The question here is this: to what extent may Jesus be said to be part of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”? This essay will argue that both the name “Jesus” and the idea of “the Jewish Holy Man Tradition” are problematic and need to be looked at carefully. The argument will be structured in three sections. First we will consider the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”. This phrase is misleadingly neat. Judaism in the first century AD was in fact both variegated and contested, and was the subject of vigorous internal discourse. Examination of key figures in the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” will underpin our subsequent argument that this tradition was in fact constructed; historical events and personalities were selectively reinterpreted, moulded and edited in a process that was underpinned by both religious and political motivations. This analysis draws on Eric Hobsbawm’s idea of “The Invention of Tradition”. Section Two will consider Jesus in the light of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”. This section begins with a discussion of the relevant sources, and their significant limitations. The central argument of this dissertation is that the “Jewish Holy Man” paradigm is of great use in making sense of Jesus context and cultural origins. However in the third section we will consider ways in which Jesus might be thought of as having gone beyond the “Tradition”, in terms of both self-conception (Sanders), and the question as to whether he had a political agenda (Crossan). The adequacy of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” as an analytical framework through which to assess Jesus’ mission will then be considered in the conclusion.
