Jesus and the "Jewish Holy Man Tradition"

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.


Section One: The “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”

Judaism

The title's use of the word “Jewish” risks implying that the context of first century Judaism was monolithic in nature. In reality, however, it was diverse . Institutionally, the Temple in Jerusalem was central , and it was held to be sacred. It had been magnificently restored by Herod, self-consciously echoing Augustus’ marbled transformation of Rome . By contrast, synagogues were not thought to be sacred , however their precise function remains unclear. The Temple’s priests formed a large and complex religious quasi caste-based aristocracy and bureaucracy, financially sustained by the tithes of the Jewish population , and seen as mediating God’s rule (co-existing with that of Herod) . Their key concern was ritual purity, as confirmed by the recent discovery of ritual baths (miqvaot) . The Pharisees were also concerned with purity , and were determined to secure this by rigorous practice of the Torah. Our reliance on the New Testament’s portrayal of the Pharisees is problematic . The Essene community revealed through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls seemingly had another, different, approach towards purity - that of distancing themselves from the Temple regime . Geographically, the priests were in Jerusalem, the Pharisees tended towards urban centres (and there is very little evidence that in the age of Jesus they had settled in Galilee) , while the Qumran community lived in isolation. Each of these different components claimed to represent the true Judaism .

Jewish socio-economic and political distinctions add to this sense of variegation . In the first century the area was under Roman control, with the Romans ruling directly in Judaea to the south, but indirectly through Herod Antipas in Galilee, which had an unusual degree of independence . The Herodian class lived extravagantly and created the urban centres of Sepphoris and Tiberias – all at the peasantry’s expense . Archaeological evidence of their mansion-like residences indicates that leading priests also lived a life of luxury . Jewish society was unequal and enduringly stratified , contravening Jewish ideals of inclusivity, and all the more notable given Galilee’s rich natural resources . Consequent tensions were manifested by increased banditry, prophetic movements, and underpinned the subsequent Zealot rebellion. An alternative approach, that of the Qumranites, was that of distancing themselves altogether from the Jerusalem priesthood. Crossan emphasises the social inequality experienced by similar peasant communities beyond Galilee and throughout the Mediterranean, underpinning his conception of Jesus as having an agenda for social change .

Judaism was also dynamic , which has major implications for the sources. After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Pharisees and their heirs the rabbis emerged as the most prominent voice in Judaism . While for generations their traditions remained oral, some rabbis went on to compile and to edit the available sources, and an influential line of argument suggests that in doing so they edited those sources with the agenda of consolidating rabbinical dominance. In the words of John Dominic Crossan, “by the end of the second century CE rabbinic Judaism was deeply involved in retrojecting its ascendancy onto earlier history” . In consequence the diversity of first century Judaism was for the most part only indirectly evidenced in the surviving Jewish literature . Christian literature may also have played its part with the New Testament’s relentlessly negative portrayal of the Pharisees, despite the fact it does not portray them as having anything to do with Jesus being put to death . This hostility arguably constitutes contamination in the light of Christian communities’ struggles with the Pharisees at the end of the first century , and also their desire to blame Jesus’ death on the Jews in order not to deter Gentile converts. In these ways the complexity and true nature of first century Judaism have come to be obscured.

The “Holy Man Tradition”

“Jewish Holy Men” operated outside the Jewish religious institutional framework , their legitimacy stemming from an especially close and personal relationship with the Jewish God . Vermes argues that Judaism was practised on two distinct levels: the official, institutional form as organised and led by the priests, and this popular form outside the established religious order and which was presided over by individuals believed to be directly favoured by heaven . Weber notably uses the term “charismatic” to characterise individuals operating prior to a religious movement becoming a settled hierarchy . The problem here is that such individuals remained a feature of Christianity long after its institutional hierarchy was settled, which suggests that Weber’s theory is overly teleological and schematic, and more basically that it simply doesn’t flow from the facts.

The methods used by these “Holy Men” bypassed the Jewish religious institutions. Fundamentally, their access to divine power was personal rather than via communal ritual . Their connection with God was presented as being direct, immediate and informal, constituting a popular route outside of the prescribed and institutional ways of relating to God . Was this similar to magic? Crossan defines a “magician” as someone who can access divine power personally and directly by means of a miracle, rather than though institutional ritual . The key similarity here is the absence of the institution, and thereby the approval and control of the community and in particular it’s hierarchy. As such the “holy man’s” independent actions constituted a potential challenge to the collective’s modus operandi, or at least an implicit critique of it . A further key distinction relates to the precise means of accessing this divine power: we shall see below that the “holy man” tradition came to emphasise the importance of prayer, whereas magicians did not require this step.

One of the most characteristic activities of the “Jewish Holy Man” was that of healing. Jews saw sickness as a symbol of sin , and it was considered that God alone held sway over these matters . So, priests were in charge of diagnosing leprosy, for example . Healings were also associated with prophets including Elijah and Elisha and figures such as Noah and Solomon . Jewish Holy Men offered a route to the healing power of God that was both direct and immediate. While poverty and detachment from earthly possessions are recurring features of the “Jewish Holy Man”, Solomon’s inclusion indicates that God’s special favour was not strictly the preserve of social outsiders.

The “Jewish Holy Man” tradition can be broadly contrasted with the prophetic tradition in that the “Holy Men” - most specifically in their wonder-working - were more concerned with the predicament of particular individuals rather than with the nation of Israel . However Crossan argues that in the stories of Elijah and Elisha we can observe a strand of the prophetic tradition that combines prophecy with popular individual wonder-working . So, as well as defending the worship of Yahweh over Baal, meeting with God on top of a mountain, foretelling military defeat, and being taken up to heaven after a Mosaic parting of the waters , Elijah was said to have performed quite a number of miracles of a more personal nature. Strikingly, as we shall see below, some of the miracles attributed to Jesus were very similar to those associated with Elijah . Crossan sees this combination as establishing a distinctive and competing northern tradition of prophecy, building on Mosaic precedent, but one that finds no continuation within the Bible due to the fact that the Temple and its priesthood took over the functions of healings and the negotiation of appropriate rainfall .

We will now look more concretely at two key first century figures Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa (our discussion drawing heavily upon Vermes).

During a time of drought Honi drew a circle in the earth and stated that he would not move out of that circle until rain had arrived . His petition to God was successful, bringing the rainfall that was so crucial to the area’s agrarian economy . Our main source here is the Mishnah, the official codification of rabbinical law produced around 200 AD, and we also hear of Honi though Josephus . Honi’s helps Vermes construct a model for the “holy man” as a type . First, Honi was an individual who performed a miracle for the benefit of other people, involving control over nature. Secondly, the basis of Honi’s miracle is presented as being that of prayer and the closeness of his relationship to God. Honi refers to himself as a son of the divine household, and confidently if rather petulantly insists on heavier rain than that initially provided . Contrast Honi’s grandsons who had similar reputation and rain-making abilities but who were rather more humble . Thirdly, Honi’s activities would have reminded Jews of Elijah on Mount Carmel . This ties in with Crossan’s idea of the northern tradition of prophecy combined with wonder-working . Fourthly, according to Josephus Honi died a martyr’s death, having refused to use take sides between two groups of disputing Jews .

Hanina been Dosa, like Jesus a Galilean, came to be regarded as “rabbinic Judaism’s most prominent wonder-worker” . His charismatic healings included healing at a distance by means of prayer, and he was also renowned for his dialogues with and mastery over demonic powers, although not actual exorcism. Hanina was also thought to be able to control the rains at will. Remarkably, a heavenly voice was said to have been heard calling Hanina as “my son”, and to do so on a daily basis (bat-qol) This clearly fits with the agenda of portraying Hanina as a Jewish Holy Man rather than as an independent magician. Later teachers held Hanina up as being a man of perfect righteousness, and indeed we hear of a leading Pharisee of Hanina’s own time who spontaneously recognised his superiority. Hanina was also regularly likened to Elijah, who Vermes identifies as “the prototype” for Hanina’s character and miracle-working. While Hanina was remembered as having authored a number of teachings (albeit curiously a mere four sayings), he was primarily associated with his benevolent miracles. The wonder-working activities of both Honi and Hanina are also both presented as being underpinned by the conviction that these stem from a close relationship with God .

The activities of individuals such as Honi and Hanina posed a very significant problem for Judaism. These Jewish Holy Men operated unilaterally rather than under the aegis of Jewish religious institutions, and as such they posed a problem on the level of religious authority. If Holy Men as individuals could directly access God’s power, as evidenced through their miracles, then this questioned and undermined the community’s institutional approach to accessing the divine . The existence of a direct approach via independent wonder-workers suggested that religious ritual on the community level was not strictly necessary. After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 rabbinic Judaism moved into the ascendancy, and was faced with the question of how to deal with these unregulated wonder-workers .

The activities of both Honi and Hanina were included in the Mishnah, the authoritative collection of rabbinic law . Law was of central importance to the rabbis; ritual law, rather than myth or theology, was their primary interest . Rather, the evidence suggests that the Mishnah was the product of a “process of selection, revision, deletion and accretion” , rather than as a product of unbroken transmission as it claims. The Mishnah’s contents were altered to suit the preferences of those who were putting it forward as authoritative i.e. the rabbis. This practice was fairly routine in ancient literature , and this process, which Green characterises as “reimaging”, had earlier applied within Judaism to no less a figure than that of Moses himself .

Detailed textual analysis of the Mishnah’s representation of Honi has allowed historians to unpick the process of what Crossan calls Honi’s “rabbinization”. This was the process by which Honi was reshaped and re-characterised in order to be brought within and so appropriated by Jewish institutional religion. Crossan identifies the core of Honi’s story, that of his standing inside the circle and not moving until it rained, as an ancient Jewish magical rite, in that Honi was directly accessing divine power as an individual. However subsequent editors bring Honi within mainstream Judaism by means of a number of subtle literary alterations. The textual devices used include a prayer being added before Honi turns to his ritual, Honi’s words being recast as prayer, his circle becoming the fulfilment of a prophecy, an image being added of Honi meditating on a Psalm, our being allowed to hear Honi addressing God as “Abba”, “Father” , and the whole event being justified by means of a text from Proverbs . Similar techniques were used in the case of Hanina, implausibly recast as a rabbi . As with Honi, Hanina’s magic is re-characterised as prayer: when relating Hanina’s healing of a child from a distance, three codicils were added to make it clear that prayer was the means by which the healing was effected . Further, a link between Hanina and the great Rabbi Gamaliel II is created when Hanina heals the Rabbi’s son at a distance, subsequently explaining that his prayer had been answered . By these means among others Honi and Hanina were not merely made more acceptable to rabbinical institutional religion , but were absorbed within it, and indeed used to strengthen it.

Why was this “rabbinization” carried out? Honi and Hanina had to be neutralised because, unlike many other wandering wonder-workers, they were too powerful to ignore. They – or the traditions surrounding them - were sufficiently popular to constitute a genuine threat to the authority of the rabbinical Judaism that was attempting to consolidate and assert its power. More positively, the role of both Honi and Hanina regarding rainfall was one that rabbinical Judaism wanted to claim for itself . While this had previously been under the remit of the priests, after the fall of the Temple the rabbis wanted to show that now fell under their ambit. The inclusion of Honi within the Mishnah – Honi being known above all for his rain-making abilities - was a means of claiming ownership of this particular role. So, the wonder-workers were made into “Jewish Holy Men”. The very fact that this process of appropriation needed to be carried out is perhaps indicative that the relationship between Jewish religious authorities and these independent “Jewish Holy Men” had been, in reality, somewhat strained. Jesus himself could not be absorbed into the Jewish canon, for the obvious reason that the Christologies of many developing early Christianities were incompatible with Judaism, and indeed were viewed as blasphemous . The defector Paul was simply ignored.

In light of the processes of appropriation outlined above, the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” can be said to be “constructed”. It was the product of selection: choices were made as to which figures needed to be “rabbinized” and which could be safely ignored. Its key characters were reframed and so were appropriated by the dominant paradigm, that of the rabbis. These presentational gymnastics were undertaken for reasons of religious politics and power, to promote the rabbis’ understanding of history. Eric Hobsbawm’s idea of “The Invention of Tradition” is of relevance here, the idea being that many practices which are considered traditional are in fact quite recent inventions, often deliberately constructed to serve particular ideological ends . To the extent that it exists within Judaism, the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” is similar Hobsbawm’s “invented traditions”.

 

Section Two: Jesus and the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”.

Preliminary discussion of the sources is essential, because they have a number of very significant limitations. First, regarding quantity, “our information [about Jesus] is ..deficient in comparison to what is available for most of the great men of the Graeco-Roman world” . Yet we have vastly more information about Jesus than about these other “Holy Men”, which makes comparison less straightforward. Secondly, there is no material that dates from the time Jesus was alive. The earliest known references to Jesus are in Paul’s letters, written in the 50s, and which tell us surprisingly little about Jesus the man or his teaching, instead focussing on Paul’s vision of “the risen Christ” . We do not know who wrote the gospels, but they were not written by eyewitnesses, and most historians date Mark, the earliest gospel, to the early or mid 70s AD , by which point the early Christianities’ relationships with Judaism had been developing (inevitably towards separation according to Chiltern) , although the timing of this disengagement (disengagements?) is disputed . The evangelists were addressing a primarily Gentile audience just after the Jewish War when anti-Jewish feeling was rife ; they were associated with but yet increasingly presenting themselves as unconnected to the Jews ; needing to explain the awkward fact that a Roman prefect had seen fit to crucify their leader , but yet were starting to enjoy considerable success . Thirdly, the gospels (and other documents that have come to be regarded as apocryphal), while not the products of pure invention, were not history or biography in the modern sense . They were written through the eyes of faith, aiming at glorification , and were written to serve the needs of the communities that the respective evangelists were part of , and specifically to serve the Christians’ sense of mission – a desire to convert that was highly unusual in the ancient world . The gospels’ authors were comfortable with inventing elements of their contents to fit with what they thought “should” have happened in the light of their understanding of Old Testament prophecy, the classic example of mythological embellishment being the mutually contradictory birth narratives , straining to impressively locate Jesus’ birthplace at Bethlehem, David’s city and the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah . The lack of agreement as to who actually saw Jesus after his resurrection constitutes another notable set of contradictions . The authors of the gospels, like the Jews with regard to the Mishnah, were engaging in their own process of construction. But for the historian it can sometimes be difficult to tell whether a particular event has been invented, e.g. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey , as actions with messianic symbolism may have been deliberately undertaken. Fourthly there are major differences between historians on central issues. As regards the interdependence of the gospels, while it is generally agreed that Matthew and Luke drew material from the earlier writings of Mark , intense controversy has surrounded the complex question as to whether some of their layers drew on an early common source “Q” . The independent status of the gospel of John (which many believe to stem from a separate tradition ) and also that of the “Gospel of Thomas” - discovered at Nag Hammadi - are also both complex and controversial .

Before beginning his own ministry Jesus was reportedly baptised by John the Baptist, whose demand for repentance and proclamations that the nation of Israel were imminently about to suffer the fiery judgement of God were firmly within the prophetic tradition, warning in particular that mere descent from Abraham did not guarantee God’s favour . This starting point sets Jesus firmly in the context of Jewish eschatology, and his baptism surely implies endorsement of John’s message. Both Jesus and John called for repentance in the light of the fact that “the climax of history was at hand” . However the tone of John’s message is less compassionate , and John’s asceticism contrasts with the accusations that Jesus faced of gluttony . The early Christian church promoted sayings in which John explicitly states that Jesus is superior to him , this insistence possibly being required by the awkward fact that Jesus had been baptized by John , indicating both subordinacy and general acceptance of John’s message, and therefore placing Jesus within the Holy Man tradition of which John himself was part. This conflicted with some early Christian communities’ understanding of Jesus as divine . However Jesus’ baptism by John was fundamental to the narratives of Jesus’ life, making it difficult to remove, and also requiring explanation. This requirement also applied, on a rather larger scale, to the criminal’s death to which Jesus was subjected on the cross.

The figures Jesus is associated with both connect him to the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”, but also indicate that he transcends it. Jesus, like Hanina, is compared to Elijah, who may be viewed as the prototype of the Jewish Holy Man . Elijah’s second coming had been foretold in what came to be the final sentence of the Old Testament Malachi 4:5, and Luke’s vision on Jesus being carried up to heaven is strongly reminiscent of the story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a fiery chariot . Hanina is likened to Elijah on a number of occasions, which is striking given the limited quantity material that exists regarding Hanina. The presentation of Jesus is also goes beyond this, however: by invoking the figures of Abraham, Moses, and David , the gospels place Jesus in the broader and grander context of the “history of salvation”. This strand of tradition is operates alongside the northern Elijah-based tradition. Notably Matthew reports Jesus himself as identifying John the Baptist, rather than Jesus himself, as the returned Elijah . Significantly, at the “transfiguration” both Elijah and Moses are present, representing both the prophetic and the salvific strands within Judaism .

The extraordinary personal intimacy with God enjoyed by both Jesus and Hanina was spontaneously recognised on a number of occasions; by a leading Pharisee in the case of Hanina , and by, for example, the priests in the Temple when Jesus was a child and also – in the tradition reported by the early Christians - by John the Baptist himself . These recognitions help to boost Jesus’ authority. Given the point that the New Testament was not written by eye-witnesses, and also those made by Crossan regarding editorial accretion, my inclination is that these are probably embellishments carried out with a view to elevating (and so constructing) their subjects.

As with Honi and Hanina before their subsequent “rabbinization”, Jesus operated outside of Jewish priestly institutions and also outside of influential sects such as the Pharisees or the Essenes . The gospels repeatedly place Jesus in opposition to the Pharisees, and go to some lengths to emphasise this conflict . Sanders, however, argues that “Jesus lived, on the whole, as a good Jew” , observing the Sabbath and the food laws, supporting the Temple with its sacrificial and purity laws , and whose key commandments were rooted in Old Testament tradition . Sanders views the alleged tension between Jesus and the Pharisees as a tactical projection of disputes at the end of the first century, and designed to promote converts among the Gentiles. Moreover, it is Caiaphas representing Judaism’s sacerdotal authorities, rather than the Pharisees, who is implicated in Jesus’ death . In these ways Jesus is located in opposition to the two main religious groupings within first century Judaism, but yet his religious observance positions him within Judaism in a broader sense.

The idea of offering a direct route to God, on the popular level and independent of institutional mediation, suggest a further resemblance. Members of the “Jewish Holy Men Tradition” provided this direct route, and Jesus similarly “offered an immediate and direct route to God’s love and mercy... [saying] in effect “Give up everything you have and follow me, because I am God’s agent”” . Just as Jesus’ offer was predicated on the closeness of his relationship with God, so Honi addresses God as “Abba”, or “Father”. As with Hanina, the closeness of Jesus’ relationship with God was depicted as being confirmed by the emanation of a heavenly voice, at the scenes of both his baptism and transfiguration . Notably the heavenly voice refers to Hanina as “my son”. In reality Jesus does not seem to have given himself titles , but some early Christians came to characterise him as “Son of God”, a designation which some Jews found blasphemous . In the Jewish context the term “Son of God” did not have the implication of either divinity or exclusivity, as all Jews were, or could be, “Sons of God” , and indeed Israel had been characterised as God’s “firstborn son” in Exodus . Notably Augustus characterised himself as divi filius (and as saviour of the world) . However some of the early gentile Christian communities began interpret this intimacy in a literal sense more familiar to the Hellenistic world , which marked a clear point of departure from the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”.

Miracles are another key similarity. While miracles were a recurrent feature of the ancient world, the Jewish religion was particularly well-known for them . Miracles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament evoke those performed by Elijah and Elisha whose wonder-working included feeding a starving crowd, healing lepers, and raising people from the dead . Hanina’s changing of vinegar into oil could be contemporary with Jesus’ transformation of water into wine . More particularly Hanina’s own healing a child at a distance is paralleled by Jesus’ healing the centurion’s servant in Capernaum , although while Hanina is represented as conducting his healings by prayer Jesus is usually depicted as healing by touch. Further, both Hanina and Jesus directly address demonic powers: Hanina negotiates the frequency of their visits to certain towns, while Jesus permits them to enter a herd of pigs . Elijah’s influence over nature , as echoed in Honi and Hanina’s rainmaking abilities, is further paralleled by Jesus’ calming of the storm. The certainty that accompanies these miracles constitutes another similarity; while Honi and Hanina, in their redacted deeds at least, are confident in the power of their prayer, Jesus is equally sure that faith (pistos) as small as a mustard seed can move mountains . These types of miracles were familiar to their audience , and did not either start or stop with Jesus: healing miracles in the name of Jesus continued after his death , exorcisms were carried out by Paul , and both kinds of miracles are considered by Christian fundamentalists to continue right up to the present day. The faith in God of both Jesus and the earlier members of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” also underpinned their trusting acceptance of poverty . Socially, they were outsiders.

Ethical teaching is another parallel, to some extent. This point is significantly qualified by the fact that only four teachings are attributed to Hanina , in contrast to the much greater quantity associated with Jesus . That said, the originality and significance of Jesus’ teachings has been questioned, given that it drew on long-accepted Jewish precepts , notably that of loving ones neighbour as oneself . Further, Paul’s letters contain remarkably little about Jesus’ ethical teaching . Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, however, can be seen as modifying and so correcting Moses’ message by requiring a higher standard of ethical behaviour , as concretised in “the eye of the needle” and other parables. Contrast the Roman moral framework that was based on honour rather than on love . From the present-day perspective, I think that there is a danger of dwelling disproportionately on Jesus’ ethical teachings because they are more comprehensible than the primary – eschatological – thrust of his message (discussed below).

The martyr’s death constitutes a further similarity. Josephus relates that Honi was stoned after refusing to take sides in a dispute between the Jews . John the Baptist also died a martyr’s death, the New Testament relating that Herodias’ daughter wanted his head as a birthday present , but Josephus suggesting the rather more political and plausible reason that it was feared John’s preaching might precipitate a rebellion . The New Testament’s version presents a version of John that might raise fewer questions in the minds of potential converts, and as such may indicate an editorial intervention to sanitize a figure who had been closely associated with Jesus. Jesus’ own death will be discussed below in section three.

Section Three: Jesus beyond the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”?

The “Kingdom of God” was central to Jesus’ vision, and a persuasive line of argument (Sanders’) suggests that Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom underpinned the hostility that many Jews felt towards him. Jesus’ conception of the “Kingdom of God” was eschatological in nature , as confirmed by the many references to this concept throughout the New Testament and particularly by the idea of God’s kingdom coming and his will being done on earth in the Lord’s Prayer . His vision of the end time (the eschaton) was that of the prophesied restoration of Israel (Isaiah’s nineteen references to which being emphasised by N.T. Wright ), symbolically represented by the twelve disciples , and achieved by means of decisive divine intervention . This arrival of the “Kingdom of God” would entail the destruction of the existing Temple regime , and so Jesus’ eschatological vision put him on a theological collision-course with the Temple authorities. Paul’s conviction that the world was about to end confirms that the arrival of the “Kingdom of God” was thought of in literal terms , the awkward fact that it did not happen suggesting that it was an authentic prophecy of Jesus himself . Setting this in context, most Jews in the first century believed that at some point God would bring the world to an end, preceded by a struggle between good and evil, although there was no agreement as to when or how it would happen . Some Jewish texts have a central figure of “the Messiah” (the anointed), but this figure is either missing or minor in many other Jewish texts of this period, which present a picture of the Messiah that is contradictory and confused (Goodman) , offering “no hard definitions” (Sanders) , who doubts that Jesus really applied this term to himself . In reality, however, Jesus’ put forward a radical conception of the Kingdom of God that was revolutionarily inclusive. Prostitutes, tax-collectors and other characters from the margins of society feature prominently in the New Testament, and particularly in Jesus’ parables. Jesus said that these “lost sheep” would be accepted by God even without the repentance that John had called for . Sanders argues that this conception of the “Kingdom of God” as being open to all, very much including the wicked and sinners, is central to explaining the hostility of many Jews towards Jesus . This vision of the “Kingdom of God” posed a fundamental challenge to the Mosaic system, and also to the authority of the Temple and the priests. Jesus’ claim to know who was in and who was outside of the covenant challenged the authority of the law itself, and Sanders argues that this point is in fact the key to explaining the hostility of many Jews towards Jesus . Moreover, Jesus saw his own role as being central to God’s eschatological denouement: while rejecting the idea that Jesus called himself the “Messiah” or “Son of God” in any literal sense, Sanders argues that Jesus considered himself to be in some sense “king” (“viceroy” being Sanders’ preferred term ), to be above the judges of Israel , and advocated that the most important thing to do was to follow him . This self-conception is very different to how Hanina and Honi are represented as thinking of themselves: while Honi considered himself to be a son of God, Jesus’ assertion of his own supremely elevated position, combined with his arrogant dismissal of conventional religious authority, would have been utterly unacceptable in the eyes of many Jews.

Jesus’ differences with members of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” came into high relief in the final week of his life, culminating with his trial and execution. His elevated self-conception was indicated by his reported arrival into Jerusalem on a donkey , an act redolent with messianic symbolism . The disturbance Jesus created with the money-changers at the Temple was possibly meant to symbolise the destruction of its priestly bureaucracy , and chimes with the idea that he advocated a Judaism that was open to all. Jesus was tried by Judaism’s priestly authorities (despite the fact that the Pharisees are demonised throughout the New Testament) suggesting it was the Temple that felt most threatened by him. Millar argues that John provides the most accurate source for the trial of Jesus, noting that its author seems particularly aware of Jewish festivals and the significance of the Temple, and suggesting that the trial of Jesus was itself influenced by these same factors . The Temple authorities could well have been extremely anxious about Jesus’ activities among the crowds in Jerusalem during the heightened atmosphere of Passover , not least given the possibility of a heavy-handed Roman response at the slightest hint of disorder.

Sanders’ explanation powerfully connects Jesus’ central message, that of the “Kingdom of God”, to his ultimate execution, and as such is plausible in terms of causation. It also makes sense of the point that Jesus’ followers were not also executed, given that they were not considered to be either a political threat by the Romans, or a religiopolitical threat by the Jewish authorities (once their leader had been removed). In posing such a fundamental and direct challenge to Jewish religious authority, Jesus differed in kind to his predecessors in the Holy Man Tradition. While Honi and Hanina offered a popular route towards the divine, and as such also presented an implicit challenge to institutional authority, their activities were largely limited to wonder-working. As such they could be either ignored or absorbed - into a constructed “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” - with comparative ease. By contrast Jesus posed an explicit ideological challenge to the covenant itself - to the whole Mosaic edifice of authority, obedience and purity - a challenge which to the Judaic authorities was wholly unacceptable. For these reasons, Sanders’ position is accepted as being persuasive.

Crossan, by contrast, sees Jesus as espousing a radical agenda of both religious and economic egalitarianism . Setting Jesus firmly within the context of an economically and socially stratified Mediterranean society, Crossan notes that Jesus’ miracles reached out to the most oppressed sections of society. Crossan emphasises the centrality and symbolic importance to Jesus of eating together at a shared table, and also the egalitarian nature of Jesus’ healings . Crossan places weight on the story of the man who sends his servants out to invite guests, instructing them to bring whoever they find . This is seen as a political act, aiming at a non-hierarchical society, and gesturing towards Jesus’ subversive and revolutionary political programme that would ultimately require his execution . Significantly, Crossan reaches his interpretation of Jesus by drawing on what he considers to be the authentic sayings of Jesus from the controversial sources of Q and Thomas . However, there are a number of problems with Crossan’s perspective. It does not explain why Jesus’ followers were not executed, not least given that the prefect Pilate was dismissed from office due to subsequent executions which were as prolific as they were unconsidered . More fundamentally, Crossan’s basic argument is that the idea of the “Kingdom of God” related to political equality . However the more straightforward interpretation of this core of Jesus’ message is that it was eschatological in nature. The idea of giving to Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God’s suggests acceptance of the earthly status quo, as does the idea that the poor are in fact blessed . Further, if Jesus was convinced that God was about to bring about some kind of dramatic and fundamental change in the world , societal reform would surely have been superfluous . Crossan’s efforts to locate Jesus within the broader context of Mediterranean peasantry have led to criticism that he “[is attempting] to construct a portrait of Jesus without reference to Judaism” , or as transcending it . Crossan would in fact acknowledge that “the historical Jesus must be understood within his contemporary Judaism” , and indeed very much agrees with Vermes’ understanding of Jesus as being part of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”. However on the basis of both its neglect of Jesus’ eschatology, and its lack explanatory power, Crossan’s analysis must be rejected.

 

Conclusion

Vermes’ conception of Jesus within the complex model of the “Jewish Holy Man” is adopted as a plausible framework, albeit with the following qualifications. Firstly, Judaism in the first century CE was itself both variegated and contested. In subsequent centuries the rabbis went on remodel Jewish history and laws in their own image, in order to serve their own religious and political ends. In this sense the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition” is a constructed tradition. Secondly, the partisan nature of the Christian sources, written with the agenda of promoting the risen Christ and his ethical and eschatological message, coupled with their paucity and there not being eyewitness accounts, mean that Jesus is destined to remain enigmatic , with plenty of scope for personal and theological interpretation. Thirdly, Sanders’ argument that we can discern that Jesus as having gone beyond other members of the “Jewish Holy Man Tradition”, specifically in terms of his thinking that he could decide who was “in” and who was “out” of the Jewish covenant with God, is accepted as plausible. Crossan’s argument that Jesus’ agenda extended to political revolution is however rejected as being incompatible both with Jesus’ central idea God was about to take charge in the world, and with his predominant concern namely the Jews’ relationship with their God. It also fails to explain why Jesus’ disciples were not simply put to death.

George Tyrell accused nineteenth century Jesus historians of looking down to the bottom of the well and seeing only the reflection of their own liberal Protestant faces . I wonder if a similar argument can be applied to the work of Crossan; whether, after the prominence of the socialist and democratic struggles of the twentieth century, there exists the danger of giving disproportionate interpretative weight to the ideals of equality and freedom. To do so might be tempting in that it constructs a Jesus who is more comprehensible and more meaningful to us, thereby breathing new life into - by means of rendering rather less “other” - the figure of Jesus the wonder worker and eschatological prophet, whose legacy has such prominence in the modern world, and yet whose methods and concerns were so alien to it. Indeed, given Jesus’ anticipation of imminent divine intervention, it seems that he did not think that the modern world would ever come to exist at all.