Géza Vermes (1924–2013)

It boggles the mind (well, at least to an atheist like myself!) how Jesus, who was first and foremost a charismatic 'rabbi' preoccupied with his own eschatological understanding of Judaism, came to be, not only hijacked by Gentiles, but also, turned into a demi-God in all but name. Beyond his rebranded persona, it's also the fact that a whole church would be highly successfully established and develop, complete with its whole new theology (and, even, granting itself a key role in the show more 'redemption' of its followers) which is no less baffling. How the heck did that happened?!

I had read How Jesus Became Christian: The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher Into the Son of God. Barrie Wilson by Barrie Wilson, and, curious to learn more about the topic, I then decided to pick this up.

What Géza Vermes does here, is to narrate the story of early Christianity, from the death of Jesus up to the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). It's a tortuous history, rooted in very widely different cultures, but, that will nevertheless clashed to produce the rich intellectual ferment to which we owe what has fed so many quarrels that a Roman Emperor will have to intervene and set it all once and for all (an historical irony, which, by itself, is not without leaving thoughtful...). It's difficult indeed, more than 16 centuries on, to appreciate how truly shattering Nicaea have been:

'it is impossible to ignore the colossal difference between the Christ concept of Nicaea and the Christology that preceded the Council. The idea of consubstantiality never occurred to any of the leading representatives of Christianity prior to 325; it would have sounded anathema. By contrast, after 325 the claim of inequality between Father and Son amounted to heresy... Intellectual assent to dogma gained precedence over the heart's openness to charisma urged by the historical Jesus.'

It might be an enthralling romp through two centuries of what are crucial foundations, yet it doesn't mean that it's an easy read. As the author delves into the crucial texts of the times, and the biographical and cultural backgrounds of their originators, it can be, at times, easy to lose the plot, let alone overlook a few important trends! Nevertheless, despite its challenges, if you are really interested in how Jesus of Nazareth was turned into the 'Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit', then here is an absolute must-read! show less

Első Vermes Géza könyvemnek az utolsó Vermes Géza könyvet választottam, egy hipotézisből és egy tényből kiindulva. A hipotézis az volt, hogy ebben a könyvben az író biztos összefoglalja majd előző munkáit, a tény meg az, hogy ez volt kéznél. Hipotézisem megerősítést nyert, Vermes valóban a könyv első negyedében (legalábbis amennyire meg tudom állapítani) áttekinti saját munkásságát, különös tekintettel az általa alaposan kidolgozott „zsidó show more Jézus” koncepcióra – vagyis hogy Krisztus tanításaiban sokkal (de sokkal-sokkal) több a karizmatikus judaizmus hagyományaira visszavezethető elem, mint azt a legtöbb Biblia-magyarázó elismeri. Ebből a fix pontból kiindulva áttekinti a kereszténység fejlődését, amit primitíven a következő stációkra lehetne széttagolni:
1. Jézus zsidó
2. Na jó, zsidó, de nem ez a lényeg.
3. Méghogy zsidó!? Te vagy a zsidó!!!

Jó, hát azért ennél egy picit bonyolultabban: Vermes elegáns, szellemes és helyenként egyenesen költői érvelése a jézusi tanokat egy folyamatosan változó, izgalmas gondolati rendszerként mutatja be, amit sorra termékenyített meg a hellenizmus*, a hermeneutizmus, és még annyi más kortárs elmélet. Ahogy az a Vermes által vizsgált szövegek vizsgálatából kitűnik, minél szélesebb körben vált népszerűvé, annál jobban elszaporodtak benne az új elemek, gyakran olyan mértékben, amit bízvást tekinthetünk az evangéliumi egyszerűségtől és tisztaságtól való eltávolodásnak – ugyanakkor ezzel párhuzamosan vált a kereszténység filozófiailag is érett, komplex vallási rendszerré**. És ahogy egyre összetettebbé vált, úgy tünedeztek fel a vadhajtások is – így a kereszténység, aki kezdetben az izraelitákkal és a rómaiakkal vitatkozott, a második század után kénytelen volt kvázi saját magával disputálni, különösen a Markion képviselte gnoszticizmussal. Ezekben a vitákban sorra kristályosodtak ki érvcsoportjai, hogy aztán, kizárva az ellenvéleményeket, sajnálatos módon eljussanak a merev dogmákig – köztük a híres-hírhedt homouszioszig. Köszönjük, nikaia-i zsinat, Arius meg az eretnek hívei pedig mehetnek a lecsóba. A könyv külön erénye, hogy nemcsak vallástörténet iránt érdeklődőknek nyújt örömet, hanem azoknak is, akik a tágabb értelemben vett emberi gondolkodás kacskaringói iránt érdeklődnek.

* Sok Biblia-kutató szerint nem a hellenizmus hatott a kereszténységre, hanem konkrétan Mózes hatott Platónra, úgyhogy náluk a pont. Ebben lehet valami, az legalábbis biztos, hogy Platón nyilván többet merített Mózesből, mint Mózes Platónból.
** Ennek a folyamatnak az ábrázolása különbözteti meg e művet Johnson kereszténység-interpretációjától: amíg Johnsonnál ez a folyamat egyértelműen torzulás, az eredeti tanok elferdítése, addig Vermes jóval komplexebben mutatja be ezt az utat, kiemelve, hogy a rivális vallásokkal való összecsapások során nem volt elkerülhető ez a változás. show less

The Changing Face of Jesus, by eminent biblical historian Geza Vermes is both authoritative and readable. In this work, Vermes focuses on how Jesus is portrayed in the gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and Acts. What makes this work so important is the Vermes delves deeply into the differences in the “face of Jesus,’ between these sources. He does so with deep textual analysis combined with masterful contextual background in the culture and faith of 1st C. Palestine. For example, in his show more study, Vermes deals with specific terminology applied to Jesus in different sources, and contextualizes phrases like “the son of man” or “Lord,” bringing them back to their true meaning when they were used.

Vermes’ contention is that it was not the charismatic itinerant preacher that made of himself the divine figure we now know, but that each successive generation of followers added a new layer to the story crafted out of the very real concerns and issues of their respective times. Paul, unlike his fellow apostles (with whom his relationship was famously contentious). writes philosophically, devising a theology admittedly devoid of the living man, but heavily informed by the mystery cults and rhetoric of his Hellenistic upbringing. The synoptics, on the other hand, focus on the life of Christ hagiographically more than historically, and, as we might expect of a biography of a beloved icon, tailor their accounts to the audiences for which they write. John, the latest gospel by decades, is markedly different from both Paul and the synoptics, and it is primarily from John that we get the divine Christ. As Vermes puts it: "Quite frequently John's gospel speaks of the actual oneness of Father and Son. The synoptics would have had the cold shivers." (p.50) John's Jesus is the only one cast in vitriolic, even violent. opposition to the Jews, a direct response to the deep and often equally violent conflict between Jews and the ‘new’ faith, only just distinguishing itself from Judaism.

Overall, if you are interested in a scholarly, textual, and historical understanding of the Jesus story and how it changed since its beginnings, this is a superb place to begin. Those seeking Christian apologetics may not be pleased by this work, as Vermes looks to history, not faith. He is not writing as a religious man for religious readers, he writes as a scholar for genuinely interested readers. show less

I consider this book good if not great.. Vermes Is at the bottom a sound scholar. And the story of the nativity is based on two sources (Matthew and Luke) and these sources offer two rather different versions. All other writings in the new testament including the two other gospels and pauls letters doesn't mention the nativity at all. other christian and secular later writings do but they are clearly referencing Matthew and Luke. Then the question that Vermes asks: How believable are these show more stories and examines them in detail. That is what a good historian should do with his sources. Examine them and not take them for granted. The differences are interesting; one has the wise men, the gifts, Herods child killings and the flight to egypt. The other has a global taxation, the stable, the shepherds, the angels and a return trip to Nazareth. They really only have one thing in common, that Jesus is born in Bethlehem.

Historically there are problems too Luke dates by mentioning the census of Quirinius which occurred in 6 CE. Matthew dates by mentioning Herod the great who died ca 4 BCE. So not only does the accounts vary a lot, they differ with at least 10 years in dating the event. Both can't historically, be accurate. Vermes thinks that both are basically inventions and that it was important for both authors to have a beginning for Jesus that is as grand as his death. It makes the story have a nice beginning, middle and end. As he points out Matthew even writes in his nativity chapters so all would understand: "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler that shall shepherd my people Israel". Because he takes the trouble to quote it (i dont actually remember which prophet in the old testament that said it) i think its fair to say the quote was important to him.

All in all i think he is right in that the nativity bit is invented, not because of him but because i have read many other biblical scholars and very few consider it to be true, believers or not. When Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels (say ca 80-90 CE) rather few people where left who had known Jesus or seen him and if they had most of them did not read greek. I think its perfectly undrstandable that they wanted to give a bit of background to the founding figure of the christian faith. (Perhaps they had had questions about it. We will never know.) So they based their stories on Mark and added a nativity. That does not illegitimate the bible or the christian faith. The christian faith is based on what Jesus said and did and if that lives on the faith will too. show less