We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
As a supplement to the careful analysis of early Christian texts, anyone studying the historical Jesus of Nazareth is inevitably drawn to make comparisons between him and other figures from the ancient world in general, and first-century Palestine in particular. Just what type of figure was he? For example, in his book, Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes emphasizes Jesus' compatibility with the category of Jewish charismatic figures like Honi the Circle-drawer (perhaps a Galilean) and Hanina Ben-Dosa (definitely a Galilean). Morton Smith compares the actions and words of Jesus to the magical papyri and finds remarkable similarities to ancient magicians, thus the title of his book, Jesus the Magician. Smith, like Celsus 1800 years earlier, delights in showing how Jesus was just one of the many fakers and charlatans practising the magical arts in the first-century Mediterranean world. More recently, Burton Mack has argued that Jesus was a cynic sage like those found in Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophers. In Mack's reconstruction, Jesus' thought was not eschatological, nor did Jesus intend to found a movement or movements devoted to himself; rather, he preached the flaunting of social conventions and criticized his culture in general terms, like other cynic philosophers.
2 Geza, Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 58–82.Google Scholar See also idem, Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
3 Morton, Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).Google Scholar
4 Burton, Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 53–77 and 179–207.Google Scholar See also Ron, Cameron, ‘“What Have You Come Out to See?”, Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels’, The Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Origins (ed. Ron, Cameron; Semeia 49; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 35–69.Google Scholar For an opposing viewpoint see Tuckett, C. M., ‘A Cynic Q?’, Biblica 70 (1989) 349–76.Google Scholar
5 Horsley, Richard A., with Hanson, John S., Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985).Google Scholar See also Horsley, Richard A., ‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus’, CBQ 47 (1985) 435–63.Google Scholar
6 Barnett, P. W., ‘The Jewish Sign Prophets – A.D. 40–70 – Their Intentions and Origins’, NTS 27 (1981) 679–97;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 138.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., 138–10, 237–40, and 303.
8 Barnett, ‘Sign-Prophets’, 690–3.
9 Some MSS read ‘a great people’.
10 Some MSS omit ‘all’.
11 A good example is Ernst, Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971) 256–8.Google Scholar
12 Clark, A. C. suggested that the names of Judas and Theudas have been misplaced and should be interchanged (The Acts of the Apostles [Oxford, 1933] 33).Google Scholar Such a resolution of the difficulty is possible; the change would not affect the conclusions of this study. See Matthew, Black, ‘Judas of Galilee and Josephus's “Fourth Philosophy”’, Josephus-Studien (Festschrift für O. Michel; ed. Betz, O., Haacker, K., and Hengel, M.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1974) 49.Google Scholar
13 In Acts, Luke portrays the Egyptian as a leader of sicarii; in Josephus' accounts there is no clear indication that the Egyptian and his followers were armed, although J.W. 2.13.5 §262 does say that they hoped to overpower a Roman garrison.
14 Gerd, Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 68–73.Google Scholar
15 Various attempts have been made to affirm the historicity of at least elements of the Gamaliel speech, but they generally rely on too much historical speculation without evidence. See, for example, Jürgen, Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 100–1;Google ScholarSwain, Joseph Ward, ‘Gamaliel's Speech and Caligula's Statue’, HTR 37 (1944) 341–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar My focus is on the function of the speech for Luke and what it tells us about Luke's understanding of the history of Christianity.
16 In Josephus' account, the death of the sons of Judas the Galilean is reported immediately following the account of Theudas (Ant. 20.5.1 §97–102). This has led to the suggestion that Luke was familiar with Josephus' account, and that he confused Judas the Galilean with his sons. Such confusion would explain Luke's erroneous placing of Theudas before Judas. In my opinion, this scenario requires too many mistakes on Luke's part in dealing with the text of Josephus, and if Luke were familiar with Josephus' account directly, he might not have been so quick to deny any continuing legacy to Judas' movement. It is more likely that Luke knows of these characters from some other source.
17 C. Cels. 1.57; 6.11; cf. 1.29. The last passage describes the lowliness of Jesus' birth, and contrasts that with the enormous influence he has had over the whole world. Related is Origen's argument in 1.62 and 3.68, where he claims that thousands of common people live more noble lives than the philosophers because of Christianity's success. See Trigg, Joseph Wilson, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church (Atlanta: John Knox, 1983)227–8.Google Scholar Sheer numerical success is not the key for Origen; rather, he focuses on the ability of Christianity to elevate the common masses to chastity and right living in a way that philosophy had never done.
18 Hans, Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (New York: Harper, 1961; 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).Google Scholar
19 Francis, Fred O., ‘Eschatology and History in Luke–Acts’, JAAR 37 (1969) 49–63.Google Scholar He argues that Luke's concern is to show that the eschaton began with Jesus' first coming and will culminate soon in Luke's own day. Luke 21.32 is a key verse for this argument. I agree, as long as it is further explained that one of Luke's principal aims is to dissociate Jesus from mistaken expectations. Wilson, S. G., ‘Lukan Eschatology’, NTS 15 (1968–1969) 330–47;Google ScholarHiers, Richard H., ‘The Problem of the Delay of the Parousia in Luke–Acts’, NTS 20 (1973–1974) 145–55;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJoseph, Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (Anchor Bible 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981) 233–5.Google Scholar For a survey of the status questionis, see Carroll, John T., Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke–Acts (SBLDS 92; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988),Google Scholar especially chapter one.
20 For a description of the various biblical passages used apologetically to explain Jesus' passion, see Barnabas, Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 75–110.Google Scholar For more on the phenomenon of the closed canon which can be made to address a wide variety of new issues, see Smith, Jonathan Z., ‘Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescription of Canon’, chap. in idem, Imagining Religion: From Babylonia to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1982) 36–53.Google Scholar
21 For a summary of the traditional elements of Jewish restoration eschatology, see Sanders, Jesus, 61–119. For more on Jewish restoration in Luke, see Wainwright, Arthur W., ‘Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel’, ExpTim 89 (1977) 76–9;Google Scholar and Tannehill, Robert C., ‘Israel in Luke–Acts: A Tragic Story’, JBL 104 (1985) 69–85.Google Scholar
22 Josephus' attitude is similar to that of Luke in that he paints Theudas, the Egyptian, and other sign-prophets as ‘charlatans’ by using the word γόης to describe them; this terminology connects them in Josephus' mind to such notorious deceivers as the failed magicians of Pharaoh's court (Ant. 2.13.3 §286; cf. Ag. Ap. 2.14 §145), John of Gischala (J.W. 4.2.1 §85), Justus of Tiberias (Vita 9 §40), and Castor (J.W. 5.7.4 §317); see Barnett, ‘Sign-Prophets’, 681; also Otto, Betz, ‘Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium’, Josephus-Studien (Festschrift für O. Michel; ed. Betz, O., Haacker, K., and Hengel, M.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 25–34.Google Scholar
23 In addition to Bamett and Sanders, see Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Early Christianity (New York: Scribners, 1967);Google ScholarMartin, Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981);Google ScholarGerd, Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978);Google ScholarDavid, Hill, ‘Jesus and Josephus's Messianic Prophets’, Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to M. Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 143–54;Google ScholarPaula, Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ (New Haven: Yale University, 1988).Google Scholar
24 See, for example, Grant, Robert M., Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century (Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 1990) 26;Google Scholar Theissen, Sociology, 60–1; Horsley, ‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”’, 444.
25 As noted above in n. 4, Burton Mack and Ron Cameron are two major proponents of this view.
26 Cf. 1 Cor 1.23: ‘Christ crucified’ is a stumbling block no matter how you slice it; see Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, passim.
27 See, however, the Slavonic additions to Josephus, which are thought by some scholars to retain vestiges of Josephus' original remarks about Jesus. There Jesus is depicted as a ‘wonder-worker’ who, much like the Egyptian, is associated with the Mount of Olives and is at the centre of a movement of revolutionary fervour. An English translation of this text by Thackeray, H. St. J.may be found in the third volume of the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus' works (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1961) 648–50.Google Scholar See also Brandon, , Jesus and the Zealots, 359–68.Google Scholar For a bibliographical survey of the status questionis, see Feldman, Louis H., ‘A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus’, Josephus, the Bible, and History (ed. Feldman, Louis H. and Gohei, Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University, 1989) 334–40 and 429–35.Google Scholar
28 Good descriptions of Josephus' Tendenz in this regard may be found in Tessa, Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 166–73;Google ScholarCohen, Shaye J. D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 232–42;Google Scholar and Matthew Black, ‘Judas of Galilee’, 45–54. On p. 48, Black speaks of Josephus' ‘deliberate policy, not only of denigration of the Jewish rebels ad maiorem gloriam Romae but also of drawing over their heroes a curtain of silent contempt’.
29 Judas is a ‘Galilean’ in all of the Josephus passages except for Ant. 18.1.1 §4, where he is a ‘man of Gaulanitis from a city named Gamala’.
30 Symeon, son of Jesus' uncle Clopas, was appointed ‘bishop’ of the Jerusalem church after the martyrdom of James. Interestingly, in Luke's story, one of the disciples of Jesus who most fervently hoped for the ‘redemption of Israel’ was Cleopas, on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24.18, cf. John 19.25). See the study by Richard, Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990).Google Scholar
31 Contra Brandon, , Jesus and the Zealots, 146–220.Google Scholar
32 Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 196. See especially Ant. 18.1.6 §23: ‘[The followers of Judas] think little of submitting to death in unusual ways and of allowing vengeance to be taken against their relatives and friends so that they may avoid calling any human being “master”.’
33 J.W. 2.17.8 §433–4; J.W. 7.8.1 §253. Judas was not the founder of a ‘zealot’ party in the sense of a continuous revolutionary movement leading to the Jewish revolt of 66 CE. This fact has been ably demonstrated by Morton, Smith, ‘Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations’, HTR 64 (1971) 1–19;Google Scholar cf. Horsley, and Hanson, , Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, xi–xxviii.Google Scholar
34 Horsley, and Hanson, think that Josephus' account of Judas' aims can be easily ‘translated’ into the ‘apocalyptic idiom’ (Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 194).Google Scholar
35 For another usage of σοφιστής in a pejorative sense, see Ag.Ap. 2.33 §236. It is quite likely that this usage reflects Josephus' polemical source material; see Seth, Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 23.Google Scholar
36 As stated above, the fact that Judas' sons are mentioned here has given some scholars the explanation for why Luke's chronology is confused in Acts 5.35–9. See above, n. 16.
37 See above, n. 6.
38 Horsley gives a possible alternative understanding: Theudas and his crowd stood on the western shore and hoped to gain passage eastward, into the wilderness for the purpose of purifying themselves there (‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”’, 457). The parallel with the Joshua account, the Romans' violent response, and the fact that the Jordan has crossable fords (cf. 1 Macc 9.34, 48) indicate the greater likelihood that Theudas' aim was to enter Palestine with a symbolic miracle, not to leave it miraculously.
39 Barnett, ‘Sign Prophets’, 687–8.
40 Sanders, , Jesus, 61–76.Google Scholar Craig A. Evans has effectively called into question Sanders' view that the Temple episode was not originally a ‘cleansing’. I agree with Evans that Jesus' action against the Temple was motivated at least in part by a criticism of Temple corruption; this view is not incompatible with Sanders' understanding of the episode as an eschatological sign. (Evans, , ‘Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’, CBQ 51 [1989] 237–70).Google Scholar
41 Sanders inexplicably rejects the idea that Jesus might have been influenced in his actions by Zech 14.21 (Jesus, 367, n. 46). Horsley notes that the ‘acting out’ of typological patterns from Biblical texts is characteristic of Theudas, the Egyptian, and the Samaritan (‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”’, 461). See also the discussion in Grant, Robert M., ‘The Coming of the Kingdom’, JBL 67 (1948) 279–303.Google Scholar In yet another example of biblical texts informing a first-century prophet, Jesus ben Ananias evidently saw himself as a new Jeremiah, quoting a common Jeremiah refrain as part of his prophecy of doom against the Temple (Jer 7.34, 16.9; J.W. 6.5.3 §300–9). There might be much to be gained from a fresh investigation of Zechariah 9–14/Malachi, the use of those texts by John the Baptist and Jesus, by Christian myth-makers at the pre-gospel stage, and by the gospel writers.
42 Sean, Freyne describes Galilee under Herod Antipas as particularly peaceful (Galilee: From Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 BCE to 135 CE. A Study of Second Temple Judaism [Wilmington, DE and South Bend, IN: Michael Glazier and Notre Dame, 1980] 68–71).Google Scholar
43 Burton Mack in particular raises these objections (Myth of Innocence, 50–2)Google Scholar. See also his article, ‘All the Extra Jesuses: Christian Origins in Light of the Extra-Canonical Gospels’, The Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Origins (ed. Ron Cameron; Semeia 49; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 169–76.Google Scholar
44 Arguing this point is Sean, Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 220.Google Scholar This problem is also discussed by Sanders, , Jesus, 303–4.Google Scholar
45 Horsley, ‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”’, 454.
46 See Walter, Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospels (Cambridge University, 1968) 107–10;Google ScholarDerrett, J. D. M., ‘Herod's Oath and the Baptist's Head’, BZ 9 (1965) 49–59 and 233–46;Google ScholarErnst, Bammel, ‘The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition’, NTS 18 (1971) 95–128;Google ScholarJerome, Murphy-O'Connor, ‘John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses’, NTS 36 (1990) 359–74.Google Scholar
47 It is possible that the Samaritan's activities presuppose Samaritan expectation of the Taheb, an eschatological redeemer figure like Moses; see MacDonald, J., The Theology of the Samaritans (London: SCM, 1964) 362–5;Google ScholarBowman, J., The Samaritan Problem (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975) 29–31Google Scholar and Horsley, ‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”’, 459.
48 Jesus in Mark and Luke is still a teacher on eschatological subjects in that he foretells the future end of the age to his disciples (Mark 13 and Luke 21). In both gospels, however, Jesus is aware that quite some time will pass (at least until the gospels are written) before all those things take place.
49 For the connections between Q and the prophetic traditions, see Sato, M., Q und Prophetie (WUNT 2. Reihe; Tübingen: Mohr, J. C. B. [Paul Siebeck], 1988).Google Scholar Much recent scholarship on Q claims that in the earliest stages of its composition it consisted of sapiential sayings and that the prophetic/eschatological sayings were added later. See Kloppenborg, John S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 244–5.Google Scholar Kloppenborg is careful to point out, however, that ‘tradition-history is not convertible with literary history’ (245). In other words, just because a saying of Jesus is deemed to be a secondary addition to the Q-collection does not preclude its antiquity or even its authenticity.
50 For example, Luke's apologetic is similar to that of Martin Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 57 and 65–9. Hengel, too, claims that Jesus was superior to Judas and Theudas in his self-understanding of his mission and his relationship to God. Sanders explicitly refutes this kind of scholarly apology for Jesus (Jesus and Judaism, 240).
51 Marcus, Borg, ‘A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus’, Foundations and Facets Forum 2/3 (09, 1986) 81–102;Google Scholar see also idem, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
