The Jewish Jesus: A Partisan's Imagination

Previous articleNext article No Access"On the Trial of Jesus": A Review Article On the Trial of Jesus. Paul Winter Frederick C. GrantFrederick C. Grant Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 44, Number 3Jul., 1964 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/485690 Views: 11Total views on this site Copyright 1964 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Jesus was brought to Pilate on the day of the Preparation of the Passover and was crucified on that same say. At 18,28 John tells us that the Jews did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. At 19,31 the Jews ask Pilate to break Jesus' legs and have him removed from the cross. The trial and death of Jesus show, more clearly than ever, that the Law of the Jews is incapable of securing the conviction and death of Jesus as one who is opposed to the Law and that, on the contrary, the death of Jesus is demanded by the Law as its fulfillment. By perverting justice and securing Jesus' condemnation on grounds which have nothing to do with the Law, but are rather opposed to it, the Jews are shown to have rejected the Law.Keywords: crucifixion of Jesus; Jewish law; John; Passover; Pilate; trial of Jesus

Sinoptik Problem ve Redaksiyon Kritiği: Giriş Mahiyetinde Bir Değerlendirme

When at the onset of the twentieth century, the influential German theologian Albert Schweitzer published a historiographical account of the ‘historical Jesus’, a discrete number of silent films devoted to the life and death of Christ had already appeared in Europe and the United States. This article analyses the rise of early silent films about Christ against the backdrop of the debate enhanced by the rise of the ‘historical Jesus’, presenting some of the relevant similarities and divergences that representations of the life of Jesus produced through different media and within an increasing relevance of mass culture.

The Gospel of Mark contains much information about Jesus from the baptism by John, through the public ministry, to the passion narrative and the empty tomb. This chapter gives an overview of the understandings of the Gospel of Mark and of Mark, the evangelist, throughout the centuries. It then surveys the various methodologies for studying the Gospel that have emerged over the last one hundred and fifty years and evaluate their implications for using Mark to reconstruct the historical Jesus. Author turns to contemporary scholarship's views and uses of Mark to construct Jesus, summarizing present views on Mark's authorship and provenance, addressing how current Markan commentaries treat the historical Jesus, and viewing how representative Jesus scholars use Mark. He then focuses on the overall (un)reliability of Mark. He concludes with a few brief suggestions regarding the use of Mark in historical Jesus studies. Keywords:authorship; baptism; evangelist; Gospel of Mark; historical Jesus; scholars

This study examines the expression of the Son of Man in the Gospels. As far as I know, there has been no study that deals with its characteristics of each Gospel by comparing the four Gospels after classifying the references to the Son of Man by theme according to each Gospel. G. E. Ladd conducted a similar study, but his classification is somewhat general and broad. Therefore, I supplemented Ladd’s study through this study. This study is divided into three parts.<BR> In the first part, I looked at how the expression of the Son of Man can be classified thematically in the four Gospels. Ladd categorized this expression in the four Gospels into three main categories. I followed his first and second categories. But I made subcategories for his third category.<BR> The second part discussed the synoptic problem based on what I observed in the first part. Based on the analysis of the Son of Man passages in the synoptic Gospels, I suggested that the order of composing the synoptic Gospels was in the order of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. This section outlines two main theories of the synoptic problem. One is the two source hypothesis. The other is a theory that denies the existence of Q. This theory also assumes that after the Gospel of Mark was written, Luke read and used the Gospel of Matthew before writing his Gospel. I supported the latter theory based on my observation of the references to the Son of Man in the synoptic Gospels in the first part.<BR> In the third part, the relation between John’s Gospel and the synoptic Gospels was discussed based on what I observed in the first part. Based on observations of the Son of Man passages in the four Gospels, I suggested that although the Gospel of John did not directly use the synoptic Gospels, the author of John’s Gospel knew the synoptic Gospels and wrote his Gospel based on the content of the synoptic Gospels. I also argued that the idea of the author of John’s Gospel of linking the cross to glory was influenced by the Gospel of Luke as well as the theology of Isaiah.

Reviewed by: Reading Mark's Gospel as a Text from Collective Memory by Sandra Huebenthal Ritva H. Williams sandra huebenthal, Reading Mark's Gospel as a Text from Collective Memory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). Pp. 694. $74.99. This volume is Sandra Huebenthal's translation of her 2014 work Das Markusevangelium als kollectives Gedächtnis (FRLANT 253; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); this translation includes a "Foreword" by Werner H. Kelber. Huebenthal begins with an "Exegetical Kaleidoscope" of Gospel scholarship in which she argues for orality-scribality, memory-theoretical approaches, and narrative criticism as preferred hermeneutical lenses. Using these methods, H. intends "to read Mark's Gospel as a collective memory text, namely, one that reflects the efforts of a group to draft a group identity based on that group's memories of Jesus" (p. 81; italics original). To advance this goal, H. devotes a chapter to "Social Recollection," bringing together insights from social memory theorists, primarily Maurice Halbwachs and Jan and Aleida Assmann to produce an ideal type model or matrix of social, collective, and cultural memory. Next, she lays out a model for reading Mark as a memory text. This begins with recognizing that the Gospel consists of individual episodes initially narrated orally within social memory. When transferred into the overall narrative structure of Mark's Gospel, these memories are modified and acquire new meanings (p. 185). As a written text, Mark becomes collective memory functioning as an identity-constituting founding story for a community of commemoration. H.'s reading model begins by gaining an overview of the whole text, paying attention to what is and is not narrated, how it is narrated, its guiding perspectives and transparency. Huebenthal reads the whole narrative as explicating "the (correct) perception of the character Jesus" (p. 235) for the purpose of constituting and organizing a community of narration and commemoration. She sees "the experience of crisis and dealing with crises as a continuous subtext" to which the proper response is "usually withdrawal, composure (also in prayer), reconstitution and continuation at a different place" (pp. 248–49). [End Page 139] Huebenthal devotes three chapters to a detailed analysis of Mark 6:7–8:26, in which she explores the text's intertexture to discover the cultural patterns and frames that have shaped the narrative. Possible Worlds Theory (PWT) enables H. to explore the perspectives of different characters in the text, and of the narrative voice. PWT posits four possible worlds for each character: K-world (knowledge, information, skills, doctrines, convictions, and hypotheses about past and future), O-world (obligations, values, norms, internalized duties, conventions, morals, ethics), W-world (wishes, needs, drives), and I-world (intentions, plans). Finally, H. sheds light on the text's transparency for the community of narration by focusing on the "pragmatics of the text." Rather than asking who the author and audience of Mark's Gospel are, she asks "to which form of Christian identity construction Mark's Gospel offers its invitation" (p. 403). She answers this question by engaging in an intratextural reading, connecting characters and narrative voice with the structure of the whole text. Through these three different strategies, H. demonstrates that in Mark 6:7–8:26 memories of Jesus are presented predominantly within the cultural frame of Hellenistic Jewish Scripture (LXX), traditions, rites, and customs, with some pagan patterns and references appearing in the healing and miracle stories. Based on her PWT assessment, H. contends that "two different worlds converge [in the text] that cannot be reconciled" (p. 396). One is the "O-world" of characters like the Pharisees, scribes, and Herod Antipas; the other is the W-world of Jesus. The narrative voice, through the arrangement of episodes and subtle signals, clearly directs the hearer/reader to adopt Jesus's perspective (p. 397). H. posits a community of commemoration open to newcomers who identify with Jesus, who recognize their own fears, doubts, and mistakes in the disciples, and who try not to repeat them (p. 504). Clean/unclean, Jewish/gentile, rich/poor, sick/healthy, inside/outside are no longer relevant. Jews and gentiles have the same experience of Jesus, yet they do not merge into one group. Community members face local conflicts about matters...

No matter what their views on this subject, the phrase 'the historical Jesus' is understandable to most contemporary students of the Bible. To Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas or John Chrysostom, however, such a phrase, rendered into their native tongues of course, would have not been immediately intelligible. For us, the phrase 'the historical Jesus' assumes that there is a gap between the gospels' portrayal of Jesus and Jesus as we come to know him in the light of various historical investigations. This is a gap that these premodern characters would not have recognized. It may be tempting to think that the difference between Luther, Aquinas, Chrysostom and us is that they had a naively literalistic understanding of the gospels, neglecting or glossing over textual puzzles which would later provide fuel for historical study of Jesus. While the adoption of such a posture towards our premodern predecessors is very common in historical Jesus studies, it simply would not be accurate. As soon as the church recognized four canonical gospels it also recognized the extraordinary diversity of these texts and the differing things they said about Jesus. Nevertheless, attempts to harmonize the four gospels into one, such as Tatian's Diatessaron , have never succeeded in replacing the four gospels in all of their differences. Further, when disputes arose, it was not normally due to one side's recognition of a diversity ignored by their opponents. The difference between Ireneaus and his Valentinian opponents, for example, was not that Irenaeus refused to recognize the diversity of the New Testament texts and the Valentinians did. The difference lay in the ways they ordered that diversity.

This article is a brief review of two main paths of biblical scholarship with respect to the ‘gospel’ genre. The NT Gospels appear to be similar to other ancient literature in some ways, yet distinctive enough in content, form, theology and purpose to set them apart from other literature. The analogical approach shows how the Gospels were written in a form similar to other written documents of that time and culture. In contrast, the derivational approach attempts to show that the Gospels are unique and exclusive in all of literature. While the search for the ‘historical Jesus’ is not over, literary criticism has now set the Gospels within the concept of ‘story’, with all its literary implications. Scholars have suggested that the ‘Gospel of Mark’ is the first of its kind, becoming the foundational paradigm of the Gospel genre. Further, the discovery of ancient ‘apocryphal gospels’ has encouraged scholars to compare the NT Gospels to the non-canonical documents.The challenge of clearly identifying the ‘Gospel genre’ continues, as scholars try to understand the nature of both canonical and non-canonical stories of Jesus.

This chapter recognizes both the successes and problems inherent in the representation of the Historical Jesus and his teachings in the Quest. Jesus als Lehrer employed the approach of the Scandinavian scholars and attempted to further develop it in the areas of Jewish popular education and Jesus' authority and methods as the Messianic Teacher. In spite of some opposing voices the majority of scholars accept the existence of synagogues in the Diaspora and in Erez Israel in the Second Temple period. The letters of Paul and James are important witnesses of the state of affairs between Jesus and the synoptic gospels. Although the Fourth Gospel has points of connection with the synoptic tradition, especially in its Lukan form, it is rooted in a largely independent tradition. Keywords:Fourth Gospel; historical Jesus; Jewish education; Luke; Messianic teacher; Paul; synagogue; synoptic gospel; Third Quest

According to the faith of the Church Catholic, Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the Son of God. The problem of the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith is, of course, still there in Jesus research. This article looks at some recent approaches and theses in Jesus research concerning the question of continuity (or discontinuity) between Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith. Here instead of following up these hints concerning a continuity from Jesus of Nazareth to the post-Easter church and then on to the Christological dogma of the Church Catholic, this paper will take a brief look at some proposals regarding a Wisdom Christology in sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. Keywords:Christ; Christological dogma; Church Catholic; faith; historical Jesus; Nazareth; post-Easter church; Son of God; synoptic gospels; Wisdom Christology

Reviewed by: Annotations on Matthew, Chapters 1–18. Sermons on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 18 by Martin Luther Mark Mattes Annotations on Matthew, Chapters 1–18. Sermons on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 18. By Martin Luther. Edited and introduced by Christopher Boyd Brown. Luther’s Works, Vol. 67. St. Louis: Concordia, 2015. li + 452 pp. The bulk of this volume is devoted to presenting Luther’s “annotations” on Matthew, chapters 1–18, written 1534–1535. However, it also contains sermons on Matthew 18. Luther’s Works, volume 68, continues that specific sermon series, from 1537–1540, with homilies from Matthew chapters 19–24. In the sixteenth century, “annotations” meant not impromptu notes but instead extensive commentary (xlviii). The annotations were prompted by Luther’s attempt to encourage his preaching-shy student Hieronymus Weller who had been assigned to preach on Matthew. With these notes, Weller’s confidence soared and his tongue was set free. Finding great value in these annotations, Weller’s circle of friends and Luther’s associates, behind Luther’s back, assembled them, mostly in Latin, into this text (xlv). Georg Rörer edited them for publication, which took place in October 1538. For many, this volume will prove helpful since it provides Luther’s most extensive dealing with a synoptic Gospel. The volume is valuable not for how it analyzes the structure of Matthew in contrast to the other synoptic Gospels, John, or Q in presenting the “historical Jesus.” Instead, it speaks Luther’s mature voice, all with an eye to preaching Jesus Christ as presented in Matthew. In a word, the Jesus that Luther offers is “the scandal of scandals for the [End Page 347] Jews and for all nations. This is still the case, and so it must remain forever, because on account of him [Jesus] as on account of the true God we must treat everything else as inferior, and He Himself is to be exalted over all things as the true God. Thus, under lowly words, His infinite majesty makes itself known to believers” (116). Even so, bridges to the Christology of Lutheran orthodoxy can be found. Hence, Luther refers to Christ’s active life (akin to the Lutheran orthodox designation “active obedience”) and his “passive life” (akin thus to the “passive obedience”) (129). Of the many themes that Luther develops, the conviction that a “good tree bears good fruit” is clearly explicated: “. . . a good heart is so abounding in goodness and a sheer fountain, bubbling spring, and treasure of goodness that it not only does and says good, it not only praises as good what others say and do that comes from God, but it can even turn into good for itself the evil said and done that comes from the devil . . .” (180). Hence, Luther’s ethics include bearing injustices (34) and are motivated by a “superabundance of love” (43). Luther’s study of Matthew is driven by the humanist impulse to “return to the sources” (ad fontes) (3). While the concept of desire is seldom developed in Luther scholarship, Luther himself urges that we desire God’s grace in addition to “contempt of self.” This disposition of the new being in Christ is in contrast to the self, understood as the old Adam or old Eve, who believes he or she can be quite independent of grace (45). Yet, this truth is to be balanced with Luther’s eschewal of any Christian perfectionism: Luther notes that the quest for “excessive holiness” is actually unbecoming of the church (200). In response to Roman Catholic claims of Petrine authority, Luther notes with respect to Christ’s commendation of Peter (“. . . on this rock I will build my church”) that it is not the papacy on which Christ builds the church. That Rock is itself Christ: “For it is necessary that the Church, founded and built up and victorious over hell, should stand upon a living, eternal foundation, upon the Rock that will abide with her until the end of the world” (278). This volume is a delightful addition to Concordia’s new volumes of Luther’s Works. It is always exciting to see Luther’s exegesis as a [End Page...

James Charlesworth needs little introduction to those who have been involved in biblical studies, scholarship concerning Second Temple Judaism, and the archaeological finds of the last 50 years. In fact, his research has often dictated the direction of those guilds. In this dense volume, Charlesworth brings together several essays centered around his writing on John’s Gospel.The volume begins with a preface detailing five well-known characteristics of the Gospel of John, followed by nine new insights from recent archaeological discoveries and research. The well-known characteristics include the normal talking points of the Johannine school, multiple editions of the Fourth Gospel, and John’s knowledge of the architecture and topography of Jerusalem. The subject of his “new insights” section permeate the chapters that follow. These include the historical veracity of the Pool of Bethzatha and Siloam, Jesus’s Last Supper and trial, John’s fondness for Samaritans, the dating of John’s Gospel, and the study of the historical Jesus from the perspective of John.The 18 chapters in this volume are cataloged under four main headings. The main headings are: (1) the origin, evolution, and settings of the Gospel of John; (2) John and the historical Jesus; (3) the Gospel of John and other sacred literature; and (4) Symbolic language in the Gospel of John. Charlesworth’s intention is to argue five different theses. First, John is not a late composition. Second, John is not dependent on the Synoptic Gospels. Third, John’s Gospel went through many editions spanning 50 or so years. Fourth, John is not a Gnostic text. Fifth, John is not anti-Jewish. The volume includes several pictures that catalog Charlesworth’s travels and archaeological digs. These pictures are informative and endearing. To use pictures for pedagogical reasons is quite different from being part of the initial discovery and producing the first digital images. Charlesworth has had the privilege of being in the latter category.The conclusion summarizes the essays with an element of charm. Charlesworth switches to the first person in order to speak more causally about his own convictions concerning the breadth of scholarship collected in the preceding chapters. The end matter includes a bibliography for those seeking more study and multiple indexes for ease of use.Charlesworth falls into a category of scholars that have an extensive publishing career. The value in a volume of this nature is bringing together all of this research concerning one topic by one phenomenal scholar. There are essays for everyone who is interested in the continuing research of the Fourth Gospel. Particularly illuminating is the in-depth analysis of archaeological research that validates historical details of the Fourth Gospel. Students of this Gospel will find an intriguing resource on pp. 8–12, where Charlesworth presents 45 new and potentially fruitful questions for further research. To produce a 600-page compendium of your life’s work and still have 45 additional questions is truly remarkable.Notwithstanding these commendations, some readers will find small issues in methodology throughout the volume. As I read through the book, I wondered what effect the recent renewal in oral tradition may have had on some of Charlesworth’s conclusions. As Samuel Byrskog notes in his insightful article (“Jesus the Only Teacher: Further Thoughts,” in Treasure Old and New, p. 44), recent interest in social and collective memory has altered the search for the historical Jesus. Another point of contention with the research presented is a dismissal of literary methodologies and consideration of the Gospel in its final form. Charlesworth admits that he finds these approaches “unscientific and distorted” (p. 19), but that should not completely negate their findings. For example, discourse analysis has shown the internal integrity of John 14–17, a section that Charlesworth argues is disjointed and evidence of John’s editions.As mentioned above, Charlesworth begins the volume with a section on “well-known” characteristics concerning John’s Gospel and its composition. “Well-known” should be more reflective of a history of interpretation than assumed as true. Call me a traditionalist (Charlesworth’s title for those who deny the “well-known,” p. ix), but “new insights” are also being discovered that affirm a singular author and unified Gospel. I am also less than optimistic that John 2 may suggest a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (see pp. 460–516). I am among those who think the primary purpose of this narrative is to show Jesus’s first “sign” in revealing the glory of God (see John 1:14).Overall, this volume brings together a wealth of knowledge from an avid researcher. Charlesworth mentions in his introduction and conclusion that his love of John began during his third-grade year at Jacksonville Beach Elementary School. It is evident that Charlesworth’s love for the Fourth Gospel has not dissipated, and the reader of this volume will inevitably be encouraged in their own pursuit of the genius of the NT.

ANCIENTChristian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea. By Geza Vermes. (New Haven: Yale University Press. 2013. Pp. xvi, 288. $30.00. ISBN 978-0-300-19160-8.)Geza Vermes, who passed away in May 2013, focused most of his scholarly attention on the Dead Sea Scrolls and on the historical Jesus. Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea was his final book, and in it Vermes endeavors to build upon his work on the historical Jesus through an assessment of how Jesus went from Galilean holy man to the second person of the Trinity at Nicaea in 325. Vermes argues that this metamorphosis developed over two unequal phases. The first phase was the short Jewish phase that lasted from AD 30 to 100, with the Synoptic Gospels, the first twelve chapters of Acts, and the Didache being the texts that correspond to this phase. These texts demonstrate that early Jewish-Christian followers did not view him as divine, but understood Jesus simply to teach total surrender to God in expectation of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. Ss. Paul and John, however, definitively alter perceptions of Jesus. Paul, whose writings were addressed to Gentile rather than Jewish audiences, draws attention to Jesus himself rather than to his message, elevating Jesus to the triumphant Son of God who is the source of universal salvation. John's Jesus bears no resemblance to the charismatic holy man from Galilee, but is turned into a celestial savior through John's appropriation of terminology derived from Plato and Philo. One finds in both Paul and John a harbinger of things to come, for it is during the second phase (the Gentile phase from the early-second century to the Council of Nicaea in 325) that we find Jesus and his religion fundamentally transformed to become that which would have been unrecognizable by Jesus and his first followers. With referthe ence to an array of Christian texts from the second through the fourth centuries, Vermes traces the progressive elevation of the figure of Jesus by Gentile Christians, an elevation that corresponded to the influx of Graeco-Roman ideas and modes of thinking foreign to Judaism. Thus one finds Justin Martyr, for example, initiate and explicate a Christology deeply imbued with Greek philosophical thought, and later thinkers develop an understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ along these lines. Vermes notes in particular the contributions of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, and Origen, the latter representing the summit of pre-Nicene Christian thought. …

Since the late nineteenth century, New Testament scholars have operated on the belief that most, if not all, of the narrative parables in the Synoptic Gospels can be attributed to the historical Jesus. This book challenges that consensus and argues instead that only four parables—those of the Mustard Seed, the Evil Tenants, the Talents, and the Great Supper—can be attributed to the historical Jesus with fair certitude. In this eagerly anticipated fifth volume of A Marginal Jew, John Meier approaches this controversial subject with the same rigor and insight that garnered his earlier volumes praise from such publications as the New York Times and Christianity Today. This seminal volume pushes forward his masterful body of work in his ongoing quest for the historical Jesus.