Chapter 43 of 404

Jesus as Charismatic Sage

Vermes doubts that Jesus was a “rabbi” in the later sense of that term.⁵⁵ By this he does not mean that we cannot find fruitful comparisons between Jesus’ teaching and that of later rabbis. Vermes himself draws these at numerous points, since rabbinic sources preserve some wider Jewish traditions, and certainly did not borrow ideas corresponding to the Gospels from the Gospels themselves.⁵⁶ Nevertheless, he envisions a closer model for first-century Galilee: that of the charismatic holy man.

In his early work, Vermes can envision Judean Pharisees having a difficult time with Jesus.⁵⁷ Following the form critics, however, Vermes attributes the Gospels’ particular stories about Jesus’ interpretive conflicts with Pharisees, involving Scripture debates, to later Christian tradition.⁵⁸ Although I believe that this approach oversimplifies our data, Vermes is not apparently denying that conflicts occurred. On Vermes’ reading, Jesus was devoted to the law, but was interested more in fulfilling its larger purpose than in observing its specific regulations. ⁵⁹ While I believe that Jesus may have engaged in more midrashic (traditional Jewish interpretive) treatment of the law than Vermes allows, one can well imagine how even Jesus’ frequently non-Pharisaic approach to the law would have brought him into conflict with Pharisees at times. Vermes notes such conflict between Jewish charismatics and Pharisees.⁶⁰

Nevertheless, Vermes is undoubtedly right that Jesus was crucified not for challenging interpretations of Jewish law nor for leading an insurrection, but for having caused a commotion in the temple during Passover season.⁶¹ (We will return to this idea in chs. 20-21.) Vermes strikes a useful balance: “There is little doubt that the Pharisees disliked his nonconformity” on matters like healing on the sabbath; “There is no evidence, however, of an active and organized participation on the part of the Pharisees in the planning and achievement of Jesus’ downfall.”⁶²

Even here, he allows that “some individual Pharisees bore a measure of responsibility,” but he lays most of the blame on “representatives of the political establishment — Herod Antipas and his supporters in Galilee, and the chief priests and Pilate in the capital.”⁶³ This perspective, incidentally, fits well what we find in our Gospels; even the Fourth Gospel, known for its polemical relationship to Pharisaism, shifts the focus to the chief priests and Pilate in the passion narrative.⁶⁴

↑ Back to top