By Ryan Smith
It is, as a rule, very hard to uncover the historical facts of the Christian inception, and whatever we can say must be stated with great reserve. On the other hand, it is easily demonstrable that many pertinent and illuminative facts are left out of most Christian accounts. In this article, I shall attempt to supply some of these facts, so as to give the reader a full understanding of the doctrines of Jesus. As with my articles on Buddhism and Hinduism, I shall not say anything about the spiritual truth of these doctrines, for I could not settle that question even if that had been my aim; it is a matter that everyone must decide for themselves.
First, it is almost completely certain that Jesus existed; that he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans (probably while he was in his early or mid-30s). But beyond these facts, almost nothing can be known for certain of him. This paucity of information has caused considerable division in the modern interpretations of Jesus’ life and works. Did he preach a coming apocalypse? Did he identify himself as the Jewish Messiah? Was he a charismatic wonder-worker akin to Empedocles? Was he simply a moral teacher and social reformer? Or was his aim to preach a Jewish variant of Cynicism?
Again, we don’t know, which leaves everyone – including atheists and followers of other religions – free to read almost anything that suits them into the life of the historical Jesus. I cannot claim that my analysis will be altogether different in this respect. What I can do, however, is stress some extra-Judeo-Christian connections that are usually neglected by Jesus scholars.
The Background of First Century Palestine
Over the course of the centuries leading up to the birth of Jesus, Indo-Persian influences that had not previously been felt in Jewish religious literature began to leave their mark on the region. Thus the Jewish religious work, the Book of Enoch (completed 80-50 BCE), is teeming with Iranian religious imagery, such as the notion of an invisible realm besides the visible one, and that the universe was not created by God producing more and more of it from nothing, but by making it increasingly visible out of the invisible; and that man was a conglomerate of essentially two cosmic elements (and nothing more).[1]
Furthermore, the four titles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament (Christ; the Righteous One; the Elect One, and the Son of Man) are all to be found in the Book of Enoch, just as more than a hundred general phrases and expressions from the New Testament all have their precursors in the Book of Enoch.[2] Taken together, these facts make it overwhelmingly likely that the authors of the New Testament were familiar with the Book of Enoch and thus – in one form or another – with Indo-Persian doctrines.
Another way to approach the matter would be to look at certain Jewish sects of the period. Both Jewish and Roman historians tell us about the Essenes who existed throughout Roman Judea. Though Jews by birth, the Essenes held fast to such atypical practices as asceticism, celibacy, poverty and – above all – non-violence and the practice of controlling one’s temper. On the negative side, the Essenes were also prohibited from engaging in animal sacrifice, owning slaves, or engaging in trade. Like Pythagoras, they believed that the soul is both pre-existing and immortal, and that it returns to a cosmic realm after death. This latter similarity caused the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus to suggest that the Essenes must have gotten hold of these non-Jewish doctrines from Pythagoras or his followers. Modern scholars have criticized this notion, however, finding it far more likely that the Essenes are indebted to the general Indo-Persian influence that was active in the region.[3]
Jesus and the Essenes
John the Baptist was a Jewish preacher who lived in the wilderness and practiced baptism as the most important rite of this movement. As we saw above, it is practically certain that he baptized Jesus and admitted him into his order (most likely somewhere around 26-29 CE). Once again, we cannot be completely sure what John preached, though, and modern scholarship tends to place his death somewhat later than we should expect from the New Testament (31-36 CE rather than 29-30 CE). Most likely, though, John preached the coming of God’s wrathful judgment upon the world. Since the Day of Judgment was imminent, there was no use in acquiring material possessions, or tending to an earthly life. Baptism, repentance, and purification from sin seem to have been the heart of his message. He was almost certainly executed by Herod Antipas, as the New Testament claims, since John publicly denounced Antipas’ marriage to the divorced wife of his half-brother as illegal by Jewish law.
For more than a hundred years, scholars have noted a string of similarities between the Essenes and the ministry of John the Baptist. In the first half of the twentieth century, many scholars simply flat-out assumed that John had been an Essene. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1946-1956 CE), it now seems more likely that John was not an Essene as such, but perhaps rather trained by Essene priests in his youth. John was not a priest of any order, but an apocalyptic prophet of his own making; he did not assign himself to heightening the quasi-monastic Essenes’ observance of their own doctrines, but addressed himself to the Jewish public at large: To non-Essenes, outcasts, and the poor. He did not appear intent on starting a new community, but on preaching the coming doom to any Jew who would listen.
Thus, while John was not an Essene, he probably introduced such Essene doctrines as asceticism, voluntary poverty, non-violence, and non-resistance to evil to his followers. While we cannot prove exactly how long Jesus was involved with John the Baptist, most Jesus scholars agree that the meeting between Jesus and John was not merely a brief one; it may have lasted months or years, and Jesus may even have been a disciple of John and a member of his movement before setting out to preach for himself. Whatever the extent of Jesus’ involvement with John, however, as long as it was substantial, we may reasonably infer that the Essene-like doctrines that Jesus would preach in his own ministry were probably made known to him through his months (or years) of following John the Baptist.
The Historicity of the Gospels
Jesus never wrote anything himself. To his followers, he seems to have given the impression that the end would be upon them within their lifetimes.[4] The impending destruction of the world most likely meant that the need to preserve Jesus’ teaching did not seem obvious to the first generation of disciples. Only in the second generation did the need for written records begin to be felt, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any of the authors of the four gospels ever met Jesus personally or witnessed any of the events they narrate themselves. It is almost universally agreed among scholars that the four gospels of the New Testament have little historical reliability. Much of what they say may be true in broad outline, but the specifics of their reports are clearly sculpted to the religious needs of the early Christian communities. The discovery of non-canonical gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in modern times also reveals that many of the sayings of Jesus may have been posthumously embellished from their more humble beginnings in some cases, or edited down to fit the narrative of the canonical gospels in others. The church father Origin, writing in the third century CE, says that the evangelists tried “to give the truth where possible, at once spiritually and corporeally, but where this was not possible, preferred the spiritual to corporeal, the true spiritual meaning being preserved, as one might say, in corporeal falsehood.”[5]
Nevertheless, since there is a scarcity of detailed information from non-Christian sources, historical inquiries into the life of Jesus have no choice but to rely on the gospels, albeit, as partial sources, they must be handled with care.
If we endeavor to uncover the gist of Jesus’ teaching, we soon discover that it is made up of two diverse strands of thought, which the gospels attempt to fuse together as one:
- Identification as the Jewish Messiah and herald of the coming apocalypse.
- Social reform through universal brotherhood, radical forgiveness, and non-resistance to evil.
These two strands of thought are juxtaposed by Matthew 10:34 (“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”) and Matthew 26:52 (“those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword”). It is quite evident that these positions are not compatible without a staggering amount of exegesis. In his role as the Messiah and herald of the apocalypse, Jesus identified with pre-existing strands of Jewish nationalism and militarism. According to traditional Judaic religion, the Day of Judgment would mark God’s restoration of the tribes of Israel and the complete obliteration of the gentiles. In his role as Messiah, Jesus did not do much to alter the nature of salvation as being a purely Jewish prerogative. Thus, when dispatching his disciples to preach his message, he said: “Do not go in the way of the gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6). As is clear from the letters of Paul of Tarsus too (themselves written before the gospels), early Christianity vexes on the question of whether non-Jews could be saved.
If the traditional Jewish teaching had clear nationalistic and militaristic elements to it, which Jesus at times bought into, the teaching of the universal brotherhood, as showcased by the Parable of the Good Samaritan, was completely opposed to such particularism. It is under this heading that we find the much-celebrated teaching that anyone, no matter his nationality or race, is one’s neighbor, that we should love our neighbor, and that we should love and forgive our enemies. Here too, we find the doctrine that a pious person should sell all his possessions and give them to the poor (Matthew 19:21) and that it is “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). It is of course the Essene doctrines that Jesus received from John the Baptist that rear their head again. Thus Jesus’ admonition not to covet an eye for an eye, but to turn the other cheek and “resist not an evil person” (Matthew 5:39) are also Essene teachings, all quite unlike the traditional Jewish morality.
To put it plainly, the traditional dictates of Mosaic Law had all asked the question: “What must I do to be good? What law must I observe in order to please God?” But Jesus replaces the focus on laws and deeds with a focus on an inner transformation of repentance and forgiveness that takes place in the heart. In a single moment, a life-long sinner may be born again if his repentance is radical and profound enough. It is a complete change that absolved all previous standards of value, as evidenced by Jesus forgiving the criminal on the cross, promising him a place in Paradise after a life of crime and sin (Luke 23:32-43).
Knowing the Indo-Persian background and influence on the doctrines of the Essenes, it would seem an obvious hypothesis that the root idiom of the “radical inner transformation” espoused by Jesus would in fact be the awakening of mystical consciousness (“Enlightenment”) of the Eastern mystery religions like Zoroastrianism and the early Upanishads. It is probable, perhaps even likely, that Jesus meditated (Matthew 4:1-11; Matthew 26:36-46), but apart from some later attempts to read his words mystically, there is little in the way of genuinely mystical consciousness in the teachings of Jesus, as they are known to us. Indeed, when Hellenic philosophers later attempted to read mysticism into the words of Jesus, they were often persecuted by the Church, and when Christian mystics started popping up in the Middle Ages, they were often condemned as heretics.[6]
It should thus be clear, I hope, that two opposing strands of thought competed for dominance in the mind and teachings of Jesus: One militaristic, nationalistic, and exclusively Jewish in both origin and content, facing off with another that was pacifistic, all-embracing, and universal, extending its salvation to all people, and which was the product of Judaic appropriation of Indo-Persian influences. It should be clear, too, that these ideas run counter to each other and are in fact incompatible. We can see the psychological difference clearly if we compare Jesus with Buddha.
The spirit of Buddha, as it has often been pointed out, is similar to that of Jesus in several respects. However, these comparisons only hold true when we compare Buddha with the pacifistic and universal Jesus. Of the wrathful, militaristic Jesus, who scolds those who will not hear him and raises his hand against those he regards as sinners to God, we find no counterpart in the Buddha. In resemblance with Buddha, the Essene Jesus pities those who do not understand his teaching as acting out of ignorance, but the Messianic Jesus condemns those who will not hear as wicked. The nervous and irritable side of Jesus, which the gospels portray alongside his loving nature, is not mirrored in the temperament of the Buddha, who meets every situation with courtesy and calm.[7]
The Crucifixion of Jesus
Though we are practically certain that Jesus was crucified around 30-33 CE, we cannot know exactly why he was put to death in this manner. We know, however, that crucifixion was generally reserved for rebels and traitors. It was regarded as a particularly painful and shameful way of putting someone to death, and in general, most Roman executions were not carried out by these means.[8] We should also remember that it is quite unlikely that Jesus would be put to death simply for preaching a new religious teaching. The Roman Empire was extraordinarily tolerant of religious diversity and even welcomed division among its subjects, thus making it easier to observe the imperial maxim of “dividing and conquering.”[9] It is true that Jesus upset traditional Mosaic Law and railed against the high priests of the Jewish temple. He claimed that he was as competent to interpret the law as the high priests and Pharisees, and he released people from the traditional obligations of their religion (such as observing the Sabbath or burying the dead according to Jewish custom) on his personal authority.[10] He plainly said that his teaching was more important than whatever teachings that had come before him and he no doubt upset many orthodox Jews throughout the land.
All of this, however, is still unlikely to have gotten him crucified. In the first century CE, there appeared to have been several vociferous prophets in Judea, many of whom denounced the Jewish high priests in a manner akin to Jesus. The historian Josephus tells us that, much to the annoyance of the Jewish high priests, the Roman governors did not see such preachers and prophets as serious threats to the political order. John the Baptist, too, had ostensibly denounced some of the old Talmudic practices and amassed a great following in the wilderness. Yet it was only when he started interfering with the affairs of the rulers directly that the authorities sought to punish him, and even then they were still quite reluctant to call for his execution.
The gospels give us two likely incidents that may have led to the crucifixion of Jesus:
- As punishment for his driving the merchants and moneychangers out of the Temple, overturning their stalls and booths, and possibly flogging some of them with a whip.[11]
- For claiming, or failing to convincingly deny, that he fashioned himself a political (as opposed to merely spiritual) King of the Jews.[12]
Either of these occurrences could conceivably have roused the vigilance of the Roman authorities and left Jesus open to persecution. The possibility of the two events unfolding in succession as claimed by the gospels would also seem likely: First, he caused a disturbance of the public order through the incident at the Temple; then he was arrested and did not deny having political aspirations. Had he done so, it is likely that he would have been flogged or beheaded instead.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am especially indebted to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan for his discussion of the historical Jesus.
REFERENCES
[1] Shaked: The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge University Press 1984) p. 321
[2] Interestingly, the Book of Enoch declares Enoch himself to be the Son of Man (XLV.3-4). Furthermore, God declares that the Son of Man is the Son of God who shall be the beacon by which all who follow him can be saved (not just Jews). Furthermore, the Son of Man saves whoever is willing to commit themselves to the path of righteousness by having all judgment transferred to his person (LXIX.27).
[3] In fact, the legendary accounts of the Greek philosophers claim that Pythagoras travelled east to receive lectures from Indian Brahmins and Persian Magi prior to returning to Greece. Whatever the truth of these claims, a general Indo-Persian influence from the east seems to have served as the inspiration for both Pythagoras and the Essenes, rather than there being any specific relationship between the two.
[4] “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels. … Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” (Mark 8:38-9:1)
[5] Origen: Commentary on St. John’s Gospel X.4
[6] McGinn: The Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism (Cambridge University Press 2012) p. 206, 208
[7] If the theological teachings of personal God vs. impersonal Absolute are different, the legendary miracles and encounters of Jesus and Buddha are nevertheless quite similar: Buddha’s conception was a miracle and his birth a wonder. His mother, though not exactly a virgin, was “virgin-like” for 32 months. Wise Brahmins (priests) showed up at his birth to proclaim his future greatness. He fasts for 49 days while being tempted by a demon. He heals blindness, deafness, and makes the lame walk again. He has twelve disciples whom he sends forth to minister. He announces that whatever good deeds his followers undertake for the poor and the sick, they undertake for his sake also. He proclaims the Golden Rule (“do as you would be done by”). He converts a robber to be his follower and associates with a harlot. He commands that his followers devote themselves to a treasure not of this world “that does not deteriorate and that no thief can take away.” He proclaims that following his teaching is better than following the rigorous laws and practices that had been set in place prior to his time. A disciple betrayed him, and led soldiers to him, but when they saw the Buddha, they could not bring themselves to kill him and fell to his feet. Another disciple gained the power to walk on water as long as he believed in the Buddha. He miraculously fed 500 people with a single cake that was put into his begging bowl. When he died, there was a great earthquake, and three months after his death, he rose again as the perfect Absolute. We do not know why there is such a considerable overlap between the two traditions, but the evidence suggests that these legends had already been fixed in the Buddhist canon at least as early as 70-30 BCE, and possibly even before then, and that Buddhist missionaries had been active in the West since at least 150 BCE. That the Buddhists copied the Christians would therefore seem out of the question, but this need not mean that the Christians then copied the Buddhists, as some scholars like to suggest: It could also be the case that both traditions drew upon an even older, archaic set of legends that were attributed to many religious figures, seemingly originating with Buddhism by virtue of its historical priority, but in reality being much older, and much more generic than either denomination.
[8] Smith: Into the World of the New Testament (Bloomsbury 2015) p. 157
[9] Radhakrishnan: Eastern Religions and Western Thought (Oxford University Press 2000) p. 315
[10] Matthew 8.21
[11] Matthew 21:12-17; John 2:13-16
[12] Matthew 27:11