By JOHN D. RAYNER
I
.
was humari, that he was Jewish, that he was a faith-healer, that he was a preacher,
that he was a prophet, and that\he was a would-be messiah.
-
>
am not a New Testament scholar, but like many, perhaps most, Jews, I haVe
_
_
_
always been fascinated by the Jew who, paradoxically, occupies center-stage in
Christianity but in Judaism holds no plage at' all. Therefore, I have found my=
éelf reading and thinking about him from time toltime; and arrived at certain
conclusions, consistent both with Jewish belief and with common sense, which,
éince'they have clarified the subject for me, may conceivably help to do so for
others.
But
,
Although there
.
me make it clear from he outset that they concern
'
lieve that for three reasons. First, because the story the Gospels tell, shqm of its
improbabiliéies, is inherently credible and accords well with what we know
from other sources about _the religious and political circumstances of the time.
Secondly, because we don't have only one Gospel but several, of which at least
two (Mark and the non-Marcan source of Matthew and Luke, known as ”Q”)
are independent of each other. Th‘ird ly, because they contain bits of information
about Jesus which run counter to the Tendenz of the Gospel writers and which
they are therefore unlikely to have invented -— and we‘shall have some examplés
of such "telltale" data, as we may call them.
Secondly, I believe that Jesus was human. That may seem an unnecessary
point to make, since it is implied in the proposition that’he was a historical
person and sincerfrom a Jewish point of view, there is in any case'no other
possibility. But the matter is not quite so simple.
For one thing, we do encounter in the Hebrew Bible and subsequent Jewish
literature rgferences to superhuman beings'of various kinds such as "song of
God” (e.g., Gen.6:2), angels and demons. But these are figures of popular mythology, and the general thrust of Hebraibm w_as towards a theology in which
they have no'real existence but serve only as poetic images. In ifs most highly
developed form, I would contend, Hebraism recognizes no intermediate order
of existence between God and humanity, hui sees a chasm between them that is
abs'oluté except tha't there is inter-communication bétwéen them;
by God'in
revelation and by_ humans in prayer.
From such a point of view, therefore; the Christian belief that Jesus was bothhuman and divine is ruled out ab inltio. But because Christianity makes’ that
claim, it is 'necessar‘y to consider the reasons that are commonly adduced in
the Jesus of his-I
tory, not the Christ of Church do'ctrine. What Christianity has taught about Ie'sus
— that he 'was the Son of God, or God Incarnate, that he was
miraculously conceived and miraculously resur'rected, that his death was an atoning sacrifice for
(he‘ sins of humanity, and that he is the Second
Pergon of a Trinity, co-etemal.
with God the Father and the Holy spirit — all these teachings lie outside Judaism and are incompatible with it. Indeed, to me they seem discontinuous with
the general thrust-of Hebraism. And therefore, though I try to understand and
respect these beliefs; I hav'e’never felt any inclination to accept them.
Before modern times, the historical Jesus and the theological Christ were
generally deemed to be inseparable, and since Jews were bound to reject the
one, they naturally tended to think negatively, or not at all, about both. That
some leading Iewish thinkers of the.Mi'ddle Ages, like Maimon‘ides, nevertheless referred pqsitively to Jgsus, as preparing the way for the messianic age', is 5
due, not to their appraisal of his person but to their perceptioh thatChristianity,
in sp‘né of its un-Hebraic aspects, has, as a matter of histogical fact, purveyed
many of the moral values of Hebraism to a previously pagan civilization.
What enabled the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of
Church doctrine to be made was the rise of Bible criticism, which h'as shown
that the Gospels reflect-the evolving theology of the Chm-Ch shme considerable
'
time after the
life
of their hero.
'
-
'
support of it.
'
in order to attempt a historicalreconstruction of the real Jesus. I refer
to scholars like Claude Montefiore, Joseph Klausner, Samuel Sandmel, Géza
Hyam Macoby. Today, however, it is pretty generally accepted that
legitimate to use the tdols of critical scholarship to try to' get at the truth
about Jesus of Nazareth.
But I have said “try” in order to indicate that it is not an enterprise in which
Vermes and
it is
’
whom
‘
In these circumstances, one has to treat (he Gospel evidence with
caution,
and weigh it against (he testimony of other sources, Jewish and Roman, nof
indeed about the pefion oilesus, but about the religious and political realities
of the time. Such an investigation can only yield probability, and is in'evitably
subjective — what seems probable to one person may seem improbable to an-
othert
‘
.
Therefore
and I want
to
I
1
_
can only present the balance of probabilities as it seems to me,
do so in the form of seven propositions: that he was real, that he
I
is the story of the Virgin Biith.‘ But that is clearlyvone of the mythologielements of the narrative, and a motif found ih other 'ancient mythologies,
which there is no reason to take seriously and which is nowadays dogbted even
by Christian theblogians such as David Ienkihs and Don'Cupitt. As.for' the
"Immanuel" verse which the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) quotes as a proof-text
from Isaiah (7:14), it has long been conceded by all serious scholars that it does
not refer to a virgin but to a young woman; and is in any case a prophecy about
the immediate, not the distant future. On top of all that, there is evidence within
the Gospel account itself that the Virgin Birth legend amse rélatively late, for it
preserves fragments of an earlier traditiomwhich knew nothing of it. (See Mark
6:3, Matt. 1:16 and commentaries.)
Another reason is the story of the Re'surrectionz'But that, even if itweré true,
would make Jesus no more divine than the pmphet Elijah of whom we are told
that he "ascended info heaven in a whirlwind” (1] Kings 2:11). That it camelto
be believed about Jesus seems to me not at all surprising, given that graditibn
about Elijah plus the belief in a general resurrection of the dead in the messianic age, even apart from the fact that, in the case of the folldwers'of }_esus, is
it_
‘
.
_
e'mies.
‘
cal
odology
certainty is attainable. ForJesus did not write anything, nqr was anything written about him in his lifetime; and the Gospels, which are virtually our
only
source of information, have at least four disadvantages as soumes of historiography. First, they are relatively late — even the earliest was written some 40
years after the events it re'counts. Secondly/they say_ next to-nothing about the
greater pa'rt of Jesus’ life but concentrate almost exclusively on his public ministry, which lasted only a‘ year or two. Third, there are discrepancies' between
them. And fourth, they are tendentious, in that they adulate their hero and made.
little attemptlto be fair to those
they perceive as having been his en-
'-
»
One
'
-
-
.
.
Not everybody accepted these findings immediately. Even Christian scholars who engaged in Old Testament criticism were sometimes reluctant to
apply
the same methods to the New. Of S.R. Drivér, {of instance, it was said that when
he lectured on_ the Old Testament he was Professor Driver, but when he lectured oh the New Testament he was Canon Driver. 011 the-Jewish side, since
.Qrthodoxy rejééted modern scholarship as appliéd t_o thé Hebrew Bible, itcould
'hot easily admi: its validity as applied
to the New Testament, and therefore it
has been left mainly to non-Orthodox Jews to take advantage of_the new_ meth-
.-
1-
‘
‘
‘
“gm
much in the Gospels that is mythological,- exaggerated or
_
is
propagandistic, nevertheless, I believe that they are‘ essentially factual documents rather than works bf fiction, and therefore Jesus was a real pérSon. I be-
'
let
-
‘
_
_
easily exph‘cable as wish fulfillment.
'
‘
-
Another argument one sometimes hears is that Jesus claimed to be divine
and that, since he was evidently nof insane, the claim muEf'Bé tfiBfifiioWé—
days all serious New Testament scholars agree that Jesus made no such claim.
Indeed, some of them even' doubt whether he made the much more modest
claim to be the Messiah.
It is nevertheless true that according to the Gospels Ies'us made
some rather
grand claims for himself. But these passages are not necessarily all authentic.
For instahce, the oft-quoted verse, "I am the way, the truth, a'nd the life; no one
comes to the Father except through me,” occurs only in John (14:6), the latest of
the four GoSpels, and it seems to me quite inconceivabIe that if Jesus had made
such a sensational statement, and one so congenial to the pmpagandistic agenda
of the Evangelists, it-would have gone unmentioned by Mark, Matthew, and
-.
‘
‘
-
_
.
_‘
_
Luke. As for the expression "Son of man,” which Jesus probably did
u_se about
"Son of God,” which okhers used about him,
they can be explained/as Gaza Vermes~has shown, without stepping outside
the parameters of contemporary Iudaigm; agd We shall cdmeback to that'pdint.
Incidentally, the changes that story undergoes as It is told in Mérk (12:2334), retold in Matthew (22:34-40) and then again in Luke'(10:25-37) — wher'eas
himself, and evexi the expression
‘
,
‘
Finally, it is sometimes alleged by Chrisfian apologists that the sheexf perfection of Jesus points (0 his divinity. But even the premise of’that
argument, let
aloné the inference, cannot be sustained. For one thing, we know almost nothing about the gre'ater part of his life. For hnother, he actually disclaimed perfec-
tion.
'
Whenhfor instance, a stranger addressed him as "Good Master,” he're"Why, do you call me good? No one is gpod except Géd alone.” (Mark
'
'
,plied,
10:18; see alsoMgatt. 13:32).
’
'
Above all, the Gospel narrative, Written to extol Jesus, shows him to have
had some human weaknesses. For instance; he didn’t always piactjce what he
preached. He preached a'gaihst anger and ‘abuse (Man. 5:22), but if even a frac—
tion of the tirades which the Evangelists put into his mouth against the Phari'sees is authentic, he was quite vituperative towards them
(Marr.23). He preached
"resist not evil" (Matt.5:39) but‘ used violence against the
merchants and
moneychangers in the-Temple (Mark 11:150. And his courage, though great,
sometimes deserted him. At Gethsemane} we are told, "hori'or and dismay came
over him”_ and he prayed, "Take this cup from me" (Ma'rk14234, 36); and
on_ the
cross he exclaimed: "My God, my God, why have Yoi: forsaken me?”
(Mark
‘
15:34).
‘
.
>
I
~
»
_
.
.
-
'
,
My third proposition is that Jesus was a Jew'— and mean that riot' in some
.
I
senses or in most sense's but in every sense. He Was born of Jewish parénts. He
was circumcised on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). He Iéceiveda Jewish education,
probably from Pharisaic tgachers in Nazareth. At the age (if 12, according to one
of the Gospels, his‘parengs took him to the Temple _in Jerusalem, where
they
went for Passover every year (Luke 2:410. He often went to synagogue in his
hometown, Nazareth, Capemaum and other places (Mark 1:21, 1:39, 6:2, etc).
The prayers he prayed were Jewish prayers. The festivals he celebrated Were
Jewish festivals. The company he kept was Jewish company.
When asked to heal the daughter of a Phoenician woman, he said, "I was
sent only'to the lost sheép of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24; cf. Mark 5:19).
He
even advised his diéciples, "Do not take_ the road to gentile lands, and dq not
enter_ any Samaritan town" (Matt..105)..These, incidentally, are examples of
those "telltale". passages that the Gospél writerswould not have'invented.
Above all, the religious beliefs and values Jesus affirmed and taught were
those ofJudaism and not of any other religion. 1h short, he was Iéwish through
and (hmugh, and the idea of founding a new and different religion never crossed
_
VermgsJesus
On
.
_
his mind.
It
_
the'lew, p. 29).
'
’
'
.
.
the subject of divorce, the Gospels preserve two discrepant traditions:
would allow it only on the ground of adultery (Matt.'5:32, 19-9), in
which caSe he agreed with the school ofShammai (Mishnah, Git. 9:10), and that
he would disallow it altogether (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18), in which case he advpcated what the rabbis called middut chasidut, a higher‘degme of
piety than the
Law strictly required.
In fa'ct,.m'uch of the teaching of Jesus needs to be understood
in the light of
that principle. That is especially trfie of the Sermon’on the
Mouht, Which we
will discuss presently. Meanwhile it must suffice tb
say that Jesus’ attitude to
the Law wasggnerally positive, but combined‘with a certain
disdain for’ the
hair-splitting legalism to which the Pharisees wére no doubt
inclined, as-it has
characterized the legal mind~ in all ages. With'these qualifications, then, we
may
re-affirm what we said previously: that Jesus had much 'in common with the
Pharisees.
that JeSus
'
>'
,
'
Jesus, I would say, was a great and good man, even very great and very
.good. But to go further than that and say that he wa's perfect is to' go both beyond and against the evidence, which shows that he was fully, and fallibly,
human.
.John'disdains to mentidn it — show a’clear progression from warmth to cold;
ness to animdsity in the n'elgtionship between Jesus andthe Pfiarisees, and allows' us, by extrapolating the trend
backwards, to surmise that'in reality their
relationship was even' friendlier than the earliest Gospel tradition suggests,
a_nd
therefore also that the ve'nomous denunciations of the Pharisees in Matthew 23
'owe less to Jesus and more to the hostility of tfie
Church in the Evangelist's
time.
But did not Jesus adopt a'negativé attitude to the Law which was the pride
and joy of the Pharisees? Only up to a point He certainly didn’t reject the Law.
On the contrary, hé lived by its precepts. He even affirme'd’it, and riot only the
Written Law, but the Oral Law as well."IWo passages are especially relevant
here, and they are again of the ’ftelltale" kind which the Gospel writers would
have been unlikely to invent. Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to
abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill... Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and
teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven... ”
(Mattf 5:1719). And even more significantly: ”I'he\scribes and the Pharisees
sit on Moses’
seat; therefore do what they teach you and follow it:.'. ” (Man.
23:2).
.
/’It is true th‘ag Igsu_s_performed acts of
healing on the Sabbath, but that was
quite permissibl'e when it was a matter of savinglife, and even otherwise
if it
was dqne, as Jesus did it, by mere speech, without physical contact (Matt. 12:914). It is also true that he allowed his disciples to eat
without first w'ashingxheir"
hands, but there is no suggestion that he did so himseIf (Mark 7:1-8).
The only instancé in which Jesus seems to question the obligatory character
of the Law is a passage in which he makes’ light of the Dietary Laws
by saying
’that it is not what enters the
body, but what comes out of it that defiles, at which
point the Gospel text adds:_"Thus he declared all foods clean." (Mark
7219). But
that parenthetical cdmment almost certainly expresses the View of the
Evange7
list rather than of ]e_sus himself, and
may even be a mistranslation (see Geza
‘
'
'
.
_
‘
-
.
may indeed be objected that some of the things Jesus is said to have taught
one as uncharacteristic of, if not at variance with, what one assumes to
have been the normative Judaism of his time. But té'that objec'tion there are two
But we must add that he also had much in common with the Essenes, who in
good afisv'veys. For oné thing, nbt everything that is put into the mouth of Jesus
furn are generally ide'ntified with the Qumran>community. For like‘ them, he
by the Evangelists was actually said by him. Sdme of it is a reflection of attipracticed celibacy and asceticism, tended towards communism, and beliéved
tudes that prevailed in the Christign Church towards the end of the first cenin_the imminence of the messianic agé, and the urgency of the need to repent ih
tury. Ihave alpady mentioned the saying from John’s Gospel, "I am the
preparatipn for it. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4217)
Way,
the truth, and the lif ...,” as a case in point. Much, if not
all, of the vilification of
was, after all, the burden of his message: (See also Mark 13:24-27). In addition,
the Pharisees in Matthew 23 is probably to be explained in the same
way. And
the Essenes were much givenfio faith-healing — ihdeed, it is possible that their
there is general agreement among New Testament scholars that the
passage at
name derives from an Aramaic word meaning "to heal,” as their counterparts
the end of Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus charges _his disciples, "Go
therefore
in Egypt were khown as Therapeutae — and faith-healing
played a large part in
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and
Jesus’ ministry.
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19), is a late.
interpolation;
Even.with the Zealots Jesus had more in common than is generally supBut the other point to be made is that the Judaism of first-century Palestine
posed. Not only wés one of his disciples, Simon, a'member of that group (Mark
was not monolithic but comprised a number of different streams: a fact of which
3:18, Matt. 10:4, Luke 6:15), but several of the teachings attributed to Jesus in
:he Dead Sea Scrolls have made us more aware than ever. The
question; therethe Gospels strike an activistic and eve_n militaristic nqte distinctly reminiscent
?ore, needs to be asked, with which of these streams Jesus
should be identified.
of the Zealots. For example: "You must n'ot think that I have come to bring
VIost probably the answer is: with done; he was too much of a
loner. Certainly
peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a swor " (Matt. 1084); "I
:he Sadducees can be ruled out. For they were priestly and
aristocratic, whereas
havé'cgfleJOJet fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled"
'esus was neithei'; they were closely
associated with the Temple, whggaihe/ ~‘(LfikF12z49); and "whoever
has no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one”
Mas ambivalent towards it; and thnggiedPWhex-eas he affirmédftfie msurrecv
(Luke 20:36). These are surely among the "telltale" passages whose authenticion of thedead (Mark'123185275:
4.
ity is not to be doubted.
On the other hand Jesus clearly had much in common with the Pharisees,
My fourth proposition is’that Jesus'was a faith-healer. I could have said,
vhose ideas he will have absorbed to some extent‘during his education. Like
more generally, a Wonder-worker, bu} that would imply a belief in miracl‘es
hem; as we have just seen, he believed in the resurrection. He émployed the
which I don’t hold. For I would regard all sfories of the suspension br violation
:ind‘of Bible exegesis, and told the kind of
parables, familiar to us from Phariof the laws of nature as products of folkloristic imagination; whether
they ocaic literature. The Paternoster prayer. that he taught his
disciples (Mitt. 6:91-11).
cur in the Hebrew Bible, the NewATestament, the Talmud, or anywhere else. In
5 a string of characteristically Pharisaic phrases. And
whenlasked which was
that way I would 'disgount, for instance, the stories of Jesus walking on
the lake
he greatest commandment, he singled out precisely the two which
one would
(Mark 6:48) and the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Mark5:38-44). But faithnave expected a Pharisaic teacher to‘single out,
namely, from Deuteronpmy,
healing is another matter, since it is explicable in texjms of the influence of the
Hear, O’Israel, the Eternal One is our God, the eternal God is One; and
’mind on psychosomatic conditions, and well enough
you
attested.
hall love the Eternal One yourGod with all your heart and
with all your soul...
Furthermore, the vast majority bf the-miracle stories told about Jesus in Mark,
(6:40, and from Leviticus, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."(19:18).
Continued on next page
strike
'
‘
'
.
-
.
-
-
_
I»
'
‘
-
>
'
-
-
i
'
-
'
‘
-
_
.
‘
M119
JeWIsh VIeW
from Galiiee, and all of. ahd Hosea wofild sutély haile
were
them
popularly beliéved beén similagly critical of Phari’to have been specially commi saié legalism if it had existed in
sioned or “adopted” _by God‘ their time. It also goes.a long
That Ieéus fits well into this cat- way_ towards explaining the
egory, of Galilean Chasidim (pi- authorirywith which he spoke.
As the prophets of old would
etists’) is the main th’esis of Geze
Vermes’ seminal bobk, Iesus the 'declaim, "Thus says thé Eternal
One," so Jesus often declaimed,
law. Itmay also, as he points
"I
say to you," meaning "1 say
out, help to explain the epithet
"Son of God,” which was pef— to you in God’s namei” Yet the
haps or‘iginally applied to Jeéus omission of thaf qualifying.
phrase sugg'ests an even higher
in the sense of "adoption" arid
Gendegree of authority'than one
only later understood by a
diwould n'ormally e_xpect of a
tile Church in the sense of
prophet. Perhaps it was simply
vine kinship.
However that may be, it can due to a sense‘of personal selfhardly be denied that Jesus importance that is one of the
spoke in a pehetic manner, less attractive character traits of
and that he made the imp'res- Jesus as portrayed in,,th9 Gossion of a prophet on his audi- pels. But that sense of his own
importance would .in any‘case
ences. His teaching, we are told,
have beén inflated if the last of
because
astonishment
caused
’as
authorone having
my séven propositions is true:
he spoke
séribes”
that‘he Was a would-be mes—
ity, and not as the
—
'siah,
is,‘
not only
,(Mark 1:22) that
Whether Jesus _actually
as an intérpneter of Scripture or
claimed to be the Messiah is a
tradition, but from personal ré—
ligious experience and convic-, disputed issue 'among Christian
tio‘n. Some people thought he
scholars; but I suspect that
was Elijah come back to life, some of them like to deny it
and some said: "He is a because the concept of a Jewish
prophet, like one of the proph- national liberation movement
leader, which is one of the maets of old” (Mark 6:15; see also
jqr connotations of the term,
Matt. 21:11).
The fact that he was, or be— does not sit well with the im—
age qf a_ universal saviour. (See’
lieved himself tobé, a prophet
’
‘
Cdnlinuedfrom prev. page
Matthew and Luke
gious literature. Thefe is no rea- rather than actual.
It may be safelly asserted,
son _why Jews should not appreciate them. If Jesus had not Q then, that the teachings of Jesus
been appropriated by Chris- are mainly aggadic rather than
tianityhthey would no doubt halachic; that they all fall comhave found their way into Jew- fortably within the parameters
of the several varieties of Judaish writings such’as the "Ethics
of'th:e Fathers” and Midrash.
isrxi that existed in first-centhry
For their content is thoroughly Palestine; and that many of
Jewish 'and in particular, as has them have particular affinities
with Pharisaic teachings.
been pointed out, Pharisaic.
But to Say that is not to say
close
There are indeed many
that allhis teachings are acceptparallels between the teachings
of Jesus and those found in able from a modern Jewish
Pharisaic-Rabbinic literature. point of _view. Many Jews today
I
_
are in fact?
of the faith-healing kind. As
Geza Verifies points out, "Compared with the massive insistence of the Synoptists on the
healing of mental and physical
disease, other miracles assigned
to Jesus are numerically insig-
_
_
'
may doubt the
the healing
underlying
theory
evidently
for
be:
Jesus
acts,
in
were
sick
the
lieved that
an
many cases possessed by
evil spirit which had to be exthough dne
eat? Or ’What will we'
drink? Or What will we wear?’
(mm. 6:30f). Rabbi Eleazar
taught: "One who has enough
to eat for_ today énd says, What
will I eat tomorrow? Is a person of little faith” (Mechilta to
Exod.16:4).
Jesus "taught; "The Sabbath
was. made for humans, not hu.mans for the Sabbath” (Mark
2:27). Rabbi Simon ben Menasia
taught,- "The Sabbath is entrusted _to you, you are not entrusted to the Sabbath”.
(Mechilté to Exod. 31:13).
Jesus taught: "There will be
greater jby in heaven over one
singer who repents than over 99
.righteous people who do not'
need to repent” (Luke 15:7).
ascribed to men of
exceptional piety in Rabbinic
powers
are_
I
should also be added that
an age which believed im-
plicitly ih faith-healing, as in
,
miiacles generally, that belief
have been
Would
p factor
effectiveness
the
qontribgting to
itself
of such therapy.
fifth proposition is that
Jews was a preacher. That is
I
mean
it
in a particular sensexlt is often
said that Jesus was a rabbi, but
that is doubly wrong. First, it is
anachronistic, for the term was
not yet used as a title, but only
as a mode of address, in his
time. Seéondly, a rabbi was e5-
.
My penultiniate poing is that
he was a prophet. That affirmation will cause raised eyebrows
among some Jews, but only, I
think, because they take the traditional, fundamentalist _view'
that a prophet is an infallible
tmnsmitter of divine mességes,
so that he can never be mistaken, and 'that prophecy
céased after Haggai, Zechariah"
.and Malachi. However, from a
non-fundamentalist point of
those who hav'e repented stand,
the perfectly righteous are not
permuted
~_to
stand”
(Babylonian Talmud, Ber. 34b)
Jesus taught: "Be perfect, as
'your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48)..The‘ rabbis
stresses the biblidal injunction,
the knowledge of a Halathist or "You shall be holy,- for I the Eterthak much interest in the legal ‘nal One you; God am holy”
sentially a Halachist—an expert
interpreter 6f Jewish Law,” and
there is little indication in the
.Gospels that Jesus had either
side ofJudaism.
On the other hand, man
rabbis were also masters of
Aggad ah — of homileticsfSome
even specialized in that side of
Judaism, and with them Jesus
_'may appropriatély be compared. He was, moreoveg, a
'
‘
I
.
charismatic, popular, itinerant
prea'cher, like'the East European Maggid of pre-modern
times, Like some of the Pharisees, he conveyed his teachings
largely through parables - especially about father and spn,
master’and servant, king and
subject ‘— as well as tersé apharisms, in simple language and
with vivid, homely‘ illustrations. Some of his teachings,
like some of Hillel’s', are cryptic. Some are obscure. Some
may have been
.
confused" in
transmission. But the majority
are clear, go straight to the heart
‘of the gelationship between per-A
.1561} and person, and betWeen
Q‘Cod afid iym
_ and beloflg
(0'
anit'y, hit
the
home,
gems of reli-
»
'
‘
were human and
-
I
'
I
‘
I
mistaken
cious and righteous" (Sifré
Deut. To Deut. 11:22).
That saying _of Jesus, "Be
perfect, as your heavenly Fa-
was
Sake.)
;
Chh'st’s
>
thing is. certain, howContinued onpage 14
Search" for hameti
‘
is
no game
~
By RABBI REUVEN BULKA
Misconception: The search
for hamefz is a hide-and—seek ax-
.
_
-
ercise.
necéssary and, therefore, a
"taking of God’s name in
vam.”
If one feduces the search to
a hidefand-seek exercise, just
tofind the ten pieces that have
been hidden, this would make
the blessing a vain blessing:
Instead of attempting to assure that the house has been
properly ~prepared for Passover, all One is interested in is
‘
-
‘
The evening before Pesach,‘
pne must search the (entire
-
_
.
One
MiScoflcggtionsr
in believing that
Zerubbabel wogld reign over a
restored Davidic monarchy)
and the distinction between
ther is perfect," comes from the prophetic and post-prophetic
Sermon on the Mount, which, .books, as-indeed between cawim its recurring formula, nonical and non-canonical writ"You have heard X but I tell you ings, is not absolute.
Y,” is commonly taken to indiThere is in any case evidence
cate that Jesus did, after all, seek that a kind of prophecy (not
to establish‘a new religion. But necessarily known by that
that is a misunderstanding, for name) continued after the clothe contrast he draws is not be- sure of the canon; in particular,
tween an old religion (Judaism) a tradition that seemingly modand a new religion (Christian- eled itself on Elijah and Elisha
and that is represented in Rabity)_ but between an incoriect
and a' correct interpretation of binic Judaism by characters like
Scripture within the same reli- Choni ha-Me’aggeL and
gion, Judaismkand with his Chanina ben Dosa: charismatic,
view of the correct interpreta- ascetic, itinerant preachers,
tion, most Jewish teachers} not wonder-workers and faithleast Pharisees, wo'uld havé healeis whose extraordinary pi[agreed Indeed, it is likely that ety endowed their prayers with
the 'rejected interpretations: extraordinary powe'r. All of
weré meant to be hypothetical them came, like Elijah and
Hugh'Schtiéjd, For
the critical posmré’h'e
adopted towards the accepted
wisdom of the contemporary
religious establishment; Amos
'éx'plairis
fallible
(Zechaiiah, for instanc'e,
_
'
view neither of these assertions
need be granted. From such a
point of view, the prophets
(Lev. 19:2; Lev.R: 24:4), and
taught: "As God is called mer—
ciful, 'gracigus and righteous, so
you shouldbe merciful, gra-
'
Matt. 7:13f,
thehomilies of Jesus did differ
from the general character of
Pharisaic and Rabbinic preaching: that they often represent an
extremist stance, and that théy
were delivered with a strong assertion of personal authority. To
account for these features, we
need to bring into play two
more affirmations about Jesus.
.
Rabbi Abbahu taught: "Where
-
Mark 9:43-48,
13:49f, 25:32, 25:41).
However, in two respects
7
My
indeed obvious, but
(e.g.
'
It
in
"shgep" and the "goats," and
the torrhents to be inflicted in
hell on the wicked and on thoée
who reject the true feaching
'
'
literature.
to reject, for
instance, his belief _in evil spirits as thecause of sickness (see
abdve), hi§ teachings about the
we
outside ludaism, for similar
‘
would be inclined
are just a few eXamples.
Jesus taught: ”Yo_uof little faith!
Do not worry, saying,What will
Here
orcised.
Certainly'Jgsus’ activity as a
faith-healer does not place him
.
‘
.
tially credible, Even though‘
-some allowance muststill he
made for exaggeration, and
:
.
.
nificant” (lesus the Iew, p. 26).
I find these stories essen-
I.
Elisha,
7
'
-'
finding the pieces that were
hidden. This is not a search fér
hametz; this is merely a game.
The object of the exercise is
not to find leavened products;
house for any leaven.
There is a cu§tom in many
_
spread ten pieces of
bread throughout the house.
Part of the reason foi this is the
fear that one may not find any
leaven whatsoever, thus rendering the blessing said at the
beginning of the search as un-
'places_ to
'
the object of the exercise is to
Search for it. If one has done
such a good job of cleaning the
,house that there _is nothihg
left, so much the better. The
additional pieces of bréad cani
npt harm, as lohg as one concentrates on looking for
hamet‘z wherever it may be.
1“
II
.
'
Jewish view
the, Gospels, and exmorities; for howéver he or his liencepf
Continuedfmmpaée 10
s'o
many things, that it
followers might have uhder- plains
ever: that Jesus regarded the
1
beyond all _rgason—
tome
seems
it
Messiah,
messianic age as imminent. In stood the role of the
Among other
doubf.
-able
overthrow
other Words, he believed that clearly involved the
the personal
explains
it
of Roman rule, if not by politi- things,
the old-world order was comg'reatet'even
than
divine _authority,
ing to an end, soon to be suc- cal insurrection, thén by
he
which
pmphet,with
of
com- that a
ceeded by a new-world o’rder intervention, or perhaps, a
spoke'.
cdmmonly translated "King- bination of both (see Acts 1:6):
It should hardly be necesdom of heaven" but’really The explanation, that is, lies in sary.to
add that, if Jesus did
meaning the mle of God. That what has been called the "CQna claim, it would not
cealéd Messiahship.” As Mark make suph
is the message he took from
him less Jewish but,
made
have
John the Baptist, and‘ik domi- tells us, "he did not speak (6
56. For if there
mote
if
possible,
except in
rest
be surmiséd ihat the mahifest
féilure of Jesus to fulfill
_
’
._
'
them [the_crowds]
nated his thinking for the
of his life. In theological jargon,
he believed himself to Be living
in the age of realized, or aboutto-be-realized eschatology.
This fact alone explains the
exaggerated or extremist tendencies in some of his teachings: about turning the other
cheek (Man. 5:39), about giving
away one’s possessi'ons (Mark
Peter 'r'eplied: "You are the Messiah.” And he sternly order
them not to tell anyone about
him. (Mark 8:27—30). When he
entered Jerusalem, he did so
deliberately on a‘ young
do'nkey so as to enact a messi-
q'uite
'
anic prophecy '(Zech. 9:9); and
the people shouted: "Bles'sed is
.the coming kingdom of our an-
about cufling off hands and
tearing out eyes (Mark 9:43-48).
These teachings, which would
seem exkravagant in ordinary
times, might well seem less so
if one belie'ved that the world
'was about to end_
also clear is that, as
of
a messianic" movethe leader
ment, Jesus soon came to be regarded as' the central actor in
the eschat‘ological drama that
is
m un-
fold, in other wérds, as the Mes-
siah; that the point was repeatedly put to him,-and that he did
'
not deny
it;
and
it is
therefore
likely that at some stage between his baptism and his triumphal entry into Jerusalem,
heAcame to believe-it himself.
And
if
he never said so openly
and explicitly, that is easily ex—
plainéd by the fact that to do so
would have been to invite in»
Stan! arrest
_
When he asked his disciples
if
who the people thought he was, me very cle'ar that the claim,
mistaken.
about givdiscipleship
ing priority to
rather than father and mother,
son and daughter (Man. 10:37),
was supposed|y about
Messsiah is surely the most
Jewish Jew of all!
At the same timé it seenis to
'
thing.” (4:34).
10:21; see also 10:25),
What
are degrees of Jewishriess, the
but privately to his
disciples he explained every-
par'ables;
by the Roman au-
David" (Mark 11:1-10).
When the High Priest asked
him, ’_’Are you the Messiah?” he
answered: "I am” (Mark 14:61).
cestor
‘
i
‘
‘
Jesus made it, was
For one'thing, there is consideiable-doubt whether the very
concept of a‘Messiah was not a
mistakega figment of the imagination of the A'pocalyptists,
who were. surely- charlatan
prophets.
For another thing, although
mere were seyeral different
conceptions-of the Messiah in
.
Jesus. Difficult, but not
sible.
The Mystery Person‘w’as the program
director of the Jewish Community
Center bf a major American city.
I
addition to being Jewish retain
and alhis
had
have
though Jesus may
power and
Nor should Jesus
first-century Palestine;
their validity, their
own conception, not quite iden-
be held responsible for the still
their appeal.
»
in Jewish-Christian dialogue.
(Reprinted from Issues, publi-
cation of the American Council for
ludaism).
Five” rabbis“Continuedfrom pagé' 5
I
I‘
I
asking‘
_
'
'
'
‘
’
‘
Héfschaft
I‘,’—-'“.\..
.
Continued from page 12
women who am now ofa certain age."
..
'
'
-II..
T“
-
‘
‘
I
Aviva convincingly insisted that it in no way reflects her
marriage. Although they are "careeré apart,” she and Yehuda
share many things including ‘(love of our life here and in lap
rael.” She spent her young years - ages 2-8 ih Israel (Paléstine)
and was brought back by her parents to grow up‘here, she said.
”I’_m no stranger to Israel. ‘I'm one of its daughters," she pro-
'
claims pi'oudly.
I
is
AmericanJews. Winners of the Mystery Person contest will
a subscriber, or, if q subscriber, a tworeceive a two-month subscription, the equivalent of 38 if _not
same individual _m'll 'nat-be
month'extension of their subscription. Once appearing in the contest, that
'winnqs, not a'nly the first récefved.
Pe/son. All correct answers are considered
a
I
'
V
.
\
.
'
‘
.
I
devoted to Bpnaparte; who
_
sat curled by hef feet as
we Spoke. "I’ve had-him to the veterinarian this week. He
developed a paralysis caused by tick he caught when we vis-
She
top‘po'sitioh
All Mystery Persons are limited to North
Mystery
.
'
-
repeated as
‘
'
country recently." But it was out by now, and AvivaHellmah said "I-am 'relieved, he’s fine now,"
Bonaparte followed her as She gave mg a tour thrdugh the
lovely miniature garden that is her backyard amid concrete
skyscrapers shooting to the sky beyond. "It is a steppway fmrgll
the living room, but a reminder of the greenscenery of Israel/fl
she said.
ited-in the
I
impos-
,Wall are not
jiefs being compromised? The women of thé
the assumption that Jesus, established. The ]ewish people
Nor are they
mechitzah.
men’s
the
of
side
to worship on the
claimed _to be the Messiah, or were still oppressed, and evén
in their min-.
or’women
men
demanding to include Orthodox
allowed himself (9 be so pro- .more so after 70'CE. Sin and
are'men
forbidden
‘exts
Jewish
Nowhere in the traditional
claimed, ca'n explain satisfaéto- crime, violence and cruelty, \yanl
)ewish
traditions.
religious
to different
follyand ignorance, prejudice from being in proximity
rily his arrest, trial and Crucifixtéllit."
wearing
from
wom'en
forbidden
are
and Superstition, intolerance law does not state that
ioh. That is the considered opincourt
the
problem'which
"the
The rabbis concluded that
and persecution, political and
ion of any number of scholars,
complicWall,
with
Western
decision began'to gorrect is that the
including Paul_ Winter, Geza religious wars; all these continbe'en turned into a synagogue
ity of the Israeli government, had
Vermes, HyamMaccoby and ued. Indeed.
under the‘céntrol of drie branch of Judaism ahd thus subject to
It is for this very reason that
Ellis Rivkin.
The Wall does riot belong to any one group of Jews but
Thus the theory that'Iesus the early Christians spoke of a its rules.
for an IeWs.”
is rather a place-of pilgrimage and prayer
was a wduld-be messiah .is so "Second Coming” which has
amply supported by the Ievi- never takeh 'place. _It may also_
‘w oswho?
'a
.
'
_
Do'you. n 0,w
The Myfitery Person held
with‘ the JDC.
,_
-
_a
'
0
v
The pomait I have painted
—of a real person/fully ‘and fal‘libly human, Jewish through
a-faith-healer, a
closer to the divine saviour of and through;
a prophet
Aggadah,
of
master
recwere
it
the mystery cults. (If
bfElijah
'tiadition
and
the
in
mean
'ognized that what Jews
messiwould-be
and
Chris-‘
Elisha;
by ”Me$siah” and what
and‘
tians meah by “Christ” ére anic redeemer of his people
—
to do
quite differ'ent‘Eoncepks, much humanity is an attempt
Chrisdisappoint
will
It
that.
misunderstanding betwéen
tians that it doesn’t go further,
them could be avoided.)
but perhaps gratify them that it
If Iesus‘ believed himself to
be the Messiah, and was mis- goes as far as it does‘ It may}.
some untaken in that belief,_ it makes his .help Jews to resolve
resolved conflicts .in 'their
life one of_the mosf poignaht of
minds. And for both reasons, I
all tragedies. But it does not
if will connegate his religious and ethical would like to think,
clarity
to
néaker
little
a
tribute
teachings, many-of which, in
When Pilate asked him, "are tical with any of them, neverall of them surely inyou the king of the lgws? He theless
'volved a radical change in the
replied, more guardedly: “You
condition-9f the Jewish peoplesay 50" (Mark 15:2). A_nd the
that did
inscription on the cross read and of humanity; and
EmRoman
The
place.
take
not
"'The King of the Jews” (Mark
in'
The
place.
remained
pire
15:26).
renot
kingdom
_was
In addition to all that, only Davidic
Mystery PerSOn
_
*
mashiach with a _con'notatio'n
far removed from what Jews, of
the'first or any Subsequent cen-.
tury, understood by the,Messiah: a connotation thaf has few
if any roots in Hebraism and is
-
o
any one_'
of the Jewish .pepple’s messianic expectations is what in.duced the Christian Church to
invest the Greek translation
Christos of the‘ Hebrew
greater tragedy that his‘life arid
death came to be so interpreted
as to ignite a furious and persistent haired against his own
people, Inevitably, that historical fact'makés'it difficult for
Jews to take an objectivé, let
alone an appreciative, View, of
'
I