Radical Faith

Home

Book Reviews

Thought Map

Historical Jesus

Debate

Plain Guide

Honest Sermons

Richard Holloway

Roots

Questions

Assorted

Links
About this site
The Dedicated Life

The Historical Jesus Puzzle (Continued)

Looking back it appears now to have been relatively easy to demonstrate that across the diverse writings which are extant there is a fairly constant emphasis on Torah as God's gift and on the priority of God's grace [39]. Caricatures of Judaism as a system of self-justification by accumulating merit, borne of reading Paul's disputes with fellow Christian Jews as a source for understanding Judaism as a whole and of historical disputes within post Reformation western Christianity, are slowly giving way to more sensitive and differentiating assessment. 

While Sanders's attempt to portray a "common Judaism" has not convinced all [40],

The importance of Sanders's exposition of restoration theology is that it provides a context for Jesus' preaching about the kingdom. The hope was not some vague utopian dream but a vision of changed reality, especially for Israel. For the poor and for oppressed Israel it is good news. It will bring reversal. The imagery associated with this hope in the Jesus tradition reflects prophetic hope for Israel's restoration, the gathering of the lost and scattered sheep, the eschatological banquet, the renewal or rebuilding of the temple, the establishment of new leadership on the twelve thrones of Israel, and signs of healing and deliverance. This makes sense of the particularity of Jesus' vision and ministry, focused on Israel.

Sanders’s emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus' eschatological hopes finds affirmation in Wright's massive volume on the historical Jesus, part of an ambitious undertaking to write a comprehensive account of New Testament Theology [41].[43], takes Sanders's notion of restoration eschatology further. 

Wright speaks regularly of the hope for the completion of the return from exile. The language feels somewhat imposed on the material, more so than the general language of restoration which Sanders used. It suggests the strength of a motif which is not directly present. Nevertheless my chief difficulty with Wright's construct is that it has been set within the frame espoused by Caird and influential in Borg's work [43].[44].

There is doubtless much truth in this, but I find Wright overplays this emphasis. Eschatological imagery is not be collapsed into contemporary politico-religious commentary. Ideas of a judgement day, of resurrection, of being at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the restored Israel, suggest something of grander scale established by divine initiative. Wright's analysis, though much less sceptical than that of Jesus Seminar scholars, nevertheless is vulnerable to similar criticism. 

How then could there be such discontinuity between the alleged understanding of eschatology shared by Jesus (and Wright would argue, John the Baptist) and that of the early church? The problem is that he has posed the alternatives too sharply. We may agree: it is not a prediction of the end of the world but also a good deal more than return and renewal. Transformation and transfiguration, judgement and resurrection, do suggest something in between.

The most careful, painstaking, current project is that of J P Meier, who introduces his project as based on a fantasy of what a Catholic, a Protestant, Jew, and an agnostic scholar, using the resources of the Harvard library, might agree to say about the historical Jesus [45]. While conscious of the difference between faith in Jesus and the task of historical reconstruction, though not as sharply as Luke Johnson [46], Meier proceeds with methodological rigour, but always, it seems to me, with a keen eye for how faith might respond to his constructions [47]. What emerges is more the reality of a careful Catholic biblical scholar attentive to the Church's agenda, yet seeking not to be too bound by it, after the model of Raymond Brown. 

It is still too early to comment on his work as a whole. Thus far it represents a cautious, some might say more conservative, approach to the historical data, with fine discussions of Jesus' origins, Jesus and John the Baptist, the kingdom of God, and miracles. It is less racy than Wright's work and more rigorous in methodology.

4. The Historical Jesus Puzzle
Historical Jesus research is like working over a jigsaw puzzle. We are far from just having emptied the box onto the table and exposed 1000 or 2000 fragments. From the musings of many generations of scholars we can identify clusters, larger pieces of the puzzle. For many of us the constellation of unfinished work as its stands is already enough to suggest meaningful contours. 

History needs a good dose of imagination for anything to emerge and deceives itself if it believes it can produce completed puzzles. History remains a matter of degrees of probability. It seems to me that there are some large identifiable clusters - even if, like reconstructions of the sky and the sea, we may eventually find the clusters are not perfectly put together in themselves.

One cluster is Jesus' eschatological outlook, commonly linked with what must have been his favoured term "the kingdom of God", which we might paraphrase as the expectation and hope that there will come a time when God will rule, restoring Israel to wholeness, liberating her from her oppressors, and bringing righteousness and peace to the land. 

It seems to me that there is little doubt that his was a version of Israel's hope and that it stood beside other versions, many of which would have been in conflict with his own. He appears to have spoken of this hope primarily in relation to what it would mean for ordinary people, but not just as individuals but as part of the community of Israel. His vision had to entail changes in Israel's leadership and liberation from oppressive powers, but does not appear to have entailed a political or military strategy. It is clear that he spoke of this hope with the kind of immediacy with which John the Baptist had warned of God's impending judgement and that he saw his own ministry as already being an indication that the hope was beginning to be realised.

The vision of inclusiveness expressed itself already in his radical inclusiveness in reality. The vision of liberation already expressed itself in reality in individual acts of healing and exorcism, which, in turn, reinforced the reality of what was to come in fullness. I think we see in Jesus' kingdom sayings both the joy of anticipation of what is to come and the celebration that it had begun to advance into the present. 

But major components of the vision were still outstanding. Still to come was the great restoration, establishment of justice and peace, the resurrection and the judgement. Still his followers (and the poor and hungry who had received promises) are to pray, "Your kingdom come!" I am not convinced that Jesus' vision of the kingdom should be collapsed into individual or community wellbeing in the present. Nevertheless the strength of its hope was grounded in more than faith; it was grounded in what people saw happening in the present which went beyond hopeful anticipation. 

This large piece, as I see it, must retain its awkward shape: Jesus' hope did not become reality as he apparently supposed, but that is a problem for theology.

In this context I have already mentioned a second cluster of pieces. Jesus appears to have practised exorcism and, despite the accretion of many doubtful features, the tradition gives weight to the conclusion that he was also a healer. Such activities were seen (by him and those around him) as evidence that Israel's prophetic hopes were reaching fulfilment. It seems very likely that they were seen as manifestations of God's Spirit, as promised for the time of salvation. This cluster should not be shunted aside in the interests of appeasing the modern world.

Another cluster already touched upon is the radical inclusiveness which appears characteristic of Jesus. This may need some qualification because his stance towards the Syro-Phoenician woman was initially far from inclusive [48]. Nevertheless, at least within Israel and perhaps with initial reluctance towards Gentiles, Jesus appears to have shown an inclusiveness which in turn led to controversy. This behaviour must be directly related to the value given to compassion in his sayings and the theology of compassion which informs his statements about God, including the nature of God's coming reign. 

It was in that context that the radical inclusiveness is to be understood: doing now what is envisaged as coming about then. The theology establishes its warrant by appeal to every day experience in family life rather than to Israel's epic traditions. This all coheres well with a stance which gave value to the ordinary in contrast to the institutionalised forms of religious experience and tradition ("not as the scribes"). The inclusiveness ranges across acceptance of the disadvantaged like the poor, women, the sick and disabled, children to keeping company with sinners (toll collectors and prostitutes), although the precise nature of the statement Jesus was making by being in such company is still, to my mind, somewhat uncertain.

Jesus' Jewishness, including the assumption that he was Torah observant, must be a central cluster in the puzzle. Images of Jesus as somehow standing above or outside his own religious tradition strain credibility. He was not a Christian among Jews but a Jew. His interpretations of Torah, whether in witty defence or in occasional exposition of its values and sometimes its specific commandments, fall within the range of Judaism known to exist in the period. This makes it all the more interesting to identify his particular slant or slants in interpretation and to understand the areas of conflict. 

The Markan tradition preserves anecdotes which portray a clever Jesus engaging in refutation by wit and aphorism rather than by argument, and doing so seemingly over against rather extreme legalist positions. There seems to be a common feature across all main streams of the tradition of Jesus rejecting sham and espousing compassion as the primary value and criterion for applying scriptural law. But such prioritising still included observance of purity laws, tithing and such like, even at times detailed observance. 

It makes sense to me that beside the compassion oriented stance of Jesus we sometimes glimpse a conservatism in some areas such as sexuality and dealings with Gentiles which may reflect the conservative Jewish upbringing which the family names suggest [49].

Scholars who see parallels with popular Cynicism are identifying in particular those sayings and behaviours which portray Jesus as tilting at hypocrisy, scourging opponents with wit and aphorism, confronting the established values with challenges to the power of wealth and family, including in his lifestyle, and arguing from common every day experiences about faith and providence. Such behaviours also bring Jesus into close connection with Israel's wisdom tradition. He may even have used wisdom mythology to explain his ministry and John's [50]. 

It remains striking, however, that there is so much material which appears to have close parallels in the popular philosophy of the time. The problem remains understanding the connections, if any. Were there such secular philosophers in Galilee? What would a conservative Jesus be doing imitating them? Was he, like second century Christian writers, employing their wiles to attack the evils of his day? Is the connection rather more secondary? Was there a Jewish tradition which, like Israel's wisdom tradition, drew on the wisdom resources of surrounding cultures?

I think these pieces form a coherent structure. I can see how they connect to Jesus' radical message of the kingdom and to his theology, but for the moment the connections beyond that remain incomplete. But these pieces are not the unattached grouping Mack would have us believe.

The most worn pieces of the puzzle reflect Christian preoccupations with titles of authority. Of Messiah there are few - and these are so ambiguous that the most we might dare to say is that if Jesus saw himself in this light, he left history to define its connotation, so that during his ministry it could have only a chameleon-like quality, a cause for chiding those who espoused it. 

Yet the strength of its presence in the early accounts of Jesus' trial and death may indicate that it belonged in some sense to Jesus' self understanding and surfaced in the final conflict. Otherwise it seems strange that what appears incidental soon became the symbolic focus of Jewish Christian faith and usurped the kingdom of God as the dominant motif of their preaching [51]. 

One dark piece of the puzzle seems to fit in two different directions - the title "Son of Man". It sits quite well with the imagery of future hope as one of a few strands of speculation expounding the great vision of Daniel 7 [52].[53].

The sombre colours which make up the image of Jesus' last days reflect responses to Jesus' provocative behaviour in the Temple. These two pieces clear fit together in some way. The larger picture indicates in my view that Jesus understood himself (and God) to be on a collision course with the Temple authorities and he must have suspected it would cost him his life. We cannot imagine his imaginings so we do not know whether he expected some kind of divine intervention to be occasioned by his pilgrimage. Vindication would have to have been part of it and resurrection at the end time would have been a standard expectation, even if vindication had not been an issue.

It is probably irrecoverable whether at the last supper he really foresaw his death as having vicarious significance, as some early strands of Christian tradition were to believe and make the focal point of their message, indeed of the whole story. It was clearly not the whole point of the story during Jesus' ministry; at least none of the early traditions suggest this was so. The later image of a Jesus coming to die for our sins has very few pieces on the table of the historical puzzle, however aptly it may interpret his death in retrospect. Yet the last days complete an image not of deluded visionary or failed reformer, but of one who confronted systems of power to the point of ultimate vulnerability. The result is an enigma which some find revelatory and others find pathetic or tragic.

It is a matter of debate whether the colourful resurrection and appearance pieces belong in the puzzle or constitute their own secondary puzzle. Their story is about the disciples' perceptions, perhaps more than about an empty tomb - which may be more of a deduction than a reality. But there is little doubt that in the minds of the disciples Jesus had been vindicated as he would have in some sense hoped and that this event provided not only evidence of his exaltation to God's presence but also of the truth of his claim that the kingdom of God was at hand. Disciples with a different anthropology and eschatology might have seen it differently, but theirs implied that to live on had to mean he lived in an embodied state even though at a higher order of reality; and that to be raised in this way was a promise preserved for the climax of history. They were indeed living in the last days.

The pieces lie on the table. I have tried to depict them as I see them in their own setting and with their own integrity. This has included sensing where they are strange to us and where they at present appear unconnected and unable to be connected. It is my conviction that any historical reconstruction must take these pieces or clusters of pieces seriously. The temptation will always be to leave the awkward ones to one side or to bring together only those which give us a more commendable image.

Unfinished puzzles drive some people to distraction. Forcing the pieces never really works because it creates other gaps. We can only visit and revisit the table, try new possibilities, sense the contours which emerge, and sometimes, maybe, take much of what we thought fitted together well apart and start all over again.

For some, puzzles are a distraction, a wonderful time waster, and historical Jesus research is little different. For others, each puzzle is a challenge. But this is one which will not be conquered. I think there is enough of a pattern there on the table for me to recognise where my faith in the Jesus story connects to some reality.

But I am not there desperately hoping for faith's validation. The story fascinates me. It belongs to a history which has given shape to who we are. In it we find again the fragility of knowing and not knowing and beyond it the lonely responsibility of decision and faith which creates community.
________________________________________________

[Home] [Back]