According to Popular Mechanics, this is the way Jesus may have appeared. It’s still an artists conception, of course, but it has the advantage of being based on archeological evidence and forensic anthropology techniques.1
A couple of months ago I posted a blog (See “Inventing Jesus” 1-26-15) that included a relatively modern portrait of Jesus; the point being that the way we imagine Jesus, and the reality of Jesus based on the evidence we have, are often two very different things. We now continue that same general theme, noting in more detail why Jesus did not match the messianic expectations of many, including the most prominent leaders of his time. And although it seems disconcerting at first, seeing Jesus as he really was, gives us confidence that the New Testament character was not simply invented out of convenience or necessity. Furthermore it turns out that our inventions of Jesus are not what we really need anyway.
Here, then, are some of the specific reasons why it would have been extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for any sincere first century Jew to invent a person like Jesus, and then pass him off as a messiah. These reasons involve some rather basic characteristics of Jesus’ life that were quite undesirable at the time, at least for those who might want to invent a messiah.
Let’s consider first Jesus’ attitude toward the society in which he lived. He was, to put it succinctly, an outspoken social critic. Although thoroughly Jewish, he expressed a fundamental dissatisfaction with the way Jewish socio-economics was structured and the way this structure was expected to carry over into the messianic age. His fearless assaults on the status quo included relatively extreme interpretations of adultery, murder, and prayer. Typically, however, he did not propose new laws and rules of behavior. What he objected to most were the thoughts and motives involved, even when the behaviors themselves might be socially acceptable.
Economically, Jesus also seemed out of step with the times because he promoted a society in which no class would even want to take advantage of another. This came at a time when the Greeks and Romans had instigated a change in the Jewish economy from an agrarian, land-based economy to a more capitalistic, money based system. And although this widened the gap between poor and rich, it did benefit those in power, those who were wealthy enough to keep their ancestral lands, the entrepreneurial teachers such as the Pharisees, and of course the tax collectors. Jesus, then, upset the accepted view that class distinctions were normal and that God favored some and not others in the acquisition of wealth, power, and influence. This not only upset the social structure of the day, it challenged religious assumptions among the rich young ruler types, who believed that being blessed materially was a sign of being blessed spiritually. Giving all that away to the undeserving poor would not only seem foolish but also directly contrary to the principle of God blessing the righteous as well as the expected order of who would rule in the kingdom to come.
Jesus’ actions and teachings completely restructured the prevailing views of the coming kingdom. Thus he began his most famous sermon (Lk 6:20) with, “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.” Then he offended the wealthy by making it seem harder for them to enter the kingdom. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already” (Lk. 6:24). He committed one of his most egregious social faux pas at a wealthy Pharisee’s house party (Lk. 14:12ff). He said to his host, apparently in front of the guests, that instead of inviting his rich friends over, he should invite the poor and lame, who were quite incapable of paying him back. This was a bit like asking a politician to snub his PAC and invite the homeless to his fundraising gala instead. It also said something about Jesus and the kind of kingdom he represented. You can’t buy your way into it. And you don’t enter because you deserve it. Compared to the cultural norm regarding just deserts and the favor of God, Jesus’ social consciousness appears completely upside down and backwards. As a result, the very people who might have stepped up to be Jesus’ benefactors became his enemies instead.
Next, we turn to Jesus’ political characteristics. Strangely, although operating in a politically charged environment, and in spite of claiming a role that had political implications, Jesus showed no interest in building alliances with any of the parties in existence at the time. He even leveled his most scathing criticism against the ones he might have aligned with the easiest, the Pharisees. Furthermore (and no aspiring messiah would ever do this), Jesus refused to incite his followers to revolt against the Pagans, not even covertly. In fact, his admonitions to go the extra mile and turn the other cheek produced the opposite of any kind of militant resistance movement.
By the time of Jesus, Greco Roman Paganism, with its cultural, military, and religious hegemony, was considered the enemy of God’s people and included compromising Jews (Hellenists and Herodians), the Syrian Greeks (remnants of the Seleucid dynasty), and of course the Romans. The Samaritans were enemies too but they were a special case being neither pagans nor authentic Jews. Still, patriotic Jews thought of Samaritans as deserving of destruction along with the more official enemies. But in spite of His claim that the messianic prophecies of Isaiah were being fulfilled by himself in that very day, Jesus never included or implied any sort of physical resistance or military conquest. Isaiah had said, “they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them” (Is. 14:2). But instead Jesus told his disciples to put away their swords, even when he was arrested.
The rabbis, especially the more conservative ones, were, in their purity laws and scriptural interpretations, inciting revolt in the name of God and country. Many of their disciples and proselytes would become insurgents in the Jewish revolts. This is likely one reason Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and accused them of shutting people out of the kingdom. Jesus added that the Pharisee’s converts were in fact twice the children of Hades as their teachers (Mt. 23:15).
Many powerful Jews, however, did not support the dominant messianic philosophy of the Pharisees. Political and military leaders, a few Pharisees, as well as many of the priests, advocated accommodation with Rome. Josephus, a captured Jewish commander and self-identified Pharisee, would eventually claim that God had gone over to the side of the Romans and that Vespasian was the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies.2
Had Jesus’ messianic claims been invented and also designed to oppose the Pharisees, some alignment with those currently in power would have been advantageous. It might even have saved him from execution. As it turned out, Jesus’ failure to court favor with the ruling class served to unite the Jewish political leaders and the rabbis, at least for a brief time. But even that unified opposition was based on a misunderstanding, if not an outright lie about who Jesus really was. When asked by Pilate if he was indeed the King of the Jews, Jesus did not deny the title. But he pointed out what should have been obvious by then. “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). The actual messianic claims of Jesus could not have been invented because they did not fit with anyone’s expectations or political realities. A messiah with no political support would be at best, ineffective, and at worst dangerous to national security.
Finally, we must consider Jesus’ religious characteristics. Jesus, as a person of faith, would have been particularly inconvenient for anyone who was bent on inventing a messiah who would rescue the faithful. Besides his pacifist stance when it came to resisting foreigners, and his egalitarian attitude with regard to who could be in the new kingdom, Jesus reinterpreted the law and the scriptural story of Israel in a way that offended many of the most devout.
The Pharisees, acting as the purity police—as well as judge and jury—once asked Jesus why he allowed his disciples to eat grain out of a field on the Sabbath, a type of “work” forbidden by the fourth commandment. Jesus could have said it was none of their business, or defended his disciples by saying that the law did not apply due to mitigating circumstances. Such arguments involving the rescue of people or farm animals on the Sabbath were often used by the rabbis. But Jesus never even hinted that the Pharisees were wrong about what he was allowing the disciples to do. To all observers it would have seemed obvious—picking grain out of a field was breaking the fourth commandment in several ways, including working, allowing someone else to work, and creating an impact, however minuscule, on the growing, buying and selling of grain. Such activity might have been proper on any other day; but not on the Sabbath. Moses would be offended and Nehemiah scandalized, they might have said. But Jesus, rather than explaining away his law-breaking doubled down by citing the law-breaking example of David and of the priests. He even declared that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” But most scandalously, he claimed himself to be “more important than the temple” and “Lord of the Sabbath!” (Mt. 12:3-8). Jesus did not dissolve the institution of the Sabbath. But he did liberate it from its traditional role in Jewish law.
So, in one fell swoop Jesus turned things completely upside down with respect to the law and his Jewish heritage. While remaining loyal to both, he reinterpreted their purpose in support of his role as Messiah along with an increased awareness of their inherent freedoms and benefits for human beings. Historical expectations were being fulfilled! History was going somewhere with a purpose; not to repeat the same history, but to restore the fortunes of Israel in a new way—in the person of the Messiah Jesus.
Jesus’ claims were scandalous at the time, and remain so today. It is true that individually, his beliefs and practices were entirely within the scope of 1st century Judaism. Even his criticism of the Pharisees was a collegial criticism; a criticism from the inside that no doubt hit a nerve in a way familiar to other teachers who also criticized their hypocritical and judgmental colleagues. His messianic vision was also entirely within the tradition of scripture and even of the teachers of his day. What set him apart and why he could never have been invented out of convenience or even religious devotion, is that by his intent and design, all of his peculiar beliefs, criticisms, and behaviors added up to something more than the sum of their individual effects.
The entire package was, in the face of the socio-economic, political, and religious climate of the time, hard for people, even John the Baptist, to swallow. But even so, if Jesus had remained simply a moral reformer, a teacher or even a prophet intent on making the Jews socially compassionate and more authentically the people of God, he might have run into controversy; but not the cross. In other words, he might have survived. But what made Jesus’ 3 ½ year career doomed from the start, and why no one at the time could have or would have invented a person like Jesus, is that all of his characteristics existed in support of his identity as the Messiah. And his definition of a messiah frankly, just didn’t work in the real world. Even if he was a good teacher; he lacked the raw hutzpah to rule over the masses; he refused to court those with the political influence necessary to get things done, and he did not even have the guts to start an uprising against the pagans or the corrupt Jewish leadership. He could have been cast in the role of prophet or simply an interesting social irritant. But he could not and would not have been invented as the messiah.
So either Jesus the Messiah was the real deal. Or he was the greatest, most audaciously self-promoted, and most beneficial fraud the world has ever seen. But he was not invented. Jesus was not the messiah we wanted. But he is the messiah we need.
______________
[1]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186
[2] War 3.399–408. See N. T. Wright. The New Testament and the People of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 374. Background for this essay comes in large part from this book as well as the others in the series, “Christian Origins.”
