The Historical Jesus

I attended graduate school at Duke with a man named James Charlesworth, who has since become a world-renowned New Testament scholar. I am currently reading his book *The Historical Jesus*, and while it is fascinating, it is also very dense and detailed. As a result, it often goes over my head. Still, I highly recommend it to you, especially if this topic interests you. Jim is an excellent guy who has published numerous scholarly articles, and we played intramural basketball together. That should be enough of an introduction to show that he is a first-rate fellow. 

In addition to clarifying and emphasizing several complex issues in the scholarly study of the Gospels, Jim begins with one basic point: “Jesus was a very devout though progressive Jew whose life and thought must be understood within Second Temple Judaism.” (p.50)…”Jesus was not the first Christian…He was a devout and fairly conservative Jew who could be extremely liberal on social issues.” (p. 60). In fact, the first “Christians” included some of his followers, like his close disciples, such as his brother James and Peter, and eventually Paul the Apostle, who started the “Jesus movement.” Even these close followers were devout Jews seeking a way to reshape their Hebrew faith into a more inclusive one. Either way, there is quite a bit of “stretching” for regular Christians to do here. 

One of the most interesting and significant aspects of Jesus’ ministry is his interactions with the Gentiles he encounters, notably a Roman soldier whose servant he heals (Matthew 8:1-4) and a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28). Jesus showed kindness to the centurion when he healed his servant. In no instance does Jesus ever act or speak unkindly toward Gentiles. He makes no distinction between himself and his disciples, on the one hand, and those he serves, on the other. Both of these incidents are recorded in Matthew’s Gospel, the most Jewish of the four Gospels. This was indeed very radical behavior for a first-century Jewish teacher, and it appears to have been characteristic of other encounters Jesus had with Gentiles. On one hand, Jesus was an orthodox Jew; on the other, he was clearly expanding the boundaries of inclusion in how he interacted with so-called Gentile “outsiders.” Something quite radical was definitely happening at that time and place.

Indeed, this inclusive attitude influenced the early leaders of the Christian movement, as seen in the behaviors and beliefs of Peter, James, and Paul, which laid the foundation for the Christian faith. It paved the way for Jews and Christians to unite in forming the early stages of the Church during the beginning of the new era. When James stated that all that is needed to become a believer was to put one’s faith and life in the person and teachings of Jesus, the turning point for Christianity was reached (Acts 15:13-21). Sadly, within a few hundred years, the Christian Church was wholly taken over by Roman Gentiles, and it effectively divided Christianity and Judaism forever. The Protestant Reformation later split the Christian Church itself in the 16th century.

I must admit that, even after studying and teaching the New Testament for all these years, I am still shocked when I consider the significance of these facts. First, James and the early Christian church, based on the life and teachings of Jesus, clearly and decisively refused to follow their previous Jewish teachings about Gentile relations and, amid the turmoil of the times, declared the “church” of Jesus’ followers free from the restrictions of the Mosaic Law concerning food rules. From that point on, the newly forming Christian “church” aimed to include non-Jewish believers in Jesus’ teachings as full members of their community. It’s hard to imagine the immediate and lasting consequences of this decision. The theological and cultural divide between Jews and Christians soon grew immense.

The book of Acts records the cautious response of a chief Pharisee of the Jewish community, Gamaliel, who advised the Jewish community and leaders not to be hasty in judging this new “Jesus movement”: “Men of Israel, be cautious in deciding what to do with these men. Leave them alone. For if this idea of theirs or its execution is of human origin, it will collapse, but if it is from God, you will never be able to put them down, and you risk finding yourselves at war with God.” (Acts 5:33-39). This marked a clear new and pivotal turning point in the history of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. In the following years, many Jewish members of the new Christian community pushed for Gentile believers in Jesus to be circumcised, just as Jewish believers already were. Later, Paul, in several of his letters to the early churches, criticizes those who insist that Gentile believers follow the Jewish Law on such matters. According to him, simple faith replaces the strict rules of the Mosaic Law.

           Clearly, a significant turning point happened at that time regarding this issue. Most early followers of Jesus were Jewish, but as the Gospel spread across the Roman Empire, this gradually changed. In fact, at some point, Jewish religious leaders throughout the region began to distance themselves from the Christians. Unfortunately, shortly afterward (in 66 AD), the Roman Empire destroyed the Jewish Capitol in Jerusalem and killed or dispersed its people, eventually leading them to Europe. The Jewish nation ceased to exist until after World War II, when Europeans and the United Nations declared that they could return to their former homeland in 1948. It was many years before Judaism reestablished itself as the nation of Israel. During that period, there was widespread sympathy worldwide for the tragedy suffered by the Jewish people during Adolf Hitler’s regime.

Meanwhile, as we all know, Christianity gradually spread across the world, primarily thanks to the efforts of Roman Emperor Constantine, who in 321 CE declared the Roman Empire to be Christian in name, if not in practice. The tense relationship between Judaism and Christianity never fully healed until after World War II, when both sides made efforts to overcome the tragedies of the New Testament era and its aftermath. Still, the fact remains that “Jesus was a devout and conservative Jew who could be rather liberal on social issues” (Charlesworth, page 60). It seems to me that Jesus was more than just “rather liberal on social issues.” He was also quite liberal when it came to religious matters, such as the Mosaic Law and God’s love for all people, including the much despised Samaritans. He challenged the Pharisees and others on issues such as healing Gentiles, defending the poor, and respecting women.

I couldn’t find what my buddy Jim had to say about the discovery and uncovering of the town of Sepphoris, just 4 miles from Nazareth, but it was not mentioned in the Gospels. I had another friend, Dick Beatty, who worked there and wrote a book about the place. The town is a mystery because it’s not listed in the Gospels or in Paul’s letters, despite having a temple and many wooden homes, which one might think Jesus would have worked on, most likely being a carpenter. I’ll keep looking for something Jim might have said. Both Jim and Dick have passed away, so, in a way, my search for the authentic Jesus ends there. His Divinity remains a matter of opinion and is somewhat controversial since the resurrection seems either to be a hopeful idea or a spiritual reality. The journey in the New Testament seems to conclude with those who did not believe and those who believed in some form of life after death for Jesus.   

         In any case, whatever Jesus’ “resurrection” means, its reality can only live now in the lives of those who believe. This is not a minor matter, as this belief has profoundly reshaped the entire history and nature of our world. I suppose that, ultimately, I believe the resurrection involves the continuation of the spiritual reality of Jesus’ teachings as he embodied them. Those who seek to do this are Jesus’ body today.