Jesus, Joshua, Yeshua of Nazareth Revised and Expanded

By Gordon Clouser

Who was Jesus? An apocalyptic prophet? An aphoristic sage? The messiah of Jewish expectations? In Jesus, Joshua, Yeshua of Nazareth, Gordon Clouser analyzes the question of the historical Jesus and argues that the realities of Jesus ministry place him squarely in the forefront of Jewish messianic culture. Presenting conclusions matured by a lifetime of research and personal reflection, Clouser courageouslyand effectivelyrefutes scholarly new consensus positions on the historical nature of Jesus. Clouser directly confronts the Jesus Seminars characterizations of Jesus as an aphoristic sage. He rebuts scholars attempts to separate beliefs of John the Baptist and Jesus. He contends that the imminent-coming/end-time Son of Man passages are not gospel authors promotions of Pauls second coming of Jesus, nor in fact are they Jesus predictions of his own return. In place of conventional thinking, Clouser advances a fresh, yet feasible explanation for the Son of Man identification for Jesus.

In Jesus, Joshua, Yeshua of Nazareth Gordon Clouser addresses an ages-old controversy with answers that will thoroughly satisfy the thoughtful seeker of historical truth.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Dec 22, 2011
• ISBN: 9781462062638

Gordon Clouser

Upon graduation from the University of Oklahoma, Gordon Clouser spent twenty-seven years in the Air Force as a fighter pilot. He built his own home in Durango, Colorado, participates in Rotary International, as Rail Ranger on the Durango and Silverton Narrow Guage Railroad, and jeeping above tree line.

Book preview

Jesus

Joshua

Yeshua

of

Nazareth

Revised and Expanded

Gordon Clouser

iUniverse, Inc.

Bloomington

Jesus, Joshua, Yeshua of Nazareth

Revised and Expanded

Copyright © 2011 by Gordon Clouser.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4620-6121-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4620-6263-8 (e)

Printed in the United States of America

iUniverse rev. date: 12/19/2011

Contents

Acknowledgments

Preface

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Glossary

Bibliography

Notes

Acknowledgments

I must acknowledge a personal friend, John Tait, a member of my theological discussion group, Tillers of the Soil (we do till the soil), who early in the process helped steer me in the right direction when I was too close to the proverbial forest to see the trees. I also am indebted to Elizabeth Testa, a knowledgeable and skilled editor, who helped me appreciate a sense of organization and purpose and encouraged me to look again at the trees. The editorial process was educational and pleasurable. Ann Butler’s journalistic guidance on the revised edition also helped me create a more conversational product for a larger audience.

Others provided valued assistance. Wayne McCarey, stationed with me in the same Air Force squadron on Okinawa more than forty year ago, was brutally honest in his assessment of the original version. There are times when one needs such a friend. His critique was the major impetus for a revised edition. I also appreciate the insight of my brother, Keith, a fellow pursuer of ultimate truth.

I would also recognize other members of Tillers of the Soil who provided helpful recommendations as the revised edition neared its completion. This group has proven to be an indispensable outlet for exchange of a wide range of views that would not have been available otherwise. When questions of ultimate reality, or truth, are not addressed by religious or secular institutions readily available, a group such as this can be particularly valuable. A variety of perspectives is beneficial for anyone possessing the audacity to articulate a subject with such far-reaching implications as the historical figure of Jesus. Tillers’ helpful suggestions remedied a shortfall in my earlier experience, for which I am profoundly grateful.

Finally, this work would not be what it is without Marcia, my wife and best friend for forty-seven years, who provided indispensable English-teacher expertise and constructive comments at the conclusion of the project.

Preface

Another book on the historical Jesus? Hasn’t this subject been exhausted by seemingly endless prior publications? I have been surprised in my review of those publications that not only has the subject not been exhausted but, if I may assert, many authors dealing with the subject have omitted relevant material.

The historical figure of Jesus became a subject of interest for a limited number of curious scholars after Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1906, more so in the mid-twentieth century, and in the United States, much more so in the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. In the last thirty years, numerous books have dealt with the topic, and there are as many depictions of Jesus as authors. The quest for the historical Jesus by so many has been described as faddish, and the proliferation of these publications supports that description. Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University suggests that the quest has actually been the search for a usable Jesus and has had as much to do with theology as history. For some, the quest indeed may be a search for usability, but I imagine for a respectable number of people, as with me, the attraction is a genuine curiosity about the origins of one’s faith tradition.

Even as a teenager I had a gnawing awareness that Yeshua of Nazareth was being dwarfed by Jesus Christ of Christianity. The overwhelming focus on him from a theological perspective in the Methodist Church, Sunday School, youth fellowship programs, and home environment thoroughly submerged the individual himself. Of course, that is not unusual or unique to my experience.

I aspire to the attainment of ultimate truth, or reality, and am convinced such pursuits must be attempted from a macro perspective—a God’s eye view—as opposed to the more narrow human perspective. Lack of objectivity about matters involving strong belief is inherent in the human condition as witnessed in the disciplines of politics, philosophy, and religion. Without value judgment, I always had questions about the Bible that transcended the limits of religious education, and I resolved at an early age the right to understand it better someday. I am dismayed that I procrastinated until retirement. My research is the result of a lifetime of curiosity and a campaign within the last dozen years for objective comprehension more than any desire to join the feeding frenzy in the quest for the historical Jesus.

I possess great respect for the majority of those who have made the enterprise of Bible and Jesus research a lifetime of study, instruction, argumentation, and hard work. Although I have engaged in such research avidly, my formal education consists of a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical and Space Engineering and a Masters of Public Administration. I pursued a flying career in the Air Force, an experience I would not change.

While accomplished scholars possess more extensive formal education and knowledge, I am convinced those with the appropriate degrees and academic titles, tenured experience, and numerous publications to their credit are not themselves sole recipients of the capacity for interpretive historical reconstruction. That conviction has been reinforced in the research of this work. Nevertheless, this book could not have been accomplished in its present form without prior scholarship on Jesus. I take issue with positions advocated by others but do so with gratitude to those who have gone before and paved the way.

Initially this study was intended for the academic community since notable members have developed characterizations of the historical Jesus that, in my opinion, beg illumination from a different perspective. For those within academia, my lack of credentials could be considered a limiting factor. For that reason alone, I recognize this work is apt to be more receptive by those who are not professional scholars. That includes a growing contingent of deeply curious seekers of knowledge about the foundations of the religious tradition in which they were raised. I acknowledge from personal experience, however, that curiosity among many Christians concerning the historical Jesus appears to be far less than my own enthusiasm for increased awareness and comprehension.

There are those who describe Jesus predominantly in terms that are corporate rather than individual, within the framework of the larger socio-political structure of the Roman-dominated world. Others believe he must be described within the emancipatory Divine Wisdom movement of which he supposedly was a part. I am not among those who would do so. While I can readily appreciate the socio-economic forces that helped shape Jesus (from which he cannot be separated), I focus on the culture of which he was a part, one that predated his political environment and provided the foundation for responding to it.

I first review key concepts relevant to Judaism and the literary settings of the apostle Paul and gospel authors. Next is Paul, himself, and a distinction between his writings and the gospels not generally acknowledged but central to the position taken in this work. One of the more interesting considerations that guided initial research is how biblical writers varied their presentations of Jesus and his impending kingdom of God as related to the timing of gospel construction and the audience for whom an author was writing. Jesus is understood as apocalyptic in a general sense in the earliest gospel. He is portrayed differently in later writings.

Following the gospels, I turn to the coming Son of Man sayings, that is, those pronouncements about a curious Son of Man figure that feature an imminent-coming/end-time context. They have been represented by a number of scholars as the creations of gospel authors rather than authentic sayings of Jesus. I am convinced not only that they are authentic but that Jesus was referring to someone other than himself, and therefore such statements are not forecasts of his return.

I will explore the earliest faith community in Jerusalem and the all-important question of messianic self-understanding. I affirm his disciples and also Jesus, himself, believed he was the messiah of centuries-old Jewish tradition. Messianic understanding surfaces as the only feasible explanation for details revealed by gospel authors exclusively for readers familiar with the religious culture of Palestine (see the Glossary definition of Palestine). Ultimately, I argue against various scholars whose representations of Jesus remove him from his religious culture; I maintain he was an integral part of that culture. I conclude with a challenge to scholars’ prominent reconstruction of the hypothetical document Q and offer an explanation for the Son of Man designation for Jesus.

It may surprise some that the principal difficulty in dealing with the historical figure is the fact that there is little available about him that can be classified as truly historical. Harold Bloom of Yale University has stated that quests for the historical Jesus invariably fail, even those by the most responsible researchers. Why? Because even the most renowned scholars accept as historically reliable certain passages rather than others, and all tend to create a Jesus in their own image.

While it is undoubtedly valid to question authors’ attempts to characterize Jesus (and I would advocate serious questioning of some), to decree that such quests invariably fail is, in my opinion, an overstatement. If conclusive comprehension of the nature of Jesus constitutes success and anything less, failure, then so be it. Scholarship may never achieve resolution. Alternatively, I am convinced it is possible to glean a responsible characterization from gospel accounts—a most probable nature of the historical Jesus—and I will leave it to the reader to judge the success or failure of my efforts.

Most biblical quotations are derived from the New Revised Standard Version. Exceptions are based on the particular interpretations expressed elsewhere. The headings of relevant chapters contain scholarly reconstructed dates of the writings we will review. As with other matters, not all scholars agree, but the dates provided reflect a reasonable majority position. Readers will note employment of the universally standard, nonconfessional CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) in lieu of AD and BC.

Scholarship has determined that gospel names do not delineate authorship, for example, Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew. The gospels were anonymously written. Rationale may exist for ascribing certain material to a particular individual, but only Paul in his letters claims to be the author. The now-familiar names of the gospels were applied in the second century and labeled according to to distinguish one author’s perspective from another’s.

A highly traditional ideal of historical truth is that older is better. The closer one could get back to Jesus, the more authentic the document. A writing that could be attributed to someone who had personal knowledge of Jesus could be considered more authoritative and acceptable. Most gospels, canonical as well as the vast library of noncanonical gospels, aspire to apostolic authority whether they possess it or not.

Revised and Expanded Edition

Reviews of the first edition were mixed. The book was helpful, but it generated confusion. Aside from the challenge presented by the historical perspective versus the more familiar theological, terminology and the style of writing presented difficulties. In adjusting the target reading audience, I have devoted considerable effort to make this edition a more reader-friendly version for a greater number of people. I have revamped the more troublesome terms and added a glossary for easy access and reference. Where possible, definitions are derived from Donald K. McKim’s Westminister Dictionary of Theological Terms.

I have expanded discussion of sayings of Jesus that I consider authentic, focused to a greater degree on the term Son of Man, and addressed gospels’ references to kingdom of God—whether its intended context was Jewish or Christian. I believe that context is a matter of confusion for many. I also have recognized the need to reflect upon scholars’ historical-critical method for understanding the historical Jesus and to respond to its critics.

I employ the four gospels as my primary sources—also Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul—and I take issue with those who subordinate canonical writings to noncanonical materials in developing their characterizations of Jesus. This does not imply that canonical sources are more reliable simply because they are in the Bible. It means they are the best sources available. My secondary sources are scholars, themselves, who have developed positions I support or contend against. The debate concerning the nature of the historical Jesus is alive and well but no longer conducted at the same level of intensity it once was.

Absolutely essential to understanding the historical figure is appreciation of the fact that concepts of Jesus changed throughout the decades after his death and well into the second century. As but one illustration, the term son of God that characterizes Jesus for Gentiles today as well as nearly two thousand years ago differs appreciably from the Jewish understanding relevant to his own time. Historical examination acknowledges such distinctions. The gospels and the writings of Paul contain equally significant and diverse, not to mention conflicting, portrayals of Jesus.

Although this is an historical enterprise that does not attempt a thoughtful review of theology, any depiction of the historical figure cannot help but generate theological implications, a matter frequently bypassed in historical undertakings. Where applicable, I comment on modern views of theology, and at the end I briefly undertake a discussion of theology and the Bible. For the reader thus far focused upon Jesus solely from a theological perspective, I would urge completion of the book before rendering judgment. To approach an historical composition from a theological perspective undoubtedly could prove difficult. Accordingly, I should clarify that I am not focused on distinctions between the historical and theological concepts of Jesus so much as on the various positions within the historical orientation itself. From my own experience when encountering new or challenging ideas, once I have been exposed to the larger picture, it is always helpful to reread the material.

Despite the initial desire to introduce this work into the academic arena, I acknowledged early in the process that a more realistic target was the pursuer of knowledge of one’s own religious tradition. In this edition, I also accommodate the mildly curious who were raised in a religious environment similar to mine but have not engaged in an understanding of Jesus that could be considered historical. In the final analysis, this may be written for them.

Chapter 1

In The Beginning

Jesus is the most prominent individual in human history and easily the most celebrated figure in Western culture. Interestingly though, we do not possess a common understanding of him, which is a commentary on us. He is viewed variously as a philosopher, a teacher who provided guidance for living, an apocalypticist who thought the end of the age was near, a savior who died for our sins, a divine human (God on earth), and more. Our perspectives are formed largely by theological understandings, and before the historical figure can be addressed, it will be necessary to clarify the relationship of theology, faith, and history.

In a study of history, one must also recognize that, for centuries, the prophetic Jewish kingdom of God was understood as a physical domain. Psalms 96:13, Zechariah 14:9, 16−19, and Isaiah among others, reflect God’s earthly kingdom. These writings typically envision the kingdom to be established through a messiah, most prominently a military/political leader. In the early first century, both before and after Jesus, a number of others professed to be the messiah. While they may have conceived of the kingdom as one created by human enterprise, Jesus did not. For the purposes of discussion, if he could be associated with the Jewish prophetic kingdom, he was on the end of the spectrum that believed one should wait for God to act rather than assist the process militarily. Implementation of the kingdom was the purview of the divine; the messiah would simply be the ruler of it.

This is descriptive of the thrust of the book—a pre-Christian understanding of Jesus. Undoubtedly some readers will experience a sense of disconnect between my depiction of the kingdom advocated by the historical figure and the prominent Christian concept. Scholars differ widely as to the type of kingdom Jesus envisioned, but regardless of individual approaches to the Bible, all should acknowledge he was a Jew whose religion was Judaism, not nascent Christianity. This writing explores Yeshua of Nazareth rather than Jesus Christ of the Nicene Creed. The former, reflecting his Jewish name, refers to Jesus during his own time—the latter, the subsequent era during which Christian beliefs were first formulated and later refined. Comprehension of the individual prior to creation of Christian convictions about him is essential for historical reconstruction. The nature of the kingdom he envisioned is central to that, and thus it will be explored at length.

Some readers also may have difficulty reconciling the Jesus of history as it differs from the Jesus of faith, particularly if theological truth is judged to be dependent upon historical truth. Is historical fact necessary for theological truth, or for faith? This may be contentious, but that approach to the Bible is not reflective of authors of the Bible. A dispassionate appraisal reveals the Bible not as a book of history so much as a history of the faith. Its purpose is religious. Throughout the Bible, authors are not limited by history in their presentation of theological truths.

Renowned Scottish theologian William Barclay asks us to try to think ourselves into the mind of the author and the time frame in which each book was written. Readers must continually remind themselves what the object of biblical writers was in writing at all.

Their one object was to show the ways of God with men; their one aim was to show life in terms of the sovereignty of God. The aim was exclusively religious. They were not writing history; they knew no more of scientific history than their contemporaries did. They were not writing science; their science was as primitive as that of their age. Their aim was to show God in action.¹

Theology, Faith, and History

Both the biblical and historical Jesus are important, and, as Marcus Borg, retired from Oregon State University insists, we need to be clear when we are doing one and when we are doing another.² I have increasingly learned to appreciate that advice. This work is doing the historical Jesus, which concentrates on material within the purview of the historian, not the theologian. Theological constructs are discussed (more than one might expect in an historical work), but they do not constitute a primary focus.

The significance of the historical perspective is affirmed by John P. Meier of the University of Notre Dame, who describes theology as a cultural artifact. He explains that earlier eras were blissfully ignorant of the concept of an historical Jesus since they operated in a cultural context devoid of the historical-critical understanding that marks the modern Western mind. "For contemporary christology, this means that faith in Christ today must be able to reflect on itself systematically in a way that will allow an appropriation of the quest for the historical Jesus into theology. The historical Jesus, while not an object of faith, must be an integral part of modern theology."³

Among sources encountered in my research, Meier provides by far the most comprehensive review in his multiple-volume work, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I suspect he is attempting to address every question ever raised in scholarly discourse on the gospels. To declare that the historical Jesus is an integral part of theology exposes the all too common misconception that theology equates to faith. To preserve the inviolability of faith, this view maintains that if history differs in any way, it cannot be integrated into theological interpretation.

For constructive understanding, any uncertainty about the relationship of theology, history, and faith must be resolved. Theology is the study of, or language about, God. Typically, that abstraction is broadened to include all aspects of religious belief. Others support Meier’s view that theology is molded within ever-changing historical circumstances.⁴ As also defined by Tony Campolo in his book enticingly titled, Adventures in Missing the Point, it is a system of thought that enables us to answer the ultimate questions in our lives with reference to God. He proposes that since all have theologies (about many topics) and since God cannot be defined by our systems of thought, in at least one sense all theologies are heresies.⁵ In any event, theology encompasses history as well as other aspects of human experience.

Faith is different. The biblical understanding is found in Hebrews 10:22: faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. I personally identify with theologian Paul Tillich’s definition: faith is an ultimate concern (rather than a set of beliefs). It is an embracing and centered act of the total personality.⁶

With this clarification, I now fine tune the earlier hypothesis concerning the dependency of theological and historical truths, which conforms to language commonly employed by the vast majority. Despite the fact that I continue throughout this work to contrast history and theology for lack of better terminology, when one concentrates on truth, language should be more precise. One should be clear when focused, not on theology versus history, but on theology versus faith. Theology is defined classically as faith seeking understanding. It appropriates history while faith does not.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, formerly of Harvard University, suggests that theology examines faith as it actually exists and is part of the religious tradition. Faith lies beyond it, in the hearts of men. Truth lies beyond that, in the heart of God.⁷ This corroborates my own view that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of mere humans, but that should never deter us from striving for it.

Paradigms

A matter assumed to be understood but all too often is not is the fact that there are two distinct paradigms, or worldviews, of Jesus: pre-Easter and post-Easter. The orientation of Paul, gospel writers, and practitioners of the faith is post-Easter. After all, Christianity is framed totally from the perspective of the resurrection. The historical-critical method seeks that which authentically represents the earlier paradigm, and therefore such investigations do not bear upon the post-Easter worldview, at least not directly or intentionally.

A paradigm is not true or false in and of itself; it is merely a way of viewing the world. James Hall of Richmond University explains this does not mean that paradigms are nonsensical. Paradigms set the limits of sense.⁸ If a given paradigm was defined totally from within, one might construct a framework for the reliability of its parts, but one paradigm cannot be described or even comprehended from within the confines of another. That is why Borg cautions readers to be clear when focused on the historical versus the canonical Jesus. It is why the historian is compelled to set aside one worldview when concentrating on the other.

It is gratifying to encounter clergy who appreciate the distinction. Pastor Robin Meyers (Saving Jesus from the Church) states that the quest for the historical Jesus is not destructive but constructive. Anti-intellectualism remains strongly entrenched in many parts of the church, and he maintains it is grounded in fear, not in faith.⁹ Many Christians erroneously view scholarship, and science as well, as a threat to church doctrine and thus to faith.

Embedded within this broad perspective are those who possess truly genuine faith but little understanding. It was during a sermon commensurate with this approach to religion that I was astounded to hear a pastor implore his congregation, Just believe, don’t think, with the foreboding implication that faith might not be sustainable if one dared to think. As best I recall, that comment related to Christian doctrine, but regardless of context, I consider it the most unfortunate statement uttered from the pulpit in my presence.

In retrospect, however, if one is comfortable and has no questions, I fully acknowledge it may not be beneficial to pursue a path apt to generate questions. I also concede that the distinction may be based on little more than an innate sense of curiosity or lack thereof.

Another possible way of considering this matter is within the framework of the right and left brain. Of course humans possess only one brain, but the two hemispheres of the cerebral cortex are understood to function differently. The left hemisphere processes information in an analytical and sequential way, looking first at the pieces and then putting them together to obtain the whole. It is more rational and logical. The right hemisphere processes information in an intuitive and simultaneous way, looking first at the whole picture, then the details. It is more visual and creative.

Some psychologists would undoubtedly object to the following illustration as an oversimplification. The left-brain person (assuming such terminology is appropriate to indicate dominance of the left hemisphere) might regard the mystery inherent in religion as a curiosity requiring resolution. By definition, mysteries are to be solved. That individual could reject efforts to explain doctrinal positions such as Jesus’ being both human and divine as simply part of the mystery. By contrast, the right-brain person may well view the mystery as integral to religion and would view efforts to explain it away as hostile to faith. The former’s insistence on rationality would be countered by the latter’s insistence that one cannot know the mind of God. I think this dynamic of the human mind helps explain much of the tension within religion. To clarify, that tension is prevalent within people of faith, not simply between them.

Some might regard pursuit of the historical Jesus as abandonment of the mystery, as if the appropriate response to religious tension consisted only of black and white alternatives. That seems to be an all too common approach to religion. I hope to dispel the notion of abandonment because, while historical comprehension is indispensable for pre-Easter understanding, it cannot eliminate the mystery of the post-Easter worldview.

I envision humanity’s most significant quest as the pursuit of ultimate truth, and I suspect many more people have questions than do not. By avoiding concepts that make us uncomfortable, we do not further the search for truth. Regardless of one’s religious orientation, I am confident most can appreciate the fact that responsible research is not possible whenever the ends are employed to justify the means, particularly when focused on different paradigms. In my more self-indulgent moments, I would even propose that a supreme being appreciates sincere, objective struggle more than conclusions tailored to conform to correct belief. Integrity is inherent in the process and crucial to the outcome, and therefore the means are important. If, in the pursuit of universal truth in all its forms one professes curiosity about the Bible, appreciation of history constitutes a positive, not a negative, in terms of biblical literacy and understanding. Historical context is indispensable for objective comprehension, assuming, of course, that is one’s guiding purpose.

The writings of Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University and Johnathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth, reflect vigorous approaches to the study of the Bible. Johnson writes the more we know about history, the more responsible readers of the gospels we can be.¹⁰ I fully agree. Sacks made the most profound religious statement to which I have been exposed when he wrote, "To be without questions