1.1 Introduction
Within the vast historical, literary, and theological scholarship of which Jesus of Nazareth has been the focal point, a subject of sustained interest has been the question of Jesusâs relationship to violence. Scholars of different backgrounds and perspectives have explored the matter, utilising diverse methodologies. Many have been struck by the Gospelsâ1 presentation of Jesusâs nonviolence, a distinct attribute of his teaching reflected in oft-quoted passages such as his command to âLove your enemiesâ (Matt 5:44 // Luke 6:27). Other scholars, however, have questioned the historical veracity of this aspect of the evangelistsâ portrayal of Jesus, arguing that the evidence instead suggests that Jesus was sympathetic to, if not himself a participant in, the revolutionary violence that was frequent in the world of Second Temple Judaism. Although this has been a minority opinion within Jesus scholarship, the hypothesis has proved tenacious, and, whenever articulated anew, has managed to capture public attention. For example, in 2013, Reza Aslan, a scholar of sociology and religious studies, published Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, a pseudo-historical examination of Jesus aimed at a popular-level audience.2 In this work, Aslan painted a picture of Jesus as a religious revolutionary freedom fighterâa âZealot.â The book entered The New York Timesâ Best Seller list at number two, and was for a time the top seller on Amazon.com.3 This is but one example of the way that this subject continues to intrigue both scholars and laypeople alike.4
As scholarship has come to understand better the sociopolitical context of first-century Palestinian Judaism, this has enabled a deeper appreciation of the ways that Jesusâs perspective upon violence, demonstrated in word as well as deed, was both similar to and distinct from other perspectives prevalent among his contemporaries. This topic has been examined from a variety of different angles; however, one significant aspect of the discussion that remains underrepresented in scholarship concerns the place and role of eschatology in relation to violence.
As a distinct topic, âJesus and eschatologyâ has, if anything, been discussed at even greater length than âJesus and violence,â as scholars have sought to understand Jesusâs beliefs about âthe end,â and the impact these had on his teaching and action. Intriguingly, however, only very rarely have these two topics been examined together; that is, in terms of their relationship to one another. According to the Gospelsâ portrayal, how did Jesusâs eschatological expectations inform his decisions regarding the role of violence in his own life and ministry? How does this compare to what we know of the eschatological expectations and violent actions of Jesusâs contemporaries? Such questions are at the heart of the present study.
The underlying inquiry of this study, therefore, is this: how does understanding eschatology and violence togetherâthat is, in terms of the significant connections between them in the diverse world of Second Temple Judaismâenable us to make better sense of the presence and/or absence of violence in Jesusâs life and ministry?
1.1.1 The Status Quaestionis and Identification of the Problem
It is my contention that previous scholarship has not adequately considered the significance of the close connections between eschatology and violence in Second Temple Judaism for understanding certain components of the Gospelsâ portrayal of Jesusâs life and ministry, and that this oversight has had problematic repercussions. Those specifically to be addressed in this study are demonstrated by two recent publications.
First, in a lengthy article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, entitled âJesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the Arguments,â5 the Spanish scholar Fernando Bermejo-Rubio argues that âJesus the Galilean was involved in anti-Roman, rebellious thinking and activity.â6 To support this claim, he contends that âthere is ⊠a great amount of material which points precisely in the direction of a seditious Jesus, that this material configures a recurrent pattern, and that this pattern enjoys the highest probability of historicity.â7 Most importantly, Bermejo-Rubio repeatedly emphasises his belief that the âseditious Jesusâ makes the most sense of otherwise incomprehensible elements of the Jesus tradition.8 Second, in an article in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament entitled âJesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous,â9 Dale Martin argues that the direct cause of Jesusâs crucifixion was the fact that he and his disciples were (illegally) carrying swords within the city of Jerusalem, and that their armament was due to the fact that Jesus led them there expecting that they would âparticipate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.â10 Martin, citing the War Scroll (1QM) as evidence for such beliefs, thus argues that Jesus expected an apocalyptic conflict between the cosmic and earthly forces of good and evil, in which he and his followers would fight on the side of the angelic heavenly hosts. Like Bermejo-Rubio, he claims that this makes sense of otherwise conflicting and confusing Gospel texts.11
Both of these articles demonstrate elements of the problematic, misguided or insufficient approaches to the questions of Jesus, violence, and eschatology that are at the heart of the present study. As noted above, Bermejo-Rubioâs hypothesis is rooted in his belief that the Gospels as they now stand make no sense, and thatâto quote another of his publicationsââa reconstruction of Jesus in which the aspect of anti-Roman resistance is seriously and consistently contemplated is the most plausibleâin fact the only plausibleâview of the Galilean preacher.â12 In this, Bermejo-Rubioâs JSHJ article represents the most thorough, recent articulation of the âseditious Jesus hypothesisâ (SJH). The SJH, often associated with the work of English scholar S. G. F. Brandon,13 is based on three fundamental claims: (i) the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as a nonviolent proclaimer of the âeschatologicalâ (understood as âother-worldlyâ) kingdom of God is a fabrication, developed by the early church on the basis of its theological commitments and apologetic needs; (ii) the truly historical Jesusâwhose identity the evangelists sought to concealâwas a politically seditious, and potentially violent Jewish revolutionary; and finally, (iii) the fabricated portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is incoherent, since the texts themselves contain elements betraying hints of Jesusâs âtrueâ nature, which are inconsistent with the apolitical, nonviolent Jesus they depict elsewhere.
One of the main problems with Bermejo-Rubioâs reading of the Gospelsâ portrayal of Jesus is the almost complete lack of attention paid in the article to the eschatological character of Jesusâs ministry. As will be argued more thoroughly in what follows, I suggest that this is caused in part by the long-standing conception of eschatology as âother-worldly,â which generates the assumption that it is irrelevant to âthis-worldlyâ matters. Although much scholarship of the past few decades has demonstrated the inaccuracy of conceiving of Second Temple Jewish eschatology in such terms, this approach remains prevalent in the work of numerous scholars, Bermejo-Rubio among them. As a result, he considers neither the possibility that the revolutionary violence with which he seeks to associate Jesus might have itself been eschatologically-motivated, nor the ways in which this might suggest a means by which to investigate its relationship to Jesusâs ministryâwhich, as will be argued, was inherently eschatological in nature.
Martinâs JSNT article also represents the SJH, but in a different and less explicit manner. To Martinâs credit, he acknowledges that eschatological expectations could (i) influence decisions and actions, and (ii) be conceptually associated with violence. Nevertheless, his approach to the intersection of violence and eschatology in Jesusâs ministry is problematic, largely by virtue of its limitation. By making reference only to one expression of Second Temple Jewish eschatological expectations among many (that found in 1QM), Martin implies that if Jesus were to have acted on the basis of such expectations, then an âapocalypticâ heavenly/earthly battle would have been its necessary result. However, although this may indeed explain why Jesusâs followers carried ΌᜱÏαÎčÏαÎč, Martin does not thoroughly consider the implications of the fact that his claim that Jesus himself held such an eschatological vision runs deeply counter to the consistent disassociation between Jesus and violence elsewhere in the Gospels. In other words, Martin does not adequately address the fact that his hypothesis runs counter to the eschatological vision that, according to the evangelists, Jesus proclaimed and enacted throughout his entire ministry. If his hypothesis is correct, how do we explain the fact that our earliest and best sources present a figure who far more frequently spoke and acted in very different ways?
Therefore, behind the arguments made by both Bermejo-Rubio and Martin lies the assumption that the Gospels present an inconsistent portrayal of Jesus. Both scholars claim that (i) certain passages suggest that Jesus expectedâperhaps even eagerly anticipatedâthat violent conflict would attend the climax of his ministry, and (ii) such passages contradict other texts which portray Jesus as one who taught his followers to love their enemies and to be peacemakers. Both scholars offer solutions to this alleged inconsistency that (i) endorse the suggestion that the Jesus of history engaged (or expected at some point to engage) in violence against the Romans and their collaborators; and thus (ii) suggest the illegitimacy of Gospel texts that depict Jesusâs rejection of such action. In both cases, therefore, we end up having to admit that the Gospels are ultimately unreliable, presenting an incoherent and inconsistent portrayal of this historical figure.
As I have briefly argued above, and will demonstrate more fully as this study progresses, the arguments of both Bermejo-Rubio and Martin fail sufficiently to consider the significance of the interconnectedness of violence and eschatology in the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism: Bermejo-Rubio largely ignores the role eschatology plays in the violence with which he seeks to associate Jesus, while Martinâs approach is limited by its consideration of the source material. Therefore, these two recent articles demonstrate the problem to be addressed in this study: previous scholarship has not adequately considered how the close connection between eschatology and violence within the worldview of Second Temple Judaism can inform our understanding of Jesusâs life and ministry. This has contributed to the belief that, particularly on the topic of his approach to violence, the Gospels present a...