By Zev Garber
Professor Emeritus and Chair of Jewish Studies
Los Angeles Valley College
In the introduction to The Historical Jesus in Context, edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (Princeton University Press, 2006), Amy-Jill Levine underscores the preference in the Academia for historical-critical methodology in the quest for the historical Jesus contra the creedal authority of the Gospel narratives as believed and preached in the Ecclesia. The “Quest” favors Reason (objectively setting Jesus in a historical and cultural context) over Revelation (creedal statements molding a dogmatic Christ). The history of the Quest is parsed into the old and the new. The “Old Quest” established a distinction between rational ethical religion and historical religion that emerged in a given culture at a particular period of time and whose claims of truth are not necessarily rational. Many in the original quest deconstructed the Gospel miracles, myths, and legends and reconstructed Jesus into an advocate of late nineteenth-century enlightened rational religion.
Early twentieth-century Form Criticism (structural study of literary units) raised questions about the nature, origin, and transmission of the Synoptic Gospels. It dismissed outright any kernel of historicity in the Gospels and suggested that many of the traditions about Jesus in the Scriptures were created later than this historical period to fulfill the liturgical, preaching, and teaching needs of nascent church communities. Each tradition has a Sitz im Leben (“Setting in Life”) which is interpreted in its own right, independent of historical validity. Kerygma (teachings about Jesus) has replaced history as the central core for the Christian faith. Indeed, Rudolf Bultman, the leading kerygmatic theologian, argued the only essential historical teaching is the crucifixion of Jesus: all else is conjecture and interpretation.
The “New Quest” began after World War II. Like the “Old Quest,” it questioned the Gospels as they are but also considered the input of a flesh and blood Jesus. It embraced a variety of approaches (anthropological, sociological, theological, etc.) to understand the New Testament Jesus. These included viewing his eschatological message of the Kingdom of God in terms of existentialist philosophy to seeing him as a Mediterranean Jewish peasant or a wandering cynic-sage. For all the myriad views of Jesus, there is close consensus that he lived and died a faithful Jew, and theologians and biblical scholars explore the ramifications of that for Jews and Christians then and now.
Recently, on the Sheffield Biblical Studies website, Prof. James Crossley (University of Sheffield) posted “The Problems with ‘Jewishness’ in Historical Jesus Scholarship: An Overview of Critiques”. His insightful essay addresses the 1970’s overused scholarly cliché, the Jewish Jesus and its problematic “Jewishness” in Jesus studies. He presents an overview with a brief commentary on select scholarship concerning historical, social, political, and religious ideology related to this debatable label. Works include Shawn Kelley, Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship (London and New York: Routledge, 2002); Bill Arnal, Jesus (London and Oakville: Equinox, 2005); James Crossley, Jesus in an Age of Terror (London and Oakville: Equinox, 2008); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (vols. 1-4, 1991-2009); Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006); Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation (New York & London: Continuum, 2000); R.S. Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); and T.W. Adorno, The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays (London: Routledge, 2001).
The works suggest rejection of Jewish stereotypes and a proper depiction of Judaism in the molding of the scriptural Jesus. Pivotal discussion points include purifying nineteenth- and early twentieth-century German racial stereotypes of Jesus; showing Christianity is not antisemitic at its core; distancing Christianity from complicity in the Holocaust; applying a more positive post-1967 Christian attitude towards Israel and Judaism; and evolving post-Shoah theology. Nonetheless, a persistent anti-Jewish virus permeates under the guise of philo-Judaism (replacement theology, evangelical conversion of the wayward Jew, etc.).
In the inaugural Faculty/Student Seminar Series sponsored by the UCLA Center for Jewish Studies (10 October 2011), I spoke on the Synoptic Jesus in the context of history and tradition. Among the perspectives I presented are establishing the historicity of Jesus; seeking ways of understanding Jesus in the religious and cultural milieu of Second Temple Judaism and in the spirit of reconciliation; and encountering the Jewish Jesus in a dialogue between Jews and Christians. I also shared that a number of contributors to Zev Garber, ed., The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2011) reacted vehemently about the cover that depicts Jesus reading from the Torah. Why? Concern over Jewish triumphalism and/or fear of Christian backlash supersessionism?
My reasoning for emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus is straightforward and transforming: dialogue celebrating uniqueness. As a practicing Jew who dialogues with Christians, I have learned to respect the covenantal role that Christians understand to be the way of the scriptural Jesus on their confessional lives. Also, Jew and Christian in dialogical encounter with select biblical texts can foster mutual understanding and respect as well as personal change and growth within their faith affirmation. Moreover, the interfaith study of Scriptures respects differences and requires that the participants transcend the objectivity and data driven detachment of standard academic approaches and encourages students at whatever level to enter into an encounter with Torah and Testament without paternalism, parochialism, and prejudice. The thought of potential directions to where this can lead current seminars and symposia on Jesus is an exacting and exciting idea.
In sum, it is my view that no one philosophy can be superimposed on the Jesus agenda. Suggestions come easily when they deal with facts and figures, but issues in Jesus education reflect the vitality of live concepts. Thus, interfaith discussion mirrors causes of existence and conditions of being and responds to the imperative “conversation not conversion” in ways different from exclusively piloted agendas (such as those found in ecclesiastical outreach and synagogue separatism). Also, Jewish and Christian thinking on Jesus cannot function under ideological imperialism. Its stream of consciousness necessitates diversity and adaptation.
Finally, at the 2011 SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco, there are two parallel sessions (Nov. 20) highlighting Jewish involvement in Jesus scholarship: book discussion on The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (Purdue University Press) and perspectives on The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford University Press). The dawning of Jesus for Jews in the City by the Bay, Kosher brit?
Christianity didn't even come along until 135 CE and thereafter, developing into a finished product, a Hellenized-redacted, antinomian (anti-Torah) make-over image (Jesus) by the 4th century that was diametrically different from the 1st century, Torah-teaching (pro-Torah) Pharisee Ribi and Jew: Ribi Yehoshua. As long as you continue to rely on Christian (Hellenist Greek) descriptions by Hellenist Christians you'll continue to produce a Hellenist Christian--pseudo-historical--image.
To look for Judaic historical authenticity, you must develop the framework from the Judaic works.
#1 - Paqid Yirmeyahu - 11/02/2011 - 20:45
I'm curious about the basis for that firm-looking date you cited, 135 CE. I'm tempted to guess that it has something to do with estimates for the date of the Gospel of John, but I'd be interested in hearing the real explanation.
As for Hellenism, my own (admittedly amateur) impression is that Hellenization had been an issue in Israel and especially the Disapora for some three centuries before the time of Jesus and already had influenced some of the latest books of the Tanakh (not to mention thinkers such as Philo). So I'm disinclined to believe that studies of Jesus' Judaism must be based on some purist (and possibly anachronistic) construction of "Judaic historical authenticity." But as I said, I'm no expert in these matters, and I welcome any additional insight you might care to offer.
#2 - MBuettner - 11/04/2011 - 14:17
The main message is the same, whether we focus on the more Jewish Jesus of Matthew, or the Christ of Paul. In Matthew, it says the important thing is to love your neighbor as yourself. In Paul, the key concept is the person's universal love of all mankind: "May the Lord be generous in increasing your love and make you love one another and the whole human race as much as we love you (1 Thess 3:12)" Regardless of whether we consider the Jewish Jesus of Matthew or the Christ of Paul, the main message is the same.
#3 - John MacDonald - 11/04/2011 - 20:42
One last point would be that scholarly consensus sees absolutley nothing in the judaizing of Jesus approach. Matthew thinks Christian belief makes rigorous demands that he claims are more rigorous than the demands of the scribes and pharisees ("you have heard that it was said . . . but I say unto you . . ."), in fact a kind of super-Jewish Torah-obedience. But Matthew is not a source, at least directly, for pre-pauline Christian teaching, let alone the teaching of the historical Jesus. Matthew shows himself to be a re-judaizer of the gentile gospel of Mark and of Q. It would take a highly-sophisticated line of argument to establish from Matthew that the historical Jesus taught super-Jewish Torah obedience.
#4 - John MacDonald - 11/06/2011 - 01:07
I just read "The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (Purdue University Press)" and "The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford University Press)." It seems that the main controversy will be over the issue of "Midrash and the New Testament." For example, they claim Matthew's Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and then rewrote it using Jesus as the central character? This is a hard and sophisticated question. The two possibilities represent two poles of possibility, with lots of room in between. I don't know that we have enough information to answer this question. This focus on "The Jewish Factor" may result in us knowing less about the historical Jesus, not more.
#5 - John MacDonald - 11/09/2011 - 04:46
A new title, PARABLES OF THE SAGES - Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi will help to shed creative light on this age old subject.
Aothored by R. Steven Notley & Ze'ev Safrai,and published in "A Carta Handbook" series,it was first introduced at SBL 2011
#6 - editorial - 11/25/2011 - 09:46