The Jewish Jesus: A Partisan's Imagination

Abstract

My own approach to finding the historical Jesus in the text of the New Testament may appear to some as extreme. It seems to me that Mark, the earliest gospel version on the life of Jesus compiled shortly after the destruction of the Second Jewish by the Romans in 70 C.E., contains authentic traces of the historical Jesus shrouded in repeated motifs of secrecy which are intended to obscure the role of Jesus as a political revolutionary sympathizer involved in the Jewish national struggle against Rome. When the Gospel of Mark is analyzed in its own light, without recourse to the special status which canonical tradition confers, it is less history and biography and more historiosophy and parable. It also features an astute polemic against the Jewish Christian believers in Jerusalem, whose influence diminished considerably following the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and a clever apology to make early Christianity palatable to Rome by not identifying Jesus with the national aspirations of the Jews. The Markan account on the trial of Jesus and his execution, along with the portrait of a pacifistic Christ, are for the most part historically questioned by S. G. F. Brandon, who sees in these narratives attempts by the Gentile Church to win Roman favor by exculpating Pontius Pilate from his share in the crucifixion of Jesus.(64) I agree. Regarding the Synoptic Gospels' (Mathew, Mark, Luke) account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin,(65) the trial before Pilate,(66) and the sentence of death,(67) the question of historical fairness intrudes into these accounts. Jesus is tried three times (the Sanhedrin night-trial which found him guilty of blasphemy, the trial before Herod Antipas, and the dawn-trial before Pilate), and so which court decisively condemned Jesus?(68) Where in the biblical-talmudic tradition is blasphemy defined by claiming that one is the the Son of the Blessed?(69) Lev 24:13-23 and Sanhedrin 7.5 proclaim that whoever curses God is guilty of blasphemy.(70) Rarely recorded are malediction and impious profanity by one who claims to be a messianic figure. True, Josephus reported many messianic pretenders between 6 and 70 C.E., but we have no record of any put to death. Bar-Kochba was called Messiah by Akiba, but tradition does not speak ill of either second-century hero. And no less a personality than Maimonides relegated the messianic doctrine to a secondary position among the articles of faith rendered in his name. Also, one guilty of blasphemy was stoned to death and not killed by crucifixion as recorded by Mark.(71) That Jesus was sympathetic to the Zealot cause may explain why the charges of sedition were not overtly denied by Jesus when asked, Are you the King of the Jews?(72) Other references support this view. One of the trusted disciples was Simon the Zealot.(73) The Zealot Movement, rooted in the tradition of being zealous for the Lord,(74) arose in the Galilee in the first decade of the first century. It may be assumed that the child Jesus raised in Nazareth would have listened often to tales of Zealot exploits against the hated Romans and how many of the former died martyrs' deaths in a futile attempt to replace the bondage of Rome with the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.(75) These childhood experiences listened to in earnest and awe caused the adult Jesus to sympathize with the anti-Roman feelings of his people. Thus, the cleansing of the Temple pericope is not to be read as anti-Temple but rather as a critique of the functionaries who collaborated with Rome.(76) This episode appears to have coincided with an insurrection in Jerusalem during the period of Gaius Caligula (34-41), in which the Zealots appear to have been involved.(77) The famous question concerning tribute to Caesar has Jesus saying, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's,(78) thereby implying Jewish support of Roman fiscal and political policy. This is an assimilable position and it is very doubtful that the historical Jesus identified with it. …