Jesus the Jew
Back in 1984 when I was placed at the Cathedral in Ballarat, an Irish Loretto Sister, Mary Hendricks gave me a book, Albert Nolan’s, Jesus Before Christianty(Orbis Book: New York 1978) with the hand written inscription, “May Jesus be your companion on the jounrey.” I read it and began a jounrey of discovery which I am still on, as to who the person Jesus of Nazereth was and is today. I am indebted to her for this adventure. This book has been a prerequiste for many years since in first year theological courses as mandatory reading. I commend it to you and place here some very brief insights which began in my own jounrey. The purpose is to explore the Jewish roots of Jesus and Christianity.
Did you ever wonder what Jesus really looked like? What was the colour of his hair? What colour were his eyes? Howmuch did he weigh? How tall was he? While these are all interesting questions, we cannot really answer them. But what we do know is that Jesus was Jewish.
Jesus was not a Christian. He did not go to Church on Sunday; he went to services on the Sabbath (Saturday). He did not go to church; he went to synagogue. He did not speak Greek or Latin or English; he spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. He had a Jewish mother, which means he probably looked a lot like other Jews of his day. His earliest followers all were Jewish. No one addressed him as father, pastor or reverend. But he was addressed in all likelihood as rabbi (teacher). He did not write or read the Christian Scriptures; for it was composed after his death He did read the Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament.
He never recited the rosary, chanted a litany, or used a modern prayer book. : Rather, he recited the Psalms; he died with one on his lips: "Eli, Eli,..." ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1). He did not celebrate Christmas or Easter. He celebratedShavuot (Feast of Weeks), Sukkoth (Feast of Tabernacles) and Passover (the Seder). Jesus was a deeply faith-filled and a profoundly committed Jew of his day. Unfortunately, many of us, despite our religious education and upbringing, have not understood the importance of our having a solid background in Jewish religious, social and political history in order to truly understand Jesus.
Jesus the Galilean Jew
Jesus was not an urban Jew but a rural Palestinian Jew who, along with his family, lived in Galilee, in the northern part of the country. Galilee was a very small rural section of ancient Palestine. In Jesus' day, Galilee was divided into an upper and lower region. The lower region where Jesus dwelt was a very rich valley that went from the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, a distance of about 45 kilometres. You can walk from Nazareth to the Sea of Galilee in about three hours.
Among the important villages of this region in Jesus' day were Nazareth and Capernaum. Nazareth, Jesus' hometown, was a small agricultural village in the very heart of rural Galilee. The village's population was made up of farmers and a few artisans. We know from Luke's Gospel that Nazareth had a synagogue, which Jesus attended. It was there that he read from the Isaiah scroll (Luke 4:16-30).
Capernaum, located north of Nazareth on the Sea of Galilee, appears to have been the center of Jesus' activity during most of his public life (Mt. 4:12-13). It was a commercial and agricultural center with a customs house. Capernaum had a synagogue in which Jesus both healed and taught (Luke 4:31-37).
These villages were made up of the am ha aretz (known in those days as "the people of the land"), the farmers and the poor who were the primary receivers of the Galilean Jesus' preaching, teaching and healing. This area was overwhelmingly Jewish. It was both the soil Jesus trod and the home of his original apostles.
Jesus and other Jews
As far as we know, in Jesus' time there were four principal Jewish sects: the Essenes, the Zealots, the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
The Essenes, whose name may come from an Aramaic word meaning "pious," withdrew from Jerusalem and active participation in the JerusalemTemple. They settled in the Judean wilderness in isolated monastic communities where they studied the Scriptures and developed their rule of life. Essenes were known for their piety such as daily prayer, prayer before and after meals, strict observance of the Sabbath, daily ritual bathing, emphasis on chastity and celibacy, wearing white robes as a symbol of spiritual purity, communal meals and sharing all property in common. Nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus presented as adhering to this Essene way of life.
Jesus was not a Zealot, either. Zealots were Jews (many of whom lived in Galilee) who vehemently and violently opposed the Roman occupation of Palestine. There is no evidence in any of Jesus' teachings that he opposed Roman occupation or encouraged revolt against Rome.
Jesus was also clearly set apart from the Sadducees. The Sadducees, whose name in Hebrew means the "righteous ones," believed in a strict interpretation of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) and did not believe in life after death. Jesus believed in bodily resurrection, a teaching never accepted by the Sadducees (Mark 12:18-27).
Jesus the Pharisee?
Contrary to common understanding, Jesus may well have been close to the Pharisees, even if he did debate them vigorously. Many of Jesus' teachings and much of his style were clearly similar to those of the Pharisees. To understand this point, we need to compare the central teachings of the Pharisees to Jesus' teachings.
The Pharisees were a religious lay reform group within Judaism. At the time of Jesus, they dwelt mainly in Palestine. The name Pharisees means "separate ones" in Hebrew, which refers to their ritual observance of purity and tithing; Pharisees can also mean "the interpreters," which refers to their unique interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
As reformers, the Pharisees did not oppose Roman occupation, but they wanted more from the JerusalemTemple, especially from its liturgical practices and its priests. They turned their attention to strengthening the people's devotion to Torah, the heart and soul of the original covenant with God. Believing that, for many, the written Torah had become adead letter, they introduced the notion that the interpretation of Torah had to be continually renewed and readjusted within the framework of the changing experience of the Jewish covenantal community. The Pharisees insisted that the 613 commandments found in the written Torah remain in effect. But the commandments had to be carefully rethought in light of new human needs and other realities facing the Jews of the Pharisees' time.
The priests looked upon the precepts of the Torah more literally and primarily in terms of sacrificial observances at the JerusalemTemple. These observances were seen as the primary means of relating to God and becoming holy. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were convinced that the Torah had to provide for the way humanlife was to be lived. In this way, the Pharisees hoped that every ordinary human action could become sacred-an act of worship. Doing "a good deed" for another human, what in Hebrew is termed a mitzvah, was given a status in some ways surpassing Temple worship. This was, truly a revolution in religious thinking.
In addition, a new religious figure in Judaism the teacher- emerged within the Pharisaic movement. This position of teacher, or rabbi, differed from that of the earlier prophetic and priestly roles inJudaism. Prophets were understood as spokespersons for God, whereas priests functioned as presiders or celebrants at the liturgies in the JerusalemTemple; for example, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist (see Luke 1:8-23). Rabbis fulfilled a twofold role in the community: interpreting Torah and, even more important, making it concrete and relevant to the people of their day. Their principal task was instructional, not liturgical. Significantly, a non-priestly figure, a rabbi, gradually replaced the Temple priest as the chief religious representative of Judaism's faithfulness to Torah.
Another aspect of the Pharisaic reform was the emergence of what was later called the synagogue ("assembly of people"). The synagogue became a center-piece of this reform movement, spreading throughout Palestine and the cities of the Jewish Diaspora (Jews living outside the land of Israel). Unlike the JerusalemTemple, the synagogues were not places where priests presided and sacrifices were offered; rather, they were places where Torah was studied, rabbis/sages offered their interpretations, and prayers were offered. They became not merely "houses of God," but far more, "houses of the people of God."
A further characteristic of this movement was its emphasis on table fellowship-a way of strengthening relationships within the community. The Pharisees intended to extend to all the people the duties previously prescribed only for theTemple priests. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Temple altar in Jerusalem could be replicated at every table in the house-hold of Israel. A quiet but far-reaching reform was at hand. There was no longer any basis for assigning the priestly class a unique level of authority.
The Pharisees saw God not only as creator, giver of the covenant, an all-consuming presence, and much more, but in a special way, as the Father of each individual. Everyone had the right to - address God in a direct and personal way, not simply through the Temple sacrifices offered by the priests.
The Pharisees also believed in the resurrection of each individual from the dead. Those whose lives were marked by justice would rise once the Messiah had come. They would enjoy perpetual union with God, the Father.
Jesus and the Pharisees
In light of this, there is little doubt that Jesus and the Pharisees shared many central convictions. It is to these that we now turn.
Their first common point was their basic approach to God. The Pharisees elevated the notion of God as Father to a central place in their theological outlook. So did Jesus. Story after story in the Gospels has Jesus addressing God with this title, and Jesus' central prayer begins by invoking God as "Our Father" (Mt. 6:9-13). The overall effect of this stress ondivine fatherhood was fundamentally the same for Jesus as for the Pharisees. It led both to an enhanced appreciation of the dignity of every person and ultimately to the notion of resurrection-perpetual union with God. God revealed the fullness of this resurrection in Jesus' bodily resurrection.
Jesus' own public stance in the com-munity also closely paralleled the evolving role of the Pharisaic teacher. Jesus, on numerous occasions in the Gospels, was called teacher. Also, the Gospels are filled with examples of Jesus teaching in synagogues (seeMt. 4:23; 9:35; Luke 4:15-18; John 18:20).
Jesus also shared with the Pharisees a general reluctance to antagonize the Roman authorities occupying Palestine. When the disciples of the Pharisees ask him about the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus' response is an example of a position he shared with the Pharisees: "Then repay to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what belongs to God" (Mt. 22:21).
Besides the new role of the teacher (rabbi) and the synagogue, Jesus clearly picked up on another central feature of Pharisaism, oral Torah. Oral Torah refers to interpretations given by the Pharisees to various Torah texts. Throughout the Gospels we find Jesus offering interpretations of the Scriptures that were often quite similar to those of the Pharisees.
Finally, the Christian Scriptures provides us with plenty of support on how deeply Jesus embraced the table fellowship notion of Pharisaism. The meal narratives in the Christian Scriptures are an example of this. In the end, he selected this setting-table fellowship-for one of the most critical moments of his entire ministry, the celebration of the first Eucharist (Mt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20).
The Christian Scriptures and the Pharisees
Readers of the Christian Scriptures are familiar with the sections of the Gospels, especially in Matthew, that make the Pharisees appear as the archenemies of Jesus, as well as opponents to his teaching and preaching. How, then, do we maintain abasically positive connection between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Pharisees?
For one thing, we can remember that Jesus' relations with the Pharisees were not always adversarial. Pharisees warned Jesus of the risks he was taking by his preaching and teaching (Luke 13:31); some Pharisees were praised by Jesus (for example, the "scribe" of Mark 12:32); and Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 14:1).
But there is conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospels. Under-standing its sources can help put things into a more positive perspective. Scholar-ship gives three possible approaches.
The first approach sees Jesus and his teachings as quite similar to those of the Pharisees. The animosity in the Gospels, however, is the result of the interpretations of Jesus' actions that conflicted with those of the Pharisees. For example, Jesus healing on the Sabbath or his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath were actions clearly not supported by the Pharisees.
Another possible explanation of the Gospels' hostility toward the Pharisees results from our enhanced understanding of the Talmud, the collected teachings of the Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs. In the Talmud, we find reference to some seven categories of Pharisees. This list clearly shows us that the movement encompassed a wide range of viewpoints, and, more important, that internal disputes, often of the heated variety, were quite common. In light of this point, one could argue that the Gospel portraits of Jesus disputing with the "Pharisees" were "hot debates" that were common in Pharisaic circles rather than examples of Jesus condemning Pharisaism.
A third scholarly approach stresses positive connections between Jesus' central teachings and those of the Pharisees. In light of these, one becomes suspicious about these texts of conflict. Surely Jesus would not denounce a movement with which he had so much in common.
Hence, either he was speaking in a very limited context, or the conflict stories represent the situation in the latter part of the first century when the Gospels were written. By the last third of the first century, the Christian community-now formally expelled from the synagogue-was engaged in intense competition withJews for converts. The Christian Scriptures statements about conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees may reflect that competition.
Jesus' love of Scripture
Jesus' Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures, which in his day was the law and the prophets. He not only read it, he was nurtured by it. Jesus' attitude toward these sacred writings is summed up in the assertion, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Mt. 5:17).
Jesus' teachings, his anticipation, his hopes, were all rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. So deeply implanted in these Scriptures were his teachings that he would be unintelligible without them. On the whole,Jesus' teachings were either literally biblical or filtered through the Pharisaic use of Scripture or both.
The way the Pharisees and Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures is also clear when Jesus, in the Gospels, argued his position by using so-called "proof-texts," quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove a point or to refute a critic (see the Sermon on the Mount, Mt. 5, 6 and 7). Jesus, as the Gospel writers presented him, was drawing on a technique used by the Pharisees.
The "proof-texting" that Jesus used at times pitted him against the Pharisees-such as when he challenged certain claims they made about the unwritten law and called them hypocrites for placing higher value on the teachings of humans than of God (Mt. 23:1-36); when he used Scripture to refute the Pharisaic teachings about plucking grain on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8) or unwashed hands (Mt. 15:20).
At other times, Jesus' "proof-texting" placed him on the side of the Pharisees. One example of this is when, in an impressive debate with the Sadducees, heused the Hebrew Scriptures to reinforce his belief, and that of the Pharisees, in an afterlife. Jesus was so impressive he won the Pharisees' applause (Mt. 22:23-33).
Possibly the best example we have of Jesus' use of the Hebrew Scriptures is his teaching on love. One of the Pharisees asked him, "Teacher, which command-ment of the law is the greatest?" And Jesus responded in effect by quoting Deuteronomy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment" (Mt. 22:36-39). Jesus went on, quoting Leviticus 19:18, "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In brief, Jesus was "proof-texting" his answer. On both points he would have found wide-spread support among Jewish teachers who also used such proverbs.
In brief, Jesus' use of the Hebrew Scriptures was unabashedly Jewish and was similar to that of his contemporaries, especially the Pharisees.
Appreciating Judaism
In a world and the churches that have so misunderstood Judaism, knowing and appreciating the Jewish origins of Jesus has at least four advantages: