, which Luke mentions three times, there are three kinds of jeerers, the rulers (23:35b), the soldiers (23:36f.), and one of the criminals (23:39). We have already seen that the three insults are, in Luke, variations on one theme: \u201cHe saved others, let him save himself, if he is the Messiah of God, his Chosen One!\u201d (23:35). In Mark, too, three kinds of jeerers are present, but the parallelism of the insults is destroyed and the identity of those who jeer is not the same as in Luke. The jeers of the criminal (Luke 23:39) are missing in Mark (15:32b); only the words of the rulers (Luke 23:35b) are similar to those in Mark (15:31f.). In Mark, the mocking soldiers (Luke 23:36f.) are missing completely, but he introduces the passers-by as the first group (Mark 15:29f.), and their mockery is new and different. Only the ending, \u201cHelp yourself,\u201d is parallel. If, from one version to another, a parallelism is destroyed, this almost always means a secondary, less successful treatment of the report.
\nIn Mark (15:35f.), new Jewish jeerers appear after the words on the cross. The description demonstrates Mark\u2019s fabulistic talent, which we have also discovered elsewhere, but one thing, inter alia, speaks against the originality and historicity of what is described, namely, the motif of the vinegar, which Mark has so picturesquely introduced (15:36). This comes, as we have seen, from the mocking Roman soldiers (Luke 23:36f.), of whom Mark knows nothing. Mark does not seem to have been very successful with the manipulation. The Roman soldiers surrounding the cross could mockingly offer the crucified one vinegar, but it is hard to imagine that they would allow one of the watching Jews to approach Jesus and reach up a sponge with vinegar on a reed. Such a thing cannot be completely excluded at a tumultuous execution, but such a supposition proves to be superfluous, as we have Luke. This consideration applies not only to the incident with the vinegar, but to the whole description of the crucifixion. What we read in Mark is a lively, not completely impossible, picture, but it is the fruit of his imagination\u2014and certainly in our case\u2014of his inclination. We could not recognize this without Luke\u2019s report, but when we compare Mark with Luke we see that, on the basis of Luke, we can appreciate the flaws in Mark\u2019s construction and the reason for his treatment of the material. We can therefore assume that, in our case also, Mark and Luke had similar texts to work from, which Mark dealt with according to his taste and inclination.
\nIn Luke, the Jewish crowd mourns the crucified Jesus of Nazareth; in Mark they are against him. If it has been shown that what Luke tells us is historically true, then this is very important for the alleged Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus. It is also just as important that, in Mark, there is already a shift to the disadvantage of the Jews. Thus, in Mark we find the beginning of the movement toward the defamation of the Jews, which was to have such cruel, inhuman consequences throughout history. Apart from this, we see that, with the cry, \u201cCrucify!\u201d even Luke is not free of this unhappy tendency. It is almost certain that the first sources were free of this distortion, and we assume that it was also still lacking in the Greek translations which served as the basis for the Gospels.
\nThe description of the crucifixion in Luke cannot be secondary, for the reason that in the history of early Christianity there has never been a movement toward friendship with the Jews, but always a development toward hostility to Jews. In order to define Mark\u2019s place in this process it would be necessary to investigate the entire Gospel of Mark. As far as his description of the crucifixion is concerned we see that the Jews are incriminated, but not yet condemned as a nation and a religion. Matthew is not more hostile to the Jews than Mark in his description of the crucifixion. In this chapter he does not intensify the tendency of his source, Mark. In other verses, however, the final editor of Matthew has gone further in his anti-Jewish inclination, as I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere.
\nThe whole picture is not very pleasant. Perhaps tension between Christians and Jews and Jewry was once historically necessary for the development of Christianity as an independent religion. Now the scaffolding can confidently, but unfortunately too late, be removed. Christianity will no longer be prone to anti-Judaism only when the root of the disease is treated. Self-righteous excuses do not help. It should be recognized that Christian anti-Judaism was not a chance lapse. Anti-Judaism stood godfather to the formation of Christianity. We have tried to show this on the basis of one example, and through this wanted to do our Christian brothers a good service.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 18<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: JESUS WEEPS OVER JERUSALEM<\/p>\n
In the preceding essay we have tried to show why Luke\u2019s description of the crucifixion is more faithful than the other two synoptic gospels. According to Luke, Jesus was accompanied along his last way by the sympathy of his own people. By contrast, according to Mark\u2014who is accepted by Matthew\u2014he was abandoned by all, with the exception of those who formed the kernel of the future Church. Here we want to show that the tendentiousness of Mark is also palpable in his virtual elimination of Jesus\u2019 expression of his strong ties with Jerusalem and its tragic future. While Luke\u2019s passion narrative often speaks (Luke 13:34\u201335; 19:41\u201344; 21:28; 23:27\u201331) about Jesus\u2019 attachment to the \u201ccity of the great king\u201d (Matt. 5:35), only his prediction of the destruction of the Temple (Luke 21:5\u20137) is paralleled by Mark 13:2\u20134 (and Matt. 24:1\u20133).
\nMuch has already been written about the so-called \u201csynoptic apocalypse\u201d (Mark chapter 13). R. L. Lindsey rightly assumed that the whole text is a composite work. The last fruit of our philological collaboration on the present subject was included in one of my Hebrew studies. The inquiry concluded that although all the sources of this \u201capocalypse\u201d spoke about the future, only a small part of the speech in Luke describes the last days. Luke knew very well that he was speaking about various periods of the future after the crucifixion. He himself indicates explicitly the several points of time when he writes, \u201cThis must first take place, but the end will not be at once (21:9) \u2026 But before all this (21:12) \u2026 But when you see (21:20) \u2026 then (21:21) \u2026 until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (21:24) \u2026 Now when these things begin to take place (21:28).\u201d Luke presents the following distinct periods of time: the destruction of the Temple (21:5\u20136); the future appearance of false chiliastic prophets (21:7\u20138); catastrophes of the last days (21:9\u201311); persecutions of the disciples after the crucifixion (21:12\u201319); the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, the tribulation of Israel, and the period of its dispersion (21:20\u201324); the eschatological coming of the Son of Man (21:25\u201323); \u201cyour liberation\u201d (21:28).
\nThe description of future persecutions of Jesus\u2019 disciples (Luke 21:12\u201319 and Mark 13:9\u201313a) is lacking in Matthew because he has already provided it (Matt. 10:15\u201323). The future lot of the disciples is included in Matthew at the end of Jesus\u2019 advice to the Twelve when he sends them out (Matt. 10:5\u201315). I believe that Matthew has preserved the original Sitz im Leben of this saying, because the Matthean form of the saying is preferable to its parallels in Luke (21:12\u201319) and Mark (13:9\u201313a). There is also another question that should be asked. Was the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21:20\u201323 written after the real catastrophe, or can it be that these were Jesus\u2019 own words? An eminent classical scholar has shown that Luke\u2019s words about the tragic future of Jerusalem could have been uttered before the final catastrophe. Thus Luke 21:20\u201323 may have been a prophecy of doom by the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus, especially since it is well known that he was not alone among those in his day who foresaw what would happen.<\/p>\n
Arch of Titus<\/p>\n
Now the way is free for a correct appreciation of the sketch regarding the future history of the Jewish people (Luke 21:20\u201324, 28). \u201cBut when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then know that her desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains, and let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city; for these are days of retribution to fulfill all that is written. Woe to those who are with child and to those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall come upon the earth and wrath upon this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.\u2026 When all this begins to happen, stand up and lift up your heads because your liberation is drawing near.\u201d
\nAfter having said that the liberation of his people is drawing near, Jesus concluded (in Matt. 24:32\u201333; Mark 13:28\u201329; Luke 21:29\u201331) his vision of the future by saying, \u201cNow learn the lesson from the fig tree. As soon as it puts forth fruit, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door.\u201d Jesus alludes here to the fig tree in Song of Songs 2:13, in accordance with the common Jewish opinion that the whole passage (2:11\u201313) speaks about the redemption of Israel. The intricate relationship of the motif of redemption with Jesus\u2019 allusion to the Song of Songs 2:13 is disrupted by Mark\u2019s omission of the parallel to Luke 21:28, \u201clift up your heads, because your liberation is drawing near.\u201d Once again, we see that the original structure of Jesus\u2019 sayings are better preserved in Luke.
\nThe passage in Luke is a product of a basic scriptural prophetic scheme. It usually begins with a destruction. It then follows a consequence of tribulations and suffering in the dispersion, concluding happily with the return to the homeland when the times are ripe. The oldest example of this paradigm is found in God\u2019s words to Abraham (Gen.15:13\u201316). There the destruction is lacking, but Abraham\u2019s descendants will be strangers in a foreign country and will be enslaved and ill-treated; afterwards, however, they will come back. This will happen only in the fourth generation, \u201cfor the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.\u201d The ancient scheme reappears later in the Book of Tobit (14:4\u20135). There the elder Tobit describes the future to his family. Jerusalem will be desolate and the (First) Temple burned down, but at the end the Jews will return to their home and they will rebuild the Temple. This (Second) Temple will not be \u201clike the former\u201d Solomonic Temple, \u201cuntil the times of the age are completed,\u201d i.e., in the time of full redemption. Here the prophetic scheme is more complex, but its main structure is preserved: destruction, dispersion, and a glorious return to the homeland. The similarity between these two examples and Luke 21:24 is striking. From the comparison with the two other texts there can be no doubt that Luke\u2019s \u201cJerusalem will be trampled down by Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,\u201d can only mean that Jerusalem will no longer be trampled on by the Gentiles when finally their (i.e., the Gentiles) times will come to an end. I am personally fascinated by the way this literary scheme recurs not only in texts, but in the concrete long history of the Jewish people.
\nI see no serious obstacle in accepting the passage about the future liberation of Israel as an authentic utterance of the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus. Why should we doubt his solidarity with his people? Should he not feel the same grief and hopes as his compatriots? Who would have blamed a Dutch pastor\u2014or priest\u2014when he longed for the liberation of the Netherlands under the yoke of foreign occupation? According to Luke, this sentiment was also shared by Jesus\u2019 disciples. \u201cWe had been hoping that he was the man to liberate Israel\u201d (Luke 24:21). Again, according to Acts 1:6\u20137, the Apostles asked the resurrected Jesus, \u201cLord, is this the time when you are to establish once again the sovereignty of Israel?\u201d He responded to them, \u201cIt is not for you to know about dates or times, which the Father has set within His own authority.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judaea Capta coin\u2014after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.<\/p>\n
The same desire for Israel\u2019s liberation is attested in the events of the infant Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem (Luke, chapter 2). When he was brought there, both the aged Simeon who \u201cwas looking for the consolation of Israel\u201d (Luke 2:25) and the prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36\u201338) met the child. The prophetess \u201cspoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.\u201d \u201cThe freedom of Zion\u201d and \u201cthe redemption of Zion\u201d are slogans imprinted upon the coins of the First Revolt against Rome, and the motto \u201cfreedom of Jerusalem\u201d was inscribed upon Bar Kokhba\u2019s coins. The views of the circles to which both Simeon and Anna belonged are reflected in one of the extracanonical psalms from a Qumran scroll (verses 3\u20134 and 9): \u201cGeneration after generation will dwell in thee (Jerusalem) and generations of pious will be thy splendor: those who yearn for the day of thy salvation, they may rejoice in the greatness of thy glory.\u2026 How they have hoped for thy salvation, thy pure ones have mourned for thee.\u201d
\nJesus lamented over Jerusalem for the first time when he began his last journey (Luke 13:34\u201335): \u201cO Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kills the prophets and stones those sent to you, how often have I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate.\u201d Jesus uttered his lament after having been warned by some Pharisees that Herod Antipas sought to kill him. At that time he said that he was already on his way to the city, \u201cbecause it is unthinkable for a prophet to meet his death anywhere but in Jerusalem\u201d (Luke 13:33b). In Luke, Jesus\u2019 lament over Jerusalem is a good continuation of the preceding sentence. Matthew (23:37\u201339) preserves the lament more or less identically with the Lukan parallel. This lament over Jerusalem is the only passage common to Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark. Otherwise, Matthew follows Mark in his almost complete silence about Jerusalem. Nevertheless, in Matthew the lament over Jerusalem is misplaced\u2014not unintentionally. While Luke (13:34\u201335) places the lament following the Pharisees\u2019 warning, in Matthew (23:37\u201339) the lament is presented\u2014before the announcement of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1\u20132)\u2014as a final conclusion of Jesus\u2019 invectives against the Pharisees! Matthew\u2019s transposition of the setting implies that the Pharisees themselves are those \u201cwho kill the prophets.\u201d In Jesus\u2019 day it is certain that they neither killed nor persecuted the visionaries (Matt. 23:29\u201331).
\nThe pathos in Jesus\u2019 lament over Jerusalem is the same as his prediction about the destruction of the city in Luke 19:41\u201344. As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, \u201cIf you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace\u2014but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and your children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.\u201d The \u201cvisitation\u201d is intended to be the occasion of salvation as proclaimed by Jesus. Unrecognized as such, this same visitation becomes the basis for a judgment which is yet to come. The city could have learned the way of peace from his teaching; before (Luke 13:1\u20139), Jesus made it completely clear what he meant: \u201cUnless you repent, you will all perish\u201d (see Luke 13:3 and 5). He presents the people with a deadline in his story of the fig tree\u2014\u201cif the fig tree does not bring fruit, it will be cut down.\u201d Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because he feared that it would reject his message. Nevertheless, Jerusalem was given its chance (Luke 19:41\u201344). Jesus bore the intentions that he stated when he began his way to Jerusalem (Luke 13:34\u201335). How often he had longed to save Jerusalem, but the people were not willing. \u201cLook, your house is left to you desolate.\u201d
\nEven during Jesus\u2019 agonizing final steps to his violent death, he was weighed down by the future tragedy of Jerusalem. A large number of people followed him, many women among them who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said, \u201cDaughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, \u2018Happy are the barren, the wombs that never bore and that never nursed!\u2019 Then they will start saying to the mountains, \u2018Fall on us,\u2019 and to the hills, \u2018Cover us.\u2019 For if these things are done with the green wood, what will happen to the dry?\u201d (Luke 23:27\u201331). The green wood is difficult to kindle, while the dry is easy to burn. If the life of the pious Jesus ends with a tragedy, what will happen to a sinful Jerusalem? The disaster becomes inevitable, but there is hope for Jerusalem in a distant future, when the times of the Gentiles will be completed (Luke 21:24).
\nWe have seen that the Lukan picture of Jesus\u2019 strong ties with Jerusalem is historically reliable and consistent, but it is more or less absent in Mark\u2014the only exception is Mark 13:2, in the introduction to the \u201cSynoptic Apocalypse!\u201d Does it mean that the \u201cLukan\u201d Jesus is too Jewish, or that Mark has purposely changed the picture? Happily enough, it can be easily shown that the reworking of the tradition comes from Mark. Where in the \u201cSynoptic Apocalypse\u201d Jesus speaks about the future tragedy of Jerusalem, Mark omits it or supplants Jerusalem and the Jewish people with the \u201celect ones,\u201d i.e., the Christian believers, the kernel of the future Early Church. Mark 13:19b\u201320 (and Matt. 24:21\u201322) probably constitutes the best example of this technique. While in Luke 21:23\u201324 Jesus speaks about imminent destruction as \u201cthe wrath against this people\u201d and the tragedy of the Jewish nation \u201cuntil the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,\u201d Mark (13:19b\u201320) employs the more common apocalyptic phrase \u201cthe abbreviation of times\u201d and he says that God will shorten the days \u201cfor the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen.\u201d Two verses later, Mark 13:22 (and Matt. 24:24), in a passage that has no parallel in Luke, we read, \u201cFalse christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect\u2014if that were possible.\u201d
\nThe third\u2014and most interesting\u2014appearance of the elect is in Mark 13:24 (and Matt. 24:31) at the end of the passage about the coming of the Son of Man, who \u201cwill send the angels and gather the elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the end of heaven.\u201d The gathering of the Gentile Church is a basic concept of earliest Christianity, but it very quickly lost its importance. Originally the two concepts of gathering were linked together, but almost immediately the situation changed. The extant sources betray various grades of connection or tension between the hope of the gathering of the Old Israel and the gathering of Gentile believers. One sometimes gets the impression of a kind of rivalry between the old and new concepts of the gathering of the dispersed. The whole early Christian complex is fluid.
\nThere exists no visible contrast in John 11:52 and 12:32 between the historical Israel and the gathering of Gentile Christianity. Jesus died not only for the Jewish nation, but also \u201cto gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad\u201d (John 11:52). And according to this Gospel Jesus is supposed to have said, \u201cI, when I am lifted, will draw all men to myself\u201d (John 12:32). This reminds us of the strange description in 1 Thess. 4:15\u201317, when Paul describes \u201cthe coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and his gathering of us to himself\u201d (see 2 Thess. 2:1). In the same way, \u201cThe Lord himself will descend from heaven and the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are still alive and are left shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.\u201d In the early Christian document, the Didache (ca. 100 A.D.), the gathering of Christians is twice mentioned, without the apocalyptic lifting up into the clouds\u2014namely, in the eucharistic prayers in chapters 9 and 10: \u201cAs this fragment (of bread) lay scattered upon the mountains and became a single (fragment) when it had been gathered, may your church be gathered into your kingdom from the ends of the earth\u201d (Did. 9:4). \u201cBe mindful, Lord, of our church and, once it is sanctified, gather it from the four winds, into the kingdom which you have prepared for it\u201d (Did. 10:5).
\nIn John 11:52 the gathering of the Gentile believers is mentioned together with the Jewish nation; in both the two Epistles to the Thessalonians and in the Didache, we read about the gathering of the Church without any connection to the gathering of Israel. The situation worsens in the so-called Fifth Esdras, and in the concept represented in the Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon by Justin Martyr (ca. 100\u2013105 A.D.) where it appears in 26:1; 80:1; 113:3\u20134; 139:4\u20135. In Fifth Esdras and Justin Martyr, the Christian gathering comes instead of the gathering of the \u201chistorical\u201d Israel. It is not the Jews, but Gentile Christians who will inherit the Holy Land and Jerusalem. Justin Martyr insists that the Gentile Christians will be gathered then, but the Jews who oppose Christianity \u201cshall not inherit anything in the Holy Mountain, but the Gentiles who have believed in Him \u2026 shall receive the inheritance \u2026\u201d (26:1). Similarly in Fifth Esdras (2:10\u201313), this is what the Lord says to Ezra: \u201cInform my people that I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem which I have given to Israel \u2026 the kingdom is already prepared for you\u201d (see also 1:24\u201327, 30\u201340).
\nElsewhere I have tried to show that the final redactor of the Gospel of Matthew embraced the same opinions as Fifth Esdras and the eschatology contained in Justin Martyr\u2019s Dialogue, and that there are even literary motifs common to the three sources. Here it must suffice to bring two Matthean passages. \u201cTherefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit\u201d (Matt. 21:43). \u201cMany, I tell you, will come to feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven. But those who were born to the kingdom will be driven out into the dark, the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth\u201d (Matt. 8:11\u201312).
\nHow far was Mark related to such a dangerous position? It is clear that he saw the Christian believers as a body separate from the non-Christian Jews. He mentions only the eschatological gathering of the Christian believers. Yet there is no sign that he also believed that God\u2019s election was transferred to Gentile Christianity, and that \u201cthose who were born to the kingdom\u201d would be condemned to hell. Even though Mark was not prone to accept the extreme position (see Mark 12:29) of the final redactor of Matthew, the redactor did not feel it necessary to oppose Mark.
\nThe unhappy development from Luke to Mark and from there to the final redactor of Matthew can be shown by the synoptic history of Luke 4:32. According to this saying in its earliest form, when Jesus began his ministry in the synagogue at Capernaum, his hearers were astonished because \u201chis word was with authority\u201d (Luke 4:32). Mark 1:22 makes the meaning clearer, \u201cThe people were astonished because he taught them as one who had authority, and unlike the scribes.\u201d Matthew (7:28\u201329) repeats Mark\u2019s wording. He further \u201cclarifies\u201d the situation, speaking about \u201ctheir scribes,\u201d but he also purposely transfers the astonishment of Jesus\u2019 hearers to another situation. \u201cWhen Jesus had finished his discourse, the people were astonished at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, and unlike their scribes.\u201d And what is \u201cthe discourse\u201d that Jesus, according to the Matthean final redactor, finished at that moment? The \u201cSermon on the Mount\u201d which in reality resembles very much the \u201cteaching of the scribes.\u201d One is intrigued at the subtle tendencies in the metamorphosis of the sentence. It is likely that Mark did not foresee where his literary changes would lead. On the other hand, it is difficult to deny that even in the Gospel of Mark, these later centrifugal forces were already at work.
\nJesus\u2019 pilgrimage to Jerusalem is the first act of his tragedy. He went there not to heal, but as a prophet of doom. He desired to prevent the inevitable. Once he even predicted that he would die there as other prophets had before him (Luke 13:33). I have tried to show that this sentiment is historical reality and not a Lukan invention. Our conclusions are a result of a literary analysis of the \u201cSynoptic Apocalypse\u201d in its Markan (and Matthean) form. Mark deliberately omits\u2014with one exception (Mark 13:2)\u2014from his \u201capocalypse\u201d any mention of the future tragedy of Jerusalem. Instead, he places three times on the lips of Jesus (Mark 13:20, 22, 27) statements about the future of the elect, i.e., the Christian kernel of the coming Church. In the end, Jesus is not only a Kafkaesque, lonely, holy man, abandoned in his death and despised by his own people, but his teaching is not even considered to be like that of the Jewish Sages. According to Mark, Jesus\u2019 ties with his people and with Jerusalem are practically non-existent. Mark preserves almost nothing about the future of the children of Israel and their holy city. Their mention is replaced by the \u201celect ones,\u201d the Christian believers. Thus, Mark already shows symptoms of an exclusivist ecclesiology. I personally admire his ingenuity, in creating, compelled by his sectarian impulse, the imposing figure of a lonely, holy giant! It would be irresponsible to blame Mark for the subsequent developments\u2014we must be cautious in our judgment. Yet, we can be grateful to Luke that he has preserved the true historical picture of Jesus\u2019 solidarity with his people.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 19<\/p>\n
THE TOPOGRAPHY AND ARCHEOLOGY OF THE PASSION: A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE VIA DOLOROSA<\/p>\n
by Magen Broshi<\/p>\n
The traditions concerning holy sites in Jerusalem are often confused and contradictory. In the following we will try to offer a reconstruction based on the data of the gospels (which are sometimes equivocal), other contemporary sources (both Jewish and pagan), as well as the archeological evidence. Intensive archeological activity in recent years has contributed some welcome finds that are relevant to the questions discussed.
\nGethsemane. After the Last Supper, Jesus and the disciples went to the Mount of Olives to a place (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:6), a garden (John 18:1) called Gethsemane. The name means an oil-press and as such can hardly be expected to leave any identifiable remains. The traditional site is in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mount of Olives, and it is quite plausibly the approximate location of the original place. The tradition goes back at least to the fourth century A.D.
\nThe House of Caiaphas. From Gethsemane Jesus was brought before Annas (John 18:13) and Caiaphas (John 18:24). The former was a retired high priest (who served from 6 to 15 A.D.) and the latter, his son-in-law, the contemporary high priest (18\u201336 A.D.). Was the hearing carried out in two different houses? Were the two sharing the same house? Early traditions place the House of Caiaphas on Mount Zion. One source relates that it was only fifty paces from the Church of Holy Zion to the Church of St. Peter that was built on the site of the House of Caiaphas. An Armenian chapel, lying between the Dormition Abbey and Zion Gate and dating to the fifteenth century, may indicate the traditional site. Remnants of a Byzantine mosaic floor could be the remains of St. Peter\u2019s Church. Excavations undertaken there in 1971, unfortunately on a limited area, did not unearth anything that could be attributed to high priests\u2019 mansion. However, the remains of elegant frescoes indicate that the place was inhabited by wealthy people.<\/p>\n
Map of Herodian Jerusalem<\/p>\n
The Chamber of Hewn Stone. Some scholars are of the opinion that when Jesus was sent \u201cunto Caiaphas\u201d (John 18:24) it does not necessarily mean that he was sent to Caiaphas\u2019 house, but rather to the Sanhedrin meeting place, the Chamber of the Hewn Stone (lishkat ha-gazit in Hebrew). This is a possibility which the data at our disposal cannot confirm or deny. This chamber is probably the Council House (boule) that was adjacent to the Temple Mount, to its west.
\nThe Praetorium. After the inquiry presided over by Caiaphas, Jesus was taken to be tried by Pontius Pilate. The regular seat of the Roman governors was Caesarea, the capital of the land at that period, but on the pilgrimage festivals\u2014times often marked by unrest\u2014the governors used to move to Jerusalem. The official residence in both places is called praetorium. In Caesarea the praetorium was what had previously been Herod\u2019s seaside palace (Acts 23:35). In Jerusalem its counterpart (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28) was also the royal palace of Herod. This is what is meant by Mark (15:16) when he tells that the soldiers led Jesus \u201cinside the palace, that is the praetorium.\u201d
\nHerod\u2019s palace was so large and luxurious that Josephus claims that it \u201cbaffles all description,\u201d yet Josephus describes it in detail. It should be remembered that Herod held some international building records\u2014his palace at Herodium, a few miles to the southeast of Jerusalem was the largest in the world. His Jerusalem palace compound was situated in the northwestern corner of the city. Positioned on its southern side were three mighty towers. The remains of one\u2014the so-called \u201cDavid\u2019s Tower\u201d\u2014still stands majestically today. From the palace nothing has survived except some supporting walls of its podium. In building the palace, Herod resorted to the same methods employed in the construction of the Temple enclosure. He raised the area and leveled it off by means of a huge platform.
\nThe trial itself took place out of doors, within the palace complex, in a court called Lithostroton (Greek for stone pavement) or Gabbatha (John 19:13, the Aramaic meaning is unclear). This outer court was spacious enough to accommodate the crowds (Luke 23:4). On the pavement a platform (bema) was erected which served as Pilate\u2019s judgment seat (Matt. 27:19). The site of this paved court is unknown, but it probably is under the present day Armenian Patriarchate.
\nSince the Crusades, tradition has placed the praetorium in the former site of the Antonia, the mighty citadel built by Herod north of the Temple Mount. This tradition, still held to be true today, does not necessarily have to be based on genuine historical data. After all, in the preceding thousand years, two other sites were regarded as the true praetorium.\u2014in the Byzantine period on the slopes of the present day Jewish quarter, and later on Mount Zion. Indeed, it is quite plausible that this attribution was made because this site was used as one of the two citadels of Jerusalem occupied by the local garrisons, both Roman and Ottoman. The other citadel, it should be remembered, is the David Tower built on the northern part of Herod\u2019s palace. It is nearly certain that the praetorium is what had been Herod\u2019s palace. Thus, this is what we should understand when we read that the soldiers took Jesus \u201cinside the palace, that is, the praetorium\u201d (Mark 15:16). The Antonia is said to be \u201clike a palace\u201d (Jewish War 5:141), but it was not a real palace. In short, the praetorium (i.e., Herod\u2019s palace) stretched all the way from the modern Jaffa gate almost to the modern southern wall.<\/p>\n
Model of Herod and later Pilate\u2019s Palace in Jerusalem (Praetorium)<\/p>\n
Golgotha\u2014Calvary. Both the hill of the cross and the nearby tomb were in a site called Golgotha (Aramaic for \u201cskull,\u201d perhaps after the shape of the hill) or Calvary (Latin, similar meaning). For the two centuries prior to its unearthing by the Emperor Constantine ca. 330 A.D., the site was covered by a pagan temple erected by Emperor Hadrian. However it seems highly probable that the memory of this venerable place was accurately preserved by the Palestinian Christian communities. It is of such prime importance that its memory must have been handed down.
\nMoreover, ancient Jewish tombs found in the vicinity point to the existence of a burial ground prior to 70 A.D. The site, which today lies within the walled city, seems apparently oddly situated, as the scriptures tell us that the site was \u201cnear the gate\u201d (John 19:20) or \u201coutside the gate\u201d (Heb. 13:12). Execution or burial within a settlement was strictly forbidden in Jewish law, all the more so in the Holy City where ancient tombs were outside the city walls. At the time of the crucifixion, however, this area was indeed outside the walls. It would be surrounded by the city\u2019s so called \u201cThird Wall\u201d only about a decade later.
\nThe \u201cGarden Tomb,\u201d somewhat to the north of the Ottoman city walls, is believed by some to be the authentic grave of Jesus. This attribution, based on a late nineteenth-century needless conjecture, a brainchild of General Charles Gordon of Khartoum, has hardly anything to recommend itself.
\nThe intensive building operations of Emperor Constantine (his sumptuous and spacious basilica, the Martyrium, was inaugurated on the feast day commemorating the Finding of the Cross, on September 14, 336 A.D.), drastically changed the shape of the terrain. Emperor Hadrian, who erected the pagan shrine, must have had in mind an act of deliberate profanation, and this had to be redressed. The remains of the heathen temple that were regarded most impure have been removed entirely and the rock leveled\u2014so most of the rock covering the burial cave must have been quarried away.
\nWhile there is rich literary material concerning crucifixion in the Roman world, it was only in 1968 that the remains of a man who died on a cross were discovered. The discovery was made most appropriately in a northern suburb of Jerusalem. The skeletal remains unearthed, including a rusty nail that pierced the heel, afford a reconstruction of the crucifixion, perhaps shedding light on the way the most celebrated execution was carried out.<\/p>\n
The water of the Jordan irrigated the Bethsaida Valley
\nCourtesy: Mendel Nun<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 20<\/p>\n
THE STAGES OF REDEMPTION HISTORY ACCORDING TO JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS<\/p>\n
To Shaul Baumann in friendship<\/p>\n
Before the discoveries from Qumran one was not even certain that there existed any tension between the Baptist and Jesus. Now the nature of this tension has become unmistakable. With the help of the writings of the Dead Sea Sect\u2014the Essenes\u2014and pertinent Jewish apocalyptic literature, it has become clear that John the Baptist belonged to that fascinating spiritual world of thought. Jesus\u2019 ideas, on the other hand, were mainly shaped by rabbinism. Regarding the messianic time-table of Jesus, there is evidently no room for his often assumed \u201cacute eschatology\u201d; for him, the day of the Son of Man is still in the future (Luke 17:22\u201324). Their ideological polarity finally led to the separation of these two spiritual giants. Since the basic facts for the schism are not commonly known, I want to present them to the reader.
\nWhen the Baptist heard about the activity of Jesus, he sent two of his disciples to ask: \u201cAre you the one who has to come\u2014or should we expect another?\u201d (Matt. 11:2\u20134; Luke 7:18\u201321). John expected \u201cthe one who was to come.\u201d Previously, he had alluded by this term in his \u201cmessianic preaching\u201d (Matt. 3:4\u20136; Mark 1:7 and Luke 3:16) to Daniel 7:13, which speaks about the \u201cone like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.\u201d Apparently, John the Baptist expected the coming of the well-known eschatological Son of Man.
\nWhile the figure of the Son of Man is known from Daniel 7, it does not belong to rabbinical eschatology. On the other hand, the eschatological Son of Man is an important person in trends associated with Jewish apocalypticism and Jesus. In fact, for Jesus this notion was central. Similar to the apocalyptic writings, he describes the Son of Man as the almighty superhuman judge of the Last Judgment.<\/p>\n
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate men into two groups as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, \u2018Come you who are blessed by my Father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.\u2019 \u2026 Then he will also say to those on his left, \u2018Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.\u2019 \u2026 There they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life (Matt. 25:31\u201346).<\/p>\n
The designation Son of Man does not appear in the writings of the Dead Sea Sect. In a fragment from Qumran the function of the judge of the Last Days is filled by Melchizedek. During the Last Judgment he will separate the righteous from the wicked. He will not only pass judgment, but he will also execute it. According to the writings of the Essene Dead Sea Sect and related apocalyptic writings (as well as earlier biblical eschatology), the Last Judgment will close the current history of humanity. According to some writings, it will even mean an end to the existence of our earth. Wherever the figure of the Son of Man appears in apocalyptic texts, he is always the sublime judge in the Last Judgment. John the Baptist was sure that the Last Judgment was imminent (Matt. 3:10 and Luke 3:9). In John\u2019s eschatology there is no place for any intermediary period between this wicked age and the end of this world\u2014when the Son of Man will be revealed. Consequently, within such an eschatological timetable, which was also adopted by the Dead Sea Sect, there is no place for the rabbinical concept of the kingdom of heaven.
\nJesus sent to the Baptist a partially affirmative answer. A new era had been opened by John. Jesus said to the Baptist\u2019s messengers, \u201cGo and tell John what you hear and see. The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who is not wrong about me\u201d (Matt. 11:2\u20136; Luke 7:18\u201323).
\nA very close parallel from Qumran exists, which confirms the authenticity of Jesus\u2019 message to the Baptist. In the fragment it is God himself who will perform all these marvelous deeds; as in the words of Jesus, he will revive the dead and bring good news to the poor. Jesus concluded his message to John with a warning, \u201cBlessed is he who is not wrong about me.\u201d Jesus\u2019 doubts about the Baptist were justified. John never accepted Jesus\u2019 claim because of their different eschatological time-tables.
\nWhat is important is that Jesus affirmed in principle the Baptist\u2019s question about the eschatological meaning of his activity without explicitly declaring that he was the Messiah. He established his claim to the eschatological office by pointing to his supernatural works of healing. Jesus saw this as an unmistakable sign that the new era had already begun. \u201cBut if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you\u201d (Luke 11:20). In the first redemption, one from the Egyptian yoke, the magicians recognized in the mighty works of Moses \u201cthe finger of God,\u201d i.e., God\u2019s direct redemption (Ex. 8:15[19]). According to Jesus, this was also the meaning of his healings.
\nIn order to fully understand the contrast between the messianic view of John and the position of Jesus, one has to hear the second half of his words to the Baptist messangers.<\/p>\n
Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist, yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is breaking through, and those who break through, take it in possession. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah to come. He who has ears, let him hear (Matt. 11:11\u201315).<\/p>\n
With John\u2019s coming, the kingdom of heaven broke forth. Yet, although John was the greatest among \u201cthose born among women\u201d (cf. Deut. 34:10), \u201cthe least in the kingdom of heaven would be greater than he.\u201d John the Baptist made the breach through which the kingdom of God could break, but he himself was never a member of that kingdom. He was, so to speak, a member of the previous generation. The prophets and the law prophesied until John\u2014he marks the end of the Old Testament era.
\nAccording to Jesus the biblical period ended because \u201call the prophets prophesied until John\u201d (Matt. 11:23), and the present time is the era of the kingdom of heaven. Although John opened the way for the kingdom of heaven, he himself did not belong to the new period. He rather fulfilled the role of Elijah as the precursor of the messianic age.
\nThus, Jesus made a tripartite division of the history of salvation. The first was the \u201cbiblical\u201d period, which climaxed with the career of John the Baptist. The second period began with his own ministry in which the kingdom of heaven was breaking through. The third period will be inaugurated with the coming of the Son of Man and the Last Judgment at a future time which is unknown to anyone. According to this scheme, we still live in the Middle Ages.
\nThe root of the contrast between the \u201cprecursor,\u201d John, and Jesus was the fact that although John was right that a new era was beginning, he believed that it would be the time of the Last Judgment and the end of human history. In the eschatological system of the Baptist\u2014and in the whole apocalyptic trend to which both John and the Dead Sea Sect belonged\u2014an additional period before the judgment was unthinkable. Jesus, however, was sure that through him the age of the kingdom of heaven was inaugurated before the end of days. He recognized a period after the kingdom of heaven\u2014the unknown day of the coming of the Son of Man and the Last Judgment (see e.g., Luke 17:22\u201324; Mark 13:32; Matt. 24:36 and Acts 1:7).
\nJohn believed that the last judgment was imminent; the ax is already at the root of the tree, and the Mighty One will come with \u201chis winnowing fork in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire\u201d (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Jesus rejected such a perspective and expressed his view in the Parable of the Weeds (Matt. 13:24\u201330). \u201cWhile you are pulling up the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest\u201d (Matt. 13:29). Judgment must wait until the harvest. \u201cThen one shall collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned and gather the wheat and bring it into the barn\u201d (Matt. 13:30). It even seems that Jesus\u2019 parable was a fitting answer to John\u2019s harvest metaphor. Today, in the intermediary period, it is inevitable that sinners live in same world with the righteous. Only at the end, in the Last Judgment, will the Son of Man \u201cseparate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.\u201d The sinners \u201cwill go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life\u201d (Matt. 25:31\u201346).
\nJesus adopted the idea of the intermediary period between the historical past and the end of history. Yet he is the only known thinker who drew from this scheme the logical conclusion that until the final destruction of the wicked, the righteous and the sinners would necessarily coexist. This insight was necessary for him, because he identified the intermediary period with the rabbinical concept of the kingdom of heaven\u2014according to which the coexistence of the wicked and the righteous is indisputable.
\nThe only one who inserted the kingdom of heaven as the second stage of the tripartite eschatology was Jesus. We will see shortly that in the contemporary Jewish parallels the second stage, is the messianic age. There were two primary causes for this variation in terminology. The first was that the foundation for Jesus\u2019 views and teaching was rabbinical Judaism. Indeed, the concept which held central importance for Jesus was the kingdom of heaven, and it was exclusively rabbinic. The second reason for his identification of the intermediary stage as the kingdom of heaven was Jesus\u2019 belief that he was sent to lead a movement whose task was to announce that the kingdom of heaven was already at hand. I would even venture that the message of the kingdom of heaven and his role in it was of such importance for Jesus that any other components in his eschatological system were insignificant by comparison.
\nNot only was Jesus the only Jew who introduced the concept of the kingdom of heaven into the tripartite messianic scheme, he is also unique in his identification of the kingdom of heaven with the rabbinical \u201cDays of the Messiah.\u201d He was sure that the messianic age was already present. It has already been recognized that the coming of the Redeemer and the concept of the kingdom of heaven are two independent eschatological structures. Both in rabbinic thought and in Jesus\u2019 view, the concept of the kingdom of heaven is not purely futuristic. One scholar has called this notion \u201crealized eschatology.\u201d
\nThe dangers inherent in a purely futuristic idea of God\u2019s kingship were understood by the Greek translators of the Book of Exodus. The closing words of the Song of Moses (Ex. 15:18), \u201cThe Lord will reign for ever and ever\u201d are translated into Greek, \u201cthe Lord is reigning for ever and ever.\u201d Later on, Rabbi Yose from Galilee (beginning of the second century A.D.) recognized the same dangers: \u201cIf Israel at the Red Sea had said, \u2018He is king for all eternity,\u2019 no nation or language would have ruled over them, but they said (Ex. 15:18), \u2018the Lord will reign forever and ever.\u2019 \u201d
\nAccording to rabbinic Judaism the kingdom of heaven means that the one and only God presently rules de jure, but in the eschatological future \u201cthe kingdom of God will be revealed to all the inhabitants of the world\u201d de facto. There should be no doubt that both for rabbinic Judaism and for Jesus the kingdom of heaven is a present reality, \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is in your midst\u201d (Luke 11:20\u201321; cf. Ex. 25:8 and see the Aramaic Targumim there). Israel\u2019s sages taught that there may even be individuals who are already living, so to speak, in the kingdom of heaven, if they take upon themselves \u201cthe yoke of the kingdom of heaven.\u201d Similarly, we hear that Jesus believed there were already men who had taken the kingdom of heaven into possession (Matt. 11:12). He evidently saw in them pioneers of the expansion of the kingdom of God among men. At this point, Jesus accords with the sages in his view of the kingdom of heaven.
\nIn the pre-Christian Assumption of Moses (10:1) one reads about the Last Days. \u201cAnd then shall His (God\u2019s) kingdom appear throughout all His creation; and then shall the Devil meet his end, and sorrow shall depart with him.\u201d In this apocalyptic writing, the kingdom of heaven is purely eschatological and not, as in the rabbinic tradition, both future and present. Even so, there is one point of contact between the apocalyptic view and Jesus\u2019 idea of the kingdom of heaven, which does not appear in rabbinism; namely, Jesus\u2019 concept of the victory over Satan. When Jesus\u2019 envoys returned and announced to him, \u201cLord, even the demons submit to us in your name,\u201d he replied, \u201cI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven\u201d (Luke 10:17\u201320). We have seen in Jesus\u2019 answer to the Baptist (Matt. 11:4\u20136; Luke 7:22\u201323) that he understood his healings to be proof that a new era had already begun.
\nOn another occasion (Luke 11:20\u201322; Matt. 12:28\u201330), Jesus expressed his opinion about the nature of the kingdom of heaven and his task in promoting it. \u201cIf I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you\u201d (Luke 11:20). At present the devil is not completely defeated, as we read in the Assumption of Moses. Instead, he is weakened. Jesus has overpowered him and has taken the armor in which Satan trusted and divided up his spoils (Luke 11:21\u201322). Jesus explained in the Parable of the Tares (Matt. 13:26\u201330; cp. the Parable of the Dragnet, Matt. 13:47\u201350) that in the period of the kingdom of heaven the righteous and the wicked will coexist until the coming of the Son of Man. Although the Jewish sages did not say explicitly that at present persons who take upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, live among sinners, they would certainly not have opposed the content of Jesus\u2019 parables on the theme.
\nAt the end of the parable Jesus adds: \u201cHe who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters\u201d (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). A movement had begun in Israel, the realization of the kingdom of heaven on earth (Matt. 6:10). The movement necessarily centered around the person of Jesus; separate initiatives, independent of Jesus, would not gather but scatter. One can recognize again how important the concept of the kingdom of heaven was for Jesus. His main task was to be the center of the movement which realized the kingdom of God among mankind\u2014with the aid of co-laborers. \u201cFrom the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is breaking through and those who break through, take it in possession\u201d (Matt. 11:12). He urged his disciples, \u201cThe harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the owner of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest\u201d (Matt. 9:37\u201338; Luke 16:2). With John the Baptist the biblical period came to an end and a new era\u2014that of the kingdom of God\u2014began. Or as Jesus declared at the conclusion of his testimony about the Baptist, \u201cAll the prophets and the law prophesied until John\u201d (Matt. 11:13).
\nIt was (and is) a common Jewish opinion that the kingship of God is both present and future, and that it has existed from the creation of the world, or at least from Abraham\u2019s time. This was not the position of Jesus. According to him the concept of the kingdom of heaven was not static but dynamic. It was a movement which began with John the Baptist. There are a number of reasons why Jesus differs on this point. One is that Jesus understood the kingdom of heaven as not only God\u2019s kingship but as we have noted, a kind of intermediary epoch between the historical period and the end of history. In his messianic timetable it occupied the same place that is represented in other Jewish tripartite systems as \u201cthe Days of the Messiah.\u201d The fact that Jesus spoke about the period of the kingdom of heaven, instead of the Days of the Messiah, hints at his own messianic self-awareness.
\nWe have indicated that in Judaism the coming of an eschatological Redeemer and the kingdom of heaven are two different structures. So it was in Jesus\u2019 mind. This explains why Jesus did not try to bring these two independent systems into a complete harmony. He recognized that the kingdom of heaven is a dynamic power with an imminent tendency to spread on earth, but he did not say (nor did he probably believe) that the final realization of the kingdom of heaven would culminate with the coming of the Son of Man and the Last Judgment. Evidently he could not claim\u2014as I believed before\u2014that the Son of Man would arrive in the moment when, so to say, the invisible church would simply become identical with the visible Church. This would mean that the end of the period of the kingdom would come in the fullness of time (Eph. 1:10), when all the potential elect of God will take the kingdom of heaven in possession. However, such an \u201cecclesiastic\u201d notion of a separate unity of the elect did not fit the open-mindedness of the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus. According to Jesus, the hour of the coming of the Son of Man is known only to his heavenly Father (see Mark 13:32; Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7). \u201cThe Son of Man will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to another\u201d (Luke 17:24). One should remember that the Jewish sages also warned those who had attempted to discover the hidden date of redemption.
\nWhile the tripartite division of time was not an invention of Jesus, he accepted it and adopted it into his personal inspiration. The older Jewish form was bipartite. At the end of history there would be judgment, and the post-historical future would be the eschatological \u201cage to come (\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0).\u201d This is also the eschatology of the earlier apocalyptic literature of the Dead Sea Sect and that of John the Baptist.
\nWhen the centrality of the Messiah increased, however, the conception of the messianic era emerged. It created a tendency to insert this era into the current eschatological scheme. The solutions were not simply a compromise, as is often thought today. The only possibility was to let the messianic era follow our historical period, placing the Days of the Messiah prior to the post-historical era, \u201cthe age to come.\u201d In so doing, a clear division between history and \u201cpost-history\u201d was finally achieved. \u201cThe Days of the Messiah\u201d belong, strictly speaking, to the history of mankind, while the \u201cage to come\u201d is considered beyond current history. The final epoch contains the last judgment, a new heaven and earth, a resurrection and eternal life.
\nToday, it is impossible to know exactly when this tripartite eschatology was formulated. In rabbinic Judaism a precise distinction between the messianic age and the \u201cage to come\u201d was very quickly forgotten, and the pertinent early rabbinical sayings are too short to indicate their thinking fully. In any event, this kind of eschatology was without doubt already firmly established in the second half of the first century A.D. This can be recognized also from rabbinic literature. Almost all the Jewish sages who tried to calculate the duration of the messianic period lived in the second half of the first century or in the second century A.D. They evidently thought that after this period the \u201cage to come\u201d would begin. The teaching of Jesus may even be the earliest unequivocal evidence for this messianic time-table.
\nI am sure that the roots of Jesus\u2019 messianic time-table lay in contemporary rabbinic thought, but if one wants to see this more clearly, one has to ask for help from three apocalyptic texts, all of which were written at the very end of the first century A.D. One of them is the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. The Last Days are there described in chapters 20\u201321. According to this book the messianic reign will endure a thousand years. At the end of this period the Last Judgment and the resurrection of the dead will take place (Rev. 20:11\u201315). After this (Rev. 21:1), says the author, \u201cThen I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.\u201d Then the Holy City, the new Jerusalem will come out of heaven from God (Rev. 21:2).
\nThe two other apocalyptic texts from the same period resemble one another. One is the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the other is Fourth Ezra. The eschatological material in the Apocalypse of Baruch is contained in chapters 29\u201330, 39\u201342 and 72\u201374. The author mostly describes the messianic era, and only hints at the \u201cage to come.\u201d The end of the messianic era is described in 30:1, \u201cAnd it will happen after these things when the time of the appearance of the Anointed One has been fulfilled and he returns with glory, that then all who sleep in hope of him will rise.\u201d After the resurrection, judgment will follow. Especially interesting is the content of 32:1\u20136, where the author speaks about the destruction of the First Temple, the rebuilding of Zion (32:1\u20132), and the second destruction (32:3). Finally, the Temple will be renewed \u201cin glory and will be perfected into eternity\u201d (32:4). It will happen \u201cwhen the Mighty One will renew His creation.\u201d This description of the eschatological Temple very much resembles the Temple Scroll from Qumran (29:7\u201310). In the time of a new creation God \u201cwill create My Temple and establish it for Myself [God] for all times.\u201d By the way, also according to Revelation 21:1\u20132, the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, will come down out of heaven after the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. Thus, this will happen in the \u201cage to come.\u201d
\nEven more instructive for our study is Fourth Ezra (chapters 7 and 12:32\u201336). There the different content of the messianic age and the age to come is clearly indicated. The Messiah \u201cwill deliver in mercy the remnant of my people \u2026 and he will make them joyful until the end comes, the day of Judgment\u201d (12:34). The author is more explicit in 7:29\u201331.<\/p>\n
For my Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and he shall cause to rejoice those who remain for four hundred years. And after these things my servant the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. And the world shall be turned back to the primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. And after seven days the world which is not awake shall be raised and that which is corruptible shall perish \u2026 and the treasuries shall give up the souls which have been committed to them. And the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment.\u2026<\/p>\n
We see that according to this passage, at the end of the messianic days, the Messiah and all mankind shall die, and then the new creation and the Last Judgment will take place. It may be helpful for the reader at this point to outline the main points in the two eschatological systems and the specific position held by Jesus.<\/p>\n
Bipartite System
\nJesus
\nTripartite System
\na. The present wicked age.
\na. The \u201cbiblical\u201d age until John the Baptist.
\na. The present age.
\nb. The Last Judgment (usually with the Son of Man as judge).
\nb. The present realization of the kingdom of heaven.
\nb. The messianic era.
\nc. End of this world and a new creation.
\nc. The Last Judgment with the Son of Man as judge, resurrection, beginning of the \u201cage to come\u201d and eternal life.
\nc. Last Judgment.
\nd. End of this world. The post-historical \u201cage to come,\u201d resurrection, eternal life, a new creation.<\/p>\n
In Jesus\u2019 personal eschatological perspective, the second stage of redemption, the messianic era, is to be identified with the realization of the kingdom of heaven. \u201cNo one who has left his house \u2026 for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life\u201d (Luke 18:29\u201330; Mark 10:29\u201330; Matt. 19:20). This will happen after the Last Judgment, performed by the Son of Man. Then the wicked \u201cwill go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life\u201d (Matt. 25:46). Luke 20:33\u201335 furnishes a further confirmation for this concept of Jesus: \u201cThe people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry, nor be given in marriage.\u201d Finally, we hear, \u201cAnyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come\u201d (Matt. 12:32). Thus, according to Jesus, the period of the kingdom of Heaven will precede the coming of the Son of Man and his last judgment. This will be the time of the resurrection of the dead. In that post-historical age to come, the resurrected will be a kind of new creation\u2014they will be like angels (see also 1 Cor. 15:42\u201354).
\nOnly a few scholars have paid adequate attention to the nature and history of the two eschatological ages, both in Judaism and in Jesus\u2019 eschatology. One cannot blame them, because the differences between the messianic age and the age to come is not well documented, neither in rabbinism nor in early Christianity. In both, this messianic time-table was almost forgotten. In the Gospels it is better preserved than in rabbinic writings, but already in the Gospels the critical moment of history became the Cross, and the messianic chronology of the \u201chistorical\u201d Jesus was only of secondary importance. Although the terms \u201cthe Days of the Messiah\u201d and \u201cthe age to come\u201d coexist in rabbinic writings until now, the difference between these two ages became almost instantly meaningless. Thus the best witnesses for the Jewish tripartite chronology are the three apocalyptic texts from the end of the first century A.D. Through the Book of Revelation, from time to time it has been partially renewed by chiliastic movements even until our own day.
\nWe do not know when in Jewish thought the messianic age was harmonized with the former two-fold concept of the unredeemed world and the time of salvation. As I already said, Jesus seems to be the earliest witness for this new system. His creative spirit and his high, messianic self-awareness have changed its structure. In addition I have noted that even though the figure of the Son of Man is foreign to rabbinic sources, Jesus has integrated this sublime character from current apocalyptic expectations (which were evidently also the hope of the Baptist). Therefore in the eschatological system of Jesus the coming of the Son of Man was postponed, together with the Last Judgment, to the distant future. This change was the crux of the conflict between the Baptist and Jesus. Nevertheless, I believe that Jesus came to the conclusion that he himself would eventually be revealed as the divine Son of Man.
\nThe most important innovation of Jesus was his identification of the messianic age with the rabbinical kingdom of heaven. He borrowed the concept of \u201cthe kingdom\u201d from an independent system, and incorporated it into another rabbinical redemptive framework, namely, the tripartite time-table. The identification by Jesus of the Messianic age and the kingdom of heaven in which Jesus would have the central task is, by the way, an additional proof that Jesus was sure that he was the Messiah. In his answer to John the Baptist he claimed (Matt. 11:4\u20136; Luke 7:22\u201323) that his own blessed activities show that the time of salvation is here. There were at that time many who believed that John was Elijah. Jesus described John as the man who opened the way for the realization of the kingdom (Matt. 11:12\u201315). He finished his words by saying that \u201cif you want to accept it, he [John] is Elijah who is to come.\u201d According to popular belief, Elijah will announce the coming of the Messiah. \u201cHe who has ears to hear, let him hear!\u201d Jesus was not wrong when he asserted that before the \u201cday of the Son of Man\u201d the age of the kingdom of heaven will still come. Those who are shown to be wrong are the modern adherents of the \u201cacute eschatology\u201d of John.
\nThe results of the present study have important consequences for the evaluation of the messianic self-awareness of Jesus. He adopted contemporary Jewish interpretations which divided history, and he identified the Days of the Messiah with the period of the kingdom of heaven. Our study indicates that for Jesus the messianic period no longer lay as a hope in the future. It had already begun with John the Baptist, and Jesus was now the Messiah. It is also possible to understand how Jesus modified the structure of the concept of the kingdom of heaven. In the understanding of Jesus, the kingdom of heaven became more dynamic than in rabbinic thinking. Since according to Jesus the kingdom was identical with the messianic period, it was no longer, as in rabbinic thought, an eternal suprahistorical entity. It became a dynamic force which broke through into the world at an identifiable point in history. The kingdom of heaven began to break through with John, and Jesus\u2014the Messiah\u2014was in the center of the movement. \u201cHe who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters\u201d (Matt. 12:30).<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 21<\/p>\n
A NEW PORTRAIT OF SALOME<\/p>\n
Salome\u2019s image has been obscured and marred due to the personas created for her by writers of the past 150 years. Salome is famous for the part she played in the execution of John the Baptist. Since 1863, she has been depicted in books and films as morally depraved. Diligent research reveals, however, that the real Salome is much different than popular portrayals.*
\nThe paradoxes begin with the fact that her name does not appear in the Gospels. We know her name from Josephus\u2019 account of the story (Antiq. 18:136\u2013137) and from the coin that bears her portrait\u2014incidentally, hers is the only surviving portrait of a person mentioned in the Gospels. Another paradox is the distortion of her story in modern literature and art.
\nHerod Antipas saw in John the Baptist and his movement a potential threat to his rule. In order to eliminate the threat, John \u201cwas brought in chains to Machaerus [Antipas\u2019 fortress on the eastern side of the Dead Sea] \u2026 and put to death there\u201d (Antiq. 18:119). Matthew 14:3\u201312 and Mark 6:17\u201329 provide additional details of John\u2019s execution. Although Mark influences Matthew, the Matthean report also contains information obtained from another, better source. Mark 6:17 mistakenly identifies the first husband of Herodias, Salome\u2019s father, as Philip. Perhaps the error arose from the fact that Philip was the name of Salome\u2019s first husband.
\nMark inserts a fascinating detail about Antipas (Mark 7:19\u201320): Herodias wanted to kill John, but Herod feared John and protected him knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled, yet he liked to listen to him. According to Matthew 14:5, the situation is simple and more plausible: Herod wanted to kill John, but was afraid of the people because they considered John to be a prophet. Matthew\u2019s words match the attitude of Antipas that Josephus describes.
\nThe anecdote about Salome\u2019s dance is nearly identical in Matthew and the longer Markan account. Let us consider Matthew\u2019s version:<\/p>\n
On Herod\u2019s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for them and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, \u201cGive me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.\u201d The king was distressed, but because of his oath and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother (Matt. 14:6\u201311, NIV).<\/p>\n
Mark tells the story in this way: Herod Antipas\u2019 birthday offered Herodias a good opportunity to get rid of the Baptist. During the celebration, her daughter Salome danced for Herod and his guests and Herod promised to give the girl whatever she asked. Salome went out and said to her mother, \u201cWhat shall I ask for?\u201d \u201cThe head of John the Baptist,\u201d she answered. At once the girl returned to Herod with the request: \u201cI want you to give me the head of John the Baptist on a platter right now.\u201d Herod gave orders to carry out the girl\u2019s request. The head of John the Baptist was brought to her, and she gave it to her mother.
\nWhere did the girl dance before her step-father? It happened on his birthday. He \u201cgave a banquet for his high officials and military commander and the leading officials of Galilee (Mark 6:21). This description fits the capital of Galilee, namely Tiberias and not the Transjordanian Machaereus, a stronghold on the border of Antipas\u2019 territory. It is incidentally the locality where according to Josephus (Antiq. 18:119) the Baptist was imprisoned and finally put to death. I believe that it will be easy to explain why Josephus committed this error. Machaereus is mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. 118:111\u2013112) already before in connection with Antipas\u2019 first wife. Before Antipas could repudiate her, she got wind of his (Antipas\u2019) compact with Herodias. \u201cTherefore, she asked him to send her away to Machaereus, which was on the boundary between the territory of Aretas (her father) and that of Herod \u2026 So she speedily reached her father and told him what Herod planned to do.\u201d
\nThe fact that the Nabatean wife of Antipas escaped to her father through Machaereus gave birth to the erroneous second mention of this stronghold (Jos. 18:119) as the suggested place of the imprisonment and the execution of the Baptist. Josephus betrayed himself that the second mention of Machaereus is his mere assumption derived from its prior mention, because he says in Antiquities 18:119 that the place where John was held and executed was \u201cMachaereus, the stronghold that we have previously mentioned.\u201d
\nIn Antiquities 118:19 Josephus erroneously repeats the mention of Machaereus. He evidently did not know that John\u2019s execution was connected with the birthday banquet of Antipas, where many guests were present, among them the notables of Galilee. So he mistakenly repeated the mention of Machaereus.
\nJosephus does not speak about John\u2019s preaching against the illegality of Antipas\u2019 marriage with Herodias, but he reports that because of his repudiated daughter, her Nabatean father made war with Antipas, which ended with Antipas\u2019 defeat (Antiq. 18:113\u2013114). One can see that even in Josephus\u2019 Antiquities there is a causal connection between Antipas\u2019 matrimonial troubles and the execution of the Baptist.
\nSince the second half of the nineteenth century, famous fictional treatments of the Gospel narrative have diminished our grasp of Salome\u2019s character\u2014and the facts of the original story. The story is easy to sensationalize: a ruler\u2019s scheming wife dupes her unsuspecting young daughter. A similar incident could have taken place within the courts of a contemporary Roman emperor or, in our times, in the company of communist or other dictators.
\nThe distortions began in 1863 with the biography of Jesus written by Ernest Renan, a Frenchman. He imagined that Salome was as morally depraved as her mother, Herodias, and assumed that the girl\u2019s dance was erotic. In 1877, Renan\u2019s personal friend, Gustave Flaubert, composed a short story about Herodias in which the erotic element became even more pronounced. The treatment is colored, no doubt, by Flaubert\u2019s very real affair with a belly dancer in Egypt.
\nLater, author Oscar Wilde portrayed Antipas\u2019 stepdaughter as dark and perverse. In 1893 he wrote \u201cSalome,\u201d a tragedy, in French. The work was translated into English by Lord Alfred Douglas, the same man who lured Wilde into a homosexual relationship. In Wilde\u2019s play, Salome falls in love with the Baptist, but succeeds in kissing his lips only after John is beheaded. Then, in 1905 Richard Strauss composed his opera \u201cSalome\u201d based on Wilde\u2019s play.
\nThe historical details of Salome\u2019s life are also problematic (see Josephus, Antiq. 18:136\u2013137). Today, some scholars accept the view that Salome was about nineteen years old at the time of her dance before Antipas in approximately 29 C.E. However, her actions in the Gospel accounts indicate a significantly younger age, that of a girl of twelve or less. A nineteen-year-old probably would not have run to her mother for instructions. Moreover, both Mark and Matthew refer to Salome as a korasion, a young girl (Mark 6:22, 28; Matt. 14:11). Note that Jairus\u2019 daughter, called korasion by Matthew and Mark (Mark 5:41\u201342; Matt. 9:24\u201325), is, according to Luke 8:42, a child of twelve.
\nSome time after her famous dance, Salome married Philip, the tetrarch of Trachonitis, son of Herod the Great, who was likely many years her senior. It was Philip who enlarged the city of Paneas at the foot of Mt. Hermon and renamed it Caesarea in honor of the Roman emperor Tiberius (Antiq. 18:28). Since there already existed a city on the Mediterranean coast by that name, the new city was called Caesarea Philippi, that is, Philip\u2019s Caesarea (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Philip began his rule in 4 B.C.E. and died childless in 33\u201334 C.E. Assuming Salome was about twelve at the time of her dance in 28\u201329 C.E., she became a widow at the age of seventeen.
\nIn 41 C.E., Claudius became Roman emperor with the help of Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the Great. For his good services, Agrippa was made king of Judea, and his brother, Herod, king of Chalcis (41\u201348 C.E.). Aristobulus, the son of Herod king of Chalcis, became the second husband of Salome. Salome bore Aristobulus three sons: Herod, Agrippa and Aristobulus. The third received the name of his living father, a custom which was then not uncommon in Jewish society (see, for example, Luke 1:59).
\nEvidently, Salome did not marry her second husband, Aristobulus, before 41 C.E. when her father-in-law became king of Chalcis and Aristobulus became crown prince. Then, Salome was about 24 years old, and her second husband was probably younger than she. Salome\u2019s portrait appears, together with her husband\u2019s, on a coin minted in the year 56\u201357 C.E. At that time, she was approximately 39 years old.
\nThus, the proper analysis of the pertinent data of her biography and the passages in the Gospels does not lead us to conclude that Salome was a morally depraved person. On the contrary, her biographical profile suggests a normal, moral personality.
\nThe portrait on the new coin represents Salome as she looked in the year 56\u201357 C.E. at the age of 39 or 40. Did she still, with a cold shiver, reflect upon the ghastly scene of her receiving John the Baptist\u2019s bloody head on a platter?
\nWhen the coin was placed in circulation, another tragedy was on its way. After a forced departure from Ephesus, Paul went to Macedonia before going south to Achaia (probably Corinth) for three months in 56\u201357 C.E., prior to his final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21; 20:1\u20133). Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and later executed in Rome. Probably, the daughter of Herodias was not even aware of the Apostle to the Gentiles\u2019 existence.<\/p>\n
On the reverse of a coin of Aristobulus king of Lesser Armenia is the bust of Queen Salome. Crowned with a diadem, the queen is encircled by an inscription that reads, BACI\u039bICCHC CA\u039b\u03a9MHC (Basilisses Salomes, [A coin] of Queen Salome). The coin was minted in 56\u201357 C.E. (Abraham Sofaer Collection, Palo Alto, California)<\/p>\n
A coin of Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and first husband of Salome. Minted at Paneas (Caesarea Philippi), the coin entered circulation in 30\u201331 C.E. Encircled by a Greek inscription that reads, \u03a6\u0399\u039b\u0399\u03a0\u03a0\u039f\u03a5 (Philippou, [A coin] of Philip), the bust of Philip the tetrarch adorns the obverse of the coin. The date, \u201cYear 34,\u201d appears within a wreath on the coin\u2019s reverse. (Abraham Sofaer Collection, Palo Alto, California)<\/p>\n
title Jesus
\nauthor Flusser, David and Notley, R. Steven<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
FOREWORD The present volume marks the culmination of David Flusser\u2019s lifelong interest in and study of the historical Jesus. His unwelcome death on his 83rd birthday, September 15, 2000, has brought to a close a legacy of erudition that will not soon be seen again in Israel. This third edition of his biography of Jesus … <\/p>\n