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