|
|
499 - Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine |
Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine
By Richard A. Horsley
San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1987. 355 Pp, $27.95.
In this book, Horsley, a professor of religious studies at the University of Massachusetts, builds upon his previous work on early Jewish resistance movements, especially Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (with John S. Hanson). The present work focuses mainly on how Jesus and his followers fit into the context of Jewish resistance to Roman domination of Palestine.
In Part One ("The Imperial Situation and the Spiral of Violence"), Horsley lays the historical and theoretical groundwork for the book. He argues that the situation in first century Palestine must be evaluated in terms of the domination of Palestine by a foreign imperial power, not simply in terms of "culture contact" or "acculturation," and that the groups within the Judaism of this period, including the emerging Jesus movement, were products of this imperial domination. He then examines the "politics of violence," modifying Dom Helder Camara's three stage concept of a "spiral of violence" to a four stage model of injustice, protest and resistance, repression, and revolt.
Part Two ("Popular Jewish Nonviolent Resistance") treats the expression of Jewish resistance. Horsley contends that contrary to the usual view of early Palestinian Judaism as "a hotbed of revolutionary violence," Jewish resistance was basically nonviolent. This contention is supported by analysis of protests by various groups of "intellectuals" and by the urban crowds. Horsley's final concern here is to show that the apocalyptic orientation of early Judaism, rather than being ahistorical,
|
|
500 - Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine |
was grounded in concrete historical reality and provided Jews with the hope and motivation for resistance.
Part Three ("Jesus and Nonviolent Social Revolution") positions Jesus in this context. The most important emphases of this section are: (1) that Jesus' activity must be seen in the light of the religious social-political-economic situation in first century Palestine, not simply the religious; (2) that Jesus entered into the conflicts in his world and sometimes exacerbated them; and (3) that, in consonance with apocalyptic Judaism, "Jesus' overall perspective was that God was bringing an end to the demonic and political powers dominating his society so that a renewal of individual and social life would be possible," Horsley concludes that Jesus was preaching a social revolution that would precede the political revolution to be brought about by God. These themes are expressed first in Jesus' preaching of a present kingdom of God and the restoration of Israel.
According to Horsley, Jesus intended his "social revolution" to be instituted through egalitarian social relationships maintained in the village communities. His exegesis of several crucial gospel passages shows how Jesus envisioned this egalitarian community. The most important example, and the most extensively discussed, is Matthew 5:38-48 (also, Luke 6:27-36) concerning love for one's enemies. Far from the traditional understanding that these sayings demonstrate Jesus' pacifist attitude toward the ruling authorities, Horsley maintains that the relationships described in this text can only make sense on the level of the "local village community," and they enable the resolution of conflicts in the community without involving the established institutions that were vehicles of exploitation of the people.
Jesus' preaching also included criticisms of these institutions, of those who were directly responsible for them, and of the Roman imperial power that dominated them. Most interesting is Horsley's exegesis of Mark 12:13-17 on paying taxes to Caesar. Jesus' reply is seen not as an acquiescence on his part to the ruling power, but as a denial of Caesar's claims to lordship. If everything is to be given to God, who is lord of all, then Caesar's claims are illegitimate.
In light of his analysis, Horsley concludes, "it would be difficult to claim that Jesus was a pacifist. But he actively opposed violence, particularly institutionalized oppressive violence, and its effect on a subject people. Jesus was apparently a revolutionary, but not a violent political revolutionary. Convinced that God would put an end to the spiral of violence, however violently, Jesus preached and catalyzed a social revolution."
Horsley's study has much to commend it. He reads the sources carefully and gleans all of the available evidence. This care is especially evident in his treatment of the Gospel narratives. The contention that Jesus was concerned with all the aspects of Jewish life, not simply the religious, is well argued. As a result, if one agrees with his critical evaluations of the Gospel texts, Horsley's conclusion, that Jesus was not
|
|
501 - Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine |
a pacifist, but a revolutionary who was opposed to violence, appears entirely justified.
The book does have its weaknesses. The most serious problems involve limitations of method. Because the sources do not always provide a great deal of direct evidence, social history often depends on indirect evidence, what the texts seem to imply but do not explicitly say. Often, one also must rely on negative argumentation to clarify what the texts do not say or to argue that previous scholarly opinions are wrong. For example, Horsley argues that assumptions that tax collectors were collaborating with the Romans and were excluded from the Jewish community are incorrect because the passages usually cited do not support these conclusions. Arguments of this kind are not as forceful as positive ones, however.
Another problem concerns Horsley's intended audience. He nowhere states for whom the book is intended. Generalizing historical statements and statements such as "most scholars would agree that " without corresponding notes leads to the impression that the book is intended for the nonspecialist, and, indeed, specialists in this area will be somewhat frustrated by the lack of documented material. On the other hand, the frequent lack of quotations of biblical passages assumes a familiarity that the general reader might not have. Many of these passages should have been quoted so that the onus is not on the reader to look them up.
These drawbacks, however, do not detract from a very interesting and provocative look at how Jesus' ministry fits into the context of early Jewish resistance. Horsley is to be commended for pulling all the disparate evidence into a clearly argued work. Although one may not agree with him in every detail, it is difficult to disagree with his overall thesis.
BENJAMIN G. WRIGHT III
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania