MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part I Jesus' Historical Context

Prompt: What was most surprising about the historical information of the program? 

Note: this is part one of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/  I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

 The program indicates that Jesus was likely born in Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem.  The program also notes that the region of Galilee, where Nazareth is located, was apparently known as a region of radicalization and a great blending of culture and urban efforts.  Furthermore, the documentary establishes that the artisan class was very low-class, below even pastoral farmers.  Several speakers in the film argue that this contradicts the conventional picture of Jesus's life as a pastoral and rural man of humble origin, birth, and education.  They argue that, in fact, Jesus must have been fairly well educated and politically savvy in order to succeed in the urban environment of the city, and that he probably gathered all this from the city itself.  

 This historical context is, I think, supposed to surprise and challenge viewers. The first time I watched the documentary, I found myself thinking, 'is this degree path how I end up not being a Christian anymore?'  There is much scholarly evidence that Jesus lived and died differently than depicted in the Bible, and the deliberate choices to style the Gospels in specific ways for specific audiences makes me wonder if Jesus was merely a compelling apocalyptic prophet whose believers turned him into a Messiah. And yet, the more I think on the findings discussed about Jesus's life, trade, and skill set, the more sense it makes to me.  Jesus must have been an incredibly charismatic and persuasive person to engender the devotion of followers such as Paul, a person with a message so enduring as to inspire the creation of the Gospels.  It makes sense he was conversant in multiple languages (including Greek, as suggested in the documentary) and that he lived and worked in urbanized areas with lots of exposure.  If artisan class workers were less than agricultural workers, perhaps that disparity further underscores the persuasiveness of Jesus when fishermen dropped their nets to follow him, rather than diminishing his relationship to the followers.  

I actually thought Jesus always lived in Nazareth, having been born during a short and temporary trip of his parents, much the same way I was born in one part of a state and grew up in the other. It also makes a great deal of literary sense to place his birth in Bethlehem to strengthen the ties to King David.  This ties together the Jewish tradition and heritage of the early Christians, who were Jewish first, raised on the story that God promised David's family would rule forever. If Jesus, the Messiah, came to be the King of everyone, of course he must be related to David! How better to demonstrate this than draw the symbolism of his birth in Bethlehem?  I was surprised to think about this, but not terribly disturbed by it. The entire Nativity story reeks of symbolism and metaphor, so this fit right in.  

 What difference does it make who really killed Jesus? (Prompt: Think about how traditional stories contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, and the Holocaust) 

 The documentary emphasized that Jesus died as a result of Roman domestic security policy- that his death was, "was a Roman act; there was little if any notice taken by Jewish people. Jesus was another victim of the Pax Romana." The various accounts of Jesus' death in the Bible all indicate that Jesus was handed over to the Romans by the leaders of the Temple because he was the "King of the Jews" and that sedition led to his execution.   This conflicts with the story of Jesus in the Temple, which says Jesus was arrested for civil unrest. Perhaps the Roman officials asked the victims (the Temple authorities) if they wanted to press charges and that led to the imagery of being 'handed over.'   Regardless, I think the Gospels say that Temple leadership manipulated the political situation of the Roman government into executing Jesus for them. This underscores the need of the Gospel authors to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. The documentary talks about the tensions surrounding whether or not Christianity was (or could remain) a sect of Judaism in the section about Paul's letters, and about the persecution of the Christians by the Romans by dint of not being 'just' a sect. It may be unethical, but it is a stroke of propagandist genius to focus the anger and fear of early Christians against the Jewish faith, which they were already abandoning, instead of against the Roman government, against which they could not win. What better way to crystallize this anger than to rest the blame of Jesus' death on the Jewish leaders, rather than the Roman system? 

 This tactic was effective and enduring- blaming of the Jewish people for the death of Christ certainly led to anti-Semitic movements and atrocities throughout history and exists today. This is a result not just of literalist reading in the Bible but of selective reading and interpretation as well.  The Bible places the blame for Jesus' death on the shoulders of the Jewish people.  The Bible also records that Jesus' death was necessary for salvation- that without the death, there could be no resurrection and thus, no Christianity. The actions of the Jewish leaders, then, could be interpreted as an act of heroism, of a submission to God's will even unto the death of their beloved Savior and God's Son.  It could be the closing parallel to the story of Abraham and Isaac. 

 So what difference does it make who actually killed Jesus? From the viewpoint of those tasked with distinguishing Christianity from Judaism and forming a cohesive and coherent culture from a wide variety of disparate groups, it makes a great deal of difference. Unifying against the Romans was infeasible and unwise- the Christians suffered enormous losses prior to Constantine without actually revolting against the Romans. They also witnessed the great Jewish revolts against the Romans, and the devastating and crushing defeats the Jewish people suffered as a consequence of challenging Rome.  The early foundation of the Christian church needed to distinguish themselves from the Jewish faith to grow spiritually, without challenging Rome in order to flourish physically. It makes a lot of sense for these writers to blame the death of Jesus on the Jews, rather than on the Romans. 

 Whether or not the historical reasons for Jesus' execution matters to contemporary faithful depends on the way the faithful approach the question.  It is unsettling to the foundation of the Christian faith to consider that Jesus died perhaps due to bad timing, having been swept up in the consequences of heightened security efforts surrounding Passover. Knowing the political environment surrounding the death of Jesus, and the theo-political motivations of the Gospel writers, certainly diminishes the sense of grandiose mythos that the Bible associates with the Passion.  This does not have to diminish the overall importance of the death because, after all, how Jesus died matters far less than the fact that he did, because Christians believe he rose again. The resurrection is the key to Christian faith.  The challenge to the faithful, then, is to accept the allegory and lesson of the Gospel as a lens to focus the Passion while also at the same time diminishing the distractions of the historical events and preserving the importance of the resurrection. 

MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part II The Jesus Movement

Note: this is part two of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

Prompt: What was most surprising to you about the years following Jesus' crucifixion and the origins of the Christian religion? 

The documentary talks about the struggle of the early Christians trying to understand Jesus' crucifixion- specifically, how could the Son of God have been tortured and executed?  It sounds like the early followers went back to the Hebrew Bible and found the prophecies about the Messiah closely reflected the experience of Jesus at his death, and so they (the followers) decided it was not just possible that the Messiah could be tortured and executed, but that it was required, and therefore, clearly, Jesus was the Messiah.  This surprised me because I never considered the possibility that the disciples thrust Jesus into the Messiah role after his death.  Not being very conversant in Scripture, I always had a vague sort of impression that Jesus preferred to let others interpret his actions and teachings as works of a Messiah, rather than self-proclaiming them. I feel pretty confident that the Gospels depict a cagey and noncommittal Jesus with Pontius Pilot.  Combined with the extensive efforts taken to create the Gospels and the multi-century evolution of the canon of Christianity, I find myself wondering if Jesus became the Messiah because the earliest disciples needed him to be.  I'm surprised to find myself wondering…how can I still consider myself a Christian? 

Prompt: How is spreading the message of Jesus today different than for the first followers? In what ways should we imitate the first followers? In what ways should our evangelization be different, and why?

Ultimately, the call of the evangelist, whether ancient or contemporary, is to convince an audience of the veracity of their claim of Christ. The goal remains the same, but the challenges faced by evangelists have changed.  

 Since the earliest Christians were Jewish first, and members of the Jesus Movement, the Jewish Diaspora helped move the early Christians throughout the region.  Since there were far more Jewish communities outside Israel than inside Israel, this early impetus helped fling the first Christians across the empire.  The community-center function of the early synagogues also helped spread the Christian teachings, as even Gentiles were permitted in the outer areas of the synagogues, and no comparable structure or organization existed in the pantheon religions to challenge the conversations about Jesus.    Once the Christians split with Judaism, the presence of a highly developed road systems enabled the early followers of Jesus to disperse and engage with a far-flung population.  The ease of travel made it possible for early disciples to rapidly disperse from the center of their movements out to other populations, including those outside the Jewish faith, which greatly increased the potential pool for conversion.   At the same time, all of the conversations and missions were forming and developing the canon of Christianity.  The roles of men and women were not completely set, and there was no religious hierarchy or authority. The early Christian world was fluid and open to discussion.  The challenges of the earliest Christians were to get the Word out there, but even more than that, to define what the Word was. In many ways, the journey of the earliest Christians parallels the efforts of the ancient Israelites and the Jews during Babylonian Exile, to create and codify a religious identity separate and distinct from the other options in the world.  

 Today, there are only minimal challenges related to defining the place of Christianity within Judaism- the two religions are widely recognized and accepted as separate, though related. Physical travel is faster, and the advent of global, instantaneous availability of information means ideas spread at an uncontrollable rate.  The fundamental canon of Christianity is pretty set, and feels ancient to a contemporary viewer. Two thousand years is a long time, even if it pales compared to the historical age of Judaism.   And yet, the details of Christianity continue to face major changes and evolutions- perhaps due to the rapid acceleration of intellect and inventions in the past millennia, perhaps because Christianity became the first global religion, perhaps because the advent of intellectualism encouraged Christians to place their beliefs in their lives, rather than patterning their lives on their beliefs.  The massive advances in scholarly endeavors into the ancient Biblical world and the ability to find and accurately date evidence in the artefact records bring skepticism into the faith conversation.  Where the first Christians sought to ground the Messiah in the familiar teachings of the Hebrew Bible, contemporary Christians must ground the Messiah in a world of science, contradictory evidence, and skepticism.  

 A contemporary evangelist must help the audience reconcile academic contractions to the Bible, and help find a balance between one's faith (which perhaps cannot be quantified) with the world.  Contemporary American culture demands that religion be separate from the other major components of life.  Balancing the needs of a faith and religion against the civic duties and privileges is difficult.  The contemporary evangelist must find a way to make Christ relevant to audiences who have never seen the Holy Land, whose exposure to fundamentalist religions is negative (thanks, religious terrorism) and whose attention is constantly under assault by digital technology.  I'm typing this in a coffee shop, looking at a poster advertising a vacation bible camp called "Under God's Big Top" and the irony that the appeal of a circus is being used to attract youth into an evangelical environment is strong.