Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 1:01am
Shocking news: Jesus was a Jew!
Column: A Heretic in Babylon
Two weeks ago, Time magazine had a big banner headline on its cover that read: "10 IDEAS THAT ARE CHANGING THE WORLD!" The cover further stated that one of these 10 ideas was in religion. So, ignoring everything else in the magazine, I hastily turned to the religion page. What I hoped to find was something far-reaching about mysticism and science, or an article about uniting all religions. So I was not at all prepared for what the article was actually about. The Big News is: Jesus was a Jew! Can you believe it?
Oh dear, this is not good news for many of us. I, for instance, have always pictured Jesus looking exactly like Jeffery Hunter in "King of Kings": handsome, sandy blond hair and blue eyes. All these years I thought Jesus was a WASP, and now I have to start thinking of Jesus as a Jew? This is just too much.
OK, I'm kidding. I knew Jesus was Jewish. Chances are, so did you. So what's the deal with Time magazine's life-changing revelation? The big deal is simply that most of us WASPs (and Catholics) have always thought of Jesus as more of a Gentile than a Jew, even if we don't think he looked like Jeffrey Hunter. The Gospels, after all, make Jesus out as a major critic of Judaism — someone who never missed a chance to stick it to the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and legalism. And the Gospels tell us that the Jews hated Jesus so much that they manipulated his crucifixion. As we know all too well, this image of Jews as Christ-killers has led to unending persecutions against them throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust. No doubt some anti-Semites today will argue that the Holocaust was just payback for Jews killing Jesus. Obviously it's important to set the historical record straight for this reason, if for no other.
In actuality, scholars have been revising the Gospel picture of Jesus and his relationship to Judaism for some years now, and the media, apparently, have finally caught on. It seems that most of Jesus' vitriol against the Pharisees in the Gospels came from the pens of the Christian evangelists who wrote those stories, not from the historical Jesus. Some point out that Jesus may even have been a Pharisee (later known as "rabbi") himself. At least according to one passage in The Gospel of Matthew (5:17), Jesus defends and supports the Torah, but criticizes those who live by its letter, not its spirit.
Scholars also point out that the Romans crucified Jesus, and they would not have done so unless they considered him a threat to Pax Romana. The Romans did not crucify people for religious heresy. They crucified actual criminals. Jesus' demonstration in the Temple probably brought him to the attention of the authorities, and that's all it took.
All this conjecture is based on the belief that all four canonical Gospels were written after the end of the first Jewish/Roman war (70 C.E.) So scholars feel that the Gospel prejudice against Judaism does not represent Jesus' views, but the views of those later Christian evangelists who wrote the Gospels. The argument runs like this: The first Jewish/Roman war of 66-70 C.E. led to the destruction of the Temple, the destruction of Jerusalem itself, and the first great Jewish Diaspora.
With the Temple gone and the Holy City in ruins, Judaism had to reinvent itself, scattered as it was in foreign lands. Since the Sadducees, the Temple priests, disappeared along with the Temple, Diaspora Judaism could no longer be based around Temple worship or the priest-cult practice of animal sacrifice. Diaspora Judaism came to be based around the synagogue, and the teachings of its rabbis. To survive, those rabbis had to circle the wagons by redefining what it meant to be a Jew, and that meant an end to Jewish sectarianism. Jewish Christians were sectarians, so they were no longer welcome in Jewish synagogues.
Because Judaism rejected Christianity, if not Jesus, the Gospel writers took revenge on Judaism by reinventing Jesus as someone who challenged the Torah, the Pharisees, and the hypocrisy of Jews in general. Were this not enough, they even pinned the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews, while giving the Romans a pass — going so far as to turn the sadistic Roman governor Pontius Pilate into a choirboy who crucified Jesus only reluctantly.
Historically, it was the apostle Paul who rejected the Torah, and Judaism, not Jesus. We know this to be true because Paul himself tells us this in his letters. He tells his audience that he entirely rejected the purity codes of the Torah, while Jesus' brother, and disciples Peter and John, retained and defended them. It was this single issue, in fact, that ultimately led to a split between Jewish Christianity and Paul's Hellenistic and libertarian Christ cult.
Most of this scholarly speculation is probably true, but I have reason to disagree on certain points. The more I listen to scholars on this subject, the more it seems to me that they have such an unconscious desire to be politically correct in today's world that they are suddenly willing to overlook some important facts.
Maybe Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees as much as the Gospel stories would have us believe, but there is good reason to believe that some of the Jewish authorities of his day were, in fact, among Jesus' enemies. Paul, in his letters, makes a special point of telling us that he himself had once persecuted the Jesus movement "even unto death." And Acts of the Apostles adds that Paul was acting under express orders of the Temple authorities.
Add to this the fact (documented in a variety of historical sources) that in 62 C.E., Jesus' brother James was executed by order of Ananus, the high priest of the Temple at that time. Ananus was a Sadducee, and his father, who was high priest before him, was also the father-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest the Gospels directly blame for encouraging the Romans to crucify Jesus.
Certainly Jesus had religious enemies, but they were most likely Sadducees, not Pharisees. Jesus' agitation against animal sacrifice in the Temple directly challenged the authority of the Temple cult of priests, which was made up entirely of Sadducees. The high priest Caiaphas was also a Sadducee, and he was almost certainly complicit in Jesus' crucifixion. Most honest scholars will admit at least that much.
It helps to put all this into perspective, though. Jesus was very much a Jew, and in all likelihood, he upheld the Torah. Certainly he had no intention of renouncing his religion and starting another one. If Jesus lived today, who knows, he might still be a Jew.
— — —
Richard Hooper is a former Lutheran pastor and author of "The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene," "The Gospel of the Unknown Jesus" and "Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and Lao Tzu: The Parallel Sayings." His email is {email Richard@sanctuarypublications.com}Richard@sanctuarypublications.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Richard Hooper.
Oh dear, this is not good news for many of us. I, for instance, have always pictured Jesus looking exactly like Jeffery Hunter in "King of Kings": handsome, sandy blond hair and blue eyes. All these years I thought Jesus was a WASP, and now I have to start thinking of Jesus as a Jew? This is just too much.
OK, I'm kidding. I knew Jesus was Jewish. Chances are, so did you. So what's the deal with Time magazine's life-changing revelation? The big deal is simply that most of us WASPs (and Catholics) have always thought of Jesus as more of a Gentile than a Jew, even if we don't think he looked like Jeffrey Hunter. The Gospels, after all, make Jesus out as a major critic of Judaism — someone who never missed a chance to stick it to the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and legalism. And the Gospels tell us that the Jews hated Jesus so much that they manipulated his crucifixion. As we know all too well, this image of Jews as Christ-killers has led to unending persecutions against them throughout the centuries, culminating in the Holocaust. No doubt some anti-Semites today will argue that the Holocaust was just payback for Jews killing Jesus. Obviously it's important to set the historical record straight for this reason, if for no other.
In actuality, scholars have been revising the Gospel picture of Jesus and his relationship to Judaism for some years now, and the media, apparently, have finally caught on. It seems that most of Jesus' vitriol against the Pharisees in the Gospels came from the pens of the Christian evangelists who wrote those stories, not from the historical Jesus. Some point out that Jesus may even have been a Pharisee (later known as "rabbi") himself. At least according to one passage in The Gospel of Matthew (5:17), Jesus defends and supports the Torah, but criticizes those who live by its letter, not its spirit.
Scholars also point out that the Romans crucified Jesus, and they would not have done so unless they considered him a threat to Pax Romana. The Romans did not crucify people for religious heresy. They crucified actual criminals. Jesus' demonstration in the Temple probably brought him to the attention of the authorities, and that's all it took.
All this conjecture is based on the belief that all four canonical Gospels were written after the end of the first Jewish/Roman war (70 C.E.) So scholars feel that the Gospel prejudice against Judaism does not represent Jesus' views, but the views of those later Christian evangelists who wrote the Gospels. The argument runs like this: The first Jewish/Roman war of 66-70 C.E. led to the destruction of the Temple, the destruction of Jerusalem itself, and the first great Jewish Diaspora.
With the Temple gone and the Holy City in ruins, Judaism had to reinvent itself, scattered as it was in foreign lands. Since the Sadducees, the Temple priests, disappeared along with the Temple, Diaspora Judaism could no longer be based around Temple worship or the priest-cult practice of animal sacrifice. Diaspora Judaism came to be based around the synagogue, and the teachings of its rabbis. To survive, those rabbis had to circle the wagons by redefining what it meant to be a Jew, and that meant an end to Jewish sectarianism. Jewish Christians were sectarians, so they were no longer welcome in Jewish synagogues.
Because Judaism rejected Christianity, if not Jesus, the Gospel writers took revenge on Judaism by reinventing Jesus as someone who challenged the Torah, the Pharisees, and the hypocrisy of Jews in general. Were this not enough, they even pinned the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews, while giving the Romans a pass — going so far as to turn the sadistic Roman governor Pontius Pilate into a choirboy who crucified Jesus only reluctantly.
Historically, it was the apostle Paul who rejected the Torah, and Judaism, not Jesus. We know this to be true because Paul himself tells us this in his letters. He tells his audience that he entirely rejected the purity codes of the Torah, while Jesus' brother, and disciples Peter and John, retained and defended them. It was this single issue, in fact, that ultimately led to a split between Jewish Christianity and Paul's Hellenistic and libertarian Christ cult.
Most of this scholarly speculation is probably true, but I have reason to disagree on certain points. The more I listen to scholars on this subject, the more it seems to me that they have such an unconscious desire to be politically correct in today's world that they are suddenly willing to overlook some important facts.
Maybe Jesus didn't criticize the Pharisees as much as the Gospel stories would have us believe, but there is good reason to believe that some of the Jewish authorities of his day were, in fact, among Jesus' enemies. Paul, in his letters, makes a special point of telling us that he himself had once persecuted the Jesus movement "even unto death." And Acts of the Apostles adds that Paul was acting under express orders of the Temple authorities.
Add to this the fact (documented in a variety of historical sources) that in 62 C.E., Jesus' brother James was executed by order of Ananus, the high priest of the Temple at that time. Ananus was a Sadducee, and his father, who was high priest before him, was also the father-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest the Gospels directly blame for encouraging the Romans to crucify Jesus.
Certainly Jesus had religious enemies, but they were most likely Sadducees, not Pharisees. Jesus' agitation against animal sacrifice in the Temple directly challenged the authority of the Temple cult of priests, which was made up entirely of Sadducees. The high priest Caiaphas was also a Sadducee, and he was almost certainly complicit in Jesus' crucifixion. Most honest scholars will admit at least that much.
It helps to put all this into perspective, though. Jesus was very much a Jew, and in all likelihood, he upheld the Torah. Certainly he had no intention of renouncing his religion and starting another one. If Jesus lived today, who knows, he might still be a Jew.
— — —
Richard Hooper is a former Lutheran pastor and author of "The Crucifixion of Mary Magdalene," "The Gospel of the Unknown Jesus" and "Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and Lao Tzu: The Parallel Sayings." His email is {email Richard@sanctuarypublications.com}Richard@sanctuarypublications.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Richard Hooper.