The Changing Faces of Jesus: Overstating and Undervaluing

I have recently begun reading The Changing Faces of Jesus by the historian Geza Vermes[i].  It’s another attempt to “strip away the myth from the man”[ii] in order to “reveal the true, historical figure of Jesus hidden beneath the oldest Gospels.”[iii]

This is generally the kind of material that I like to read but, although I am only two chapters into the book, I am finding myself reacting negatively to almost everything he writes.  This negative reaction isn’t merely because I am one of those “religious authorities” who “do not like to be faced with contradictory evidence.”[iv]  I have often found my ideas and beliefs challenged by “contradictory evidence” and by new and differing interpretations – and have found my faith strengthened and renewed by exploring them.  I may be, at times, reluctant or resistant – but I want to grow and learn and so I purposefully seek out this “contradictory evidence.” 

My negative reaction to the first two chapters is, in part, a reaction to Geza Vermes’ sometimes condescending tone.  He takes it for granted that his interpretations are (or should be) immediate and obvious to anyone with half a brain.  He laments those “average believer[s]” who “cannot swallow” his non-theological presentation of “the so-called Gospel of John.” [v]    It’s difficult to learn from someone whose knowledge is so rarefied…

He also writes of himself as a “scholar…a detached historian in search of information embedded in the surviving sources.”[vi]  The first I cannot argue.  He is a scholar.  But is he an impartial, detached historian without bias?  Doubtful.  As another historian has said, “you can’t be neutral on a moving train.”[vii] 

This kind of approach is either disingenuous (it’s impossible to be a neutral, detached historian; those claiming to be so are fooling themselves or are trying to fool us…) or it is bad scholarship.  “Those who attempt to arrive at a non-religious historical Jesus do not follow the advice of any contemporary philosophy of history.  These interpreters do not strip away religious elements from the gospel because they are hostile to Christianity; they do so because they are poor historians.”[viii]

My negative reaction to Vermes’ presentation is also because I am not convinced that his interpretations are very good.  And this isn’t just a reactionary response. (At least, I am trying to not let it be …)  After reading the first two chapter s– which focus on the Gospel of John – I think that 1) Vermes overstates the differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels and that 2) he undervalues the theological development in the synoptics (as compared with John.)

Overstating the Differences

There is no point in trying to deny the fact that John’s gospel is very different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.    This is, without condescension, obvious. There are differences in style, language, theme, and narrative structure.  And despite attempts throughout the years to create a harmony of the four gospel accounts they remain distinct and separate.  But in The Changing Faces of Jesus Vermes describes the difference between them as a “total irreconcilability…[ix]” It should be kept in mind that there are indeed differences between John and the Synoptics and to merge them into one harmonious account is to lose their distinctive messages, but I think that Vermes overstates and exaggerates the differences between them so that he can dismiss John’s account as unhistorical – and therefore not ‘real’, not the ‘true’ Jesus. 

One example of this exaggerated difference is in Vermes’ interpretation of the varying accounts of Jesus’ family life.  He notes that in the synoptics Jesus is described as “showing reserve, verging on hostility toward his family, including Mary.”[x]  They think he’s crazy.  They expect special treatment – which he refuses, and even seems to disown them saying that his mother and brothers are the disciples (Mark 3: 31 – 35, Matthew 12: 46 – 50, Luke 8: 19 – 21).  But, he says, in John we have a more intimate family relationship.  “After the miracle [at the wedding of Canaan], the family group – mother, son, and brothers – and the disciples leave together and go to Capernaum.  John’s sketch presupposes closeness and warmth between mother and so, so different from the cold and unfriendly attitude toward the interfering family discernible in the synoptic account. “[xi]

But are John and the synoptics so different in their descriptions of Jesus’ family dynamics?  In his brief book Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? , historian Anthony Le Donne interprets the miracle at Canaan with the same familial hostility. 

“Jesus rebukes Mary sharply.  He says, ‘Ti emoi kai soi, gunai’   … Literally translated, it would say, “how to you and to me, woman?’  A dynamic translation of the idiom (one that captures the sense of the phrase) would read something like this:  ‘What does my business have to do with you?  - Mind your own business, woman!’  If this translation seems overly harsh, keep in mind that this exact idiom is used by ‘demon-possessed’ people to rebuke Jesus in Mark 1:24 and 5:7.  It is the hostile rebuke of someone who is about to be tormented or forcibly made to do something against his will. Jesus’ strong rebuke of his mother suggests that their relationship was less than cordial.”[xii]   

For all of their very apparent differences, the synoptics and John seem to be presenting the same family dynamic.  Yes.  There are differences in the way Matthew, Mark and Luke tell the story.  Yes. They focus on different interpretations of the stories they share in common.  Yes.  There are indeed many conspicuous differences – but the differences are not so extreme as to be, as Vermes insists, “totally irreconcilable.”   

Undervaluing the Development

Vermes has in these first two chapter repeatedly described John’s gospel as elaborate, highly evolved, even as “the climax in the evolution of Christian dogma in the New Testament, its most polished and ultimate expression.”[xiii]   

“…compared with Mark, Matthew, and Luke who stand between the historical Jesus and the earliest formulations of Christianity, John reflects the fully developed form of the primitive belief, the end product of the early church’s thinking about Jesus.” [xiv]

And all of this theological evolution and development, in Vermes’ interpretation, moves John’s Gospel further and further away from any historical truth like that contained in the synoptics.  For Vermes, the synoptic Gospels seem to serve (in these first two chapters focused on John, anyway…) as a sort of historical foil for John’s flights of esoteric and mystical elaboration.   Thus John’s soaring balloon is punctured and brought crashing down to the solid ground and is dismissed as not the true historical Jesus.

But in doing so, I think Vermes misses something really important.  For all their similarities, the three synoptic gospels are each quite distinct – and each is highly developed in its own way.  Matthew may not have John’s elaborate speeches, but he does have a highly developed presentation of Jesus as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies.  Even Mark – the shortest and (seemingly) least developed account – is far from simple.  They are developed in different ways for different audiences and with different theological intent.

But even besides that- synoptic gospels shouldn’t be read as straight, unvarnished histories any more than John’s gospel.  And even though John’s gospel is theologically developed that does not mean that it is altogether without historical value.

Disclaimer– I freely admit that I may have to modify my opinion here on this last point.  Vermes deals with the synoptic gospels in chapter 6.   It could be that he will modify the way he has characterized the synoptics so far.

And one last thing…

I am not persuaded by Vermes description of John’s gospel as being so far removed from first century A.D. Jewish thought as to be unrecognizable to any conceivable Jewish audience.  For example:  in the John’s gospel Jesus is presented as sharing in the knowledge and glory of God the Father.  Vermes says that this is “uncharted waters because no parallel concepts can be found in Judaism or for that matter elsewhere in the New Testament.” [xv]

But I’m not convinced.  James McGrath has argued that the divergence of Christianity from Judaism was the Jewish theological spectrum was expansive enough to include (at least for a time) the burgeoning Christian theology.  See his book The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context.[xvi]

There was no homogeneous, monolithic, standardized Judaism in the first century, and John’s gospel – as peculiar as it is – fit well within its boundaries – at least for a time.  But Vermes is keen to dismiss John’s gospel as a-historical so he argues that John’s gospel doesn’t fit with historical Judaism – and out it goes.   

I’m not convinced, but I’ll keep reading.

---

[i] Vermes, Geza The Changing Face of Jesus, Viking Compass, New York NY, 2000.

[ii] Jesus Christ Superstar – Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice

[iii] From the book’s front cover blurb.

[iv] Page 9

[v] Page 8

[vi] Page 9

[vii] Howard Zinn

[viii] Le Donne, Anthony Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids MI, 2011.  Page 8

[ix] Vermes, page 12

[x] Page 16

[xi] Page 17

[xii] Le Donne, page 46

[xiii] Page 8 - 9

[xiv] Page 14

[xv] Page 50

[xvi] McGrath, James The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context, University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL, 2009.