You are here:   Text > The Truth About the Historical Jesus
 

The title “Lord”, Kyrios in Greek, carried high associations at this time. It pointed to the emperor, the Lord Caesar, whose Latin epithet was “divine”, as in divus Augustus. In turn, among Greek-speaking Jews, whose Bible the early church appropriated, Kyrios (Lord) was the regular substitute for the Hebrew four-lettered sacred and secret name of God. Quite naturally, in the Gospel read in the Greek churches, “the Lord Christ” (Kyrios Christos) promptly acquired divine flavour. By contrast, in Jewish circles, with an infinite gap between the divine and the human reality, such a combination was well-nigh inconceivable.

Beside Caesar and God, what other meanings did the title “Lord” possess? What did the Galileans imply when they addressed Jesus as “Lord”, or Mar in Aramaic? The title, reminiscent of “Sir” in English, could refer to a variety of persons: to a secular dignitary, to the head of the family, to an authoritative teacher, to a prophet and to a miracle-worker. The last three nuances perfectly suit the Jesus portrait of the Synoptic Gospels.

Finally, the appellation “Son of God”, the title in the Hellenistic world of the deified Roman emperor and synonymous with God in early Christianity, is nowhere attested in that sense in Judaism. It is, however, capable of carrying at least five other meanings. It can designate an angel in the superhuman world. In the terrestrial domain, each Jew was entitled to call himself “son of God”. But the term underwent a series of restrictive interpretations. In the post-exilic age only the Jews whose heart was circumcised and filled with holy spirit were allotted that name. Also, both the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls assign filial status to the Messiah, metaphorically the son of the living God. Moreover, some charismatic contemporaries of Jesus were referred to as sons of God. For example, Honi, who managed to produce rain by pestering God, was compared to a son importuning his long-suffering and loving father.

Finally, there is the image of the divine voice from heaven proclaiming someone the “son of God”. This is reported about the Galilean Hanina ben Dosa. Both sayings indicate that in Jewish parlance “son of God” implies divine favour rather than the sharing of the divine nature.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
bor
September 6th, 2008
1:09 PM
'Veracity vouchsafed by faith' is all well and good, but I still think there are two variables basic to any belief. First, a person has to be carrying the 'religion gene'. Following that, place imposes its reality. That is too say, have the 'gene' and come from a christian influence, and guess what? Dollars to donuts, people will fall somewhere along the bible line. Have the 'gene' and come from some other influence, and, bob's-yer-uncle!! This is as simple as it gets.

Jon
September 6th, 2008
5:09 AM
"To conclude, because of the cross, the task of Jesus remained unfinished." I am confused. What was unfinished? His purpose and mission was the cross. In John 19:30 he says "It is finished" just before dying on the cross.

bipolar2
September 5th, 2008
9:09 PM
** what would Luthor do? ** Too bad this isn't a parody site, complete with parody responses. Amazing how fatuous the claims of the big-3 monotheisms sound. They are equally odious and equally dispensable as ethical or ideological guides. Enough of bibliolators indulging in mere scripticism. -- What they claim has no more intellectual integrity or moral value than drunken geeks parsing comix at a Superman convention. What a fictionalized culture hero "Jesus" or "Moses" or "Mohammed" would do is irrelevant. As irrelevant as what Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, or Lex Luthor would do. Believers of every stripe and dung beetle academics of every hue -- it's over. Xian, judaic, islamic, zoroastrian mythologies are meaningless. Time has long since passed -- your rice bowls will be broken. bipolar2

Anonymous
September 5th, 2008
8:09 PM
In regards to the resurrection: I heard a fact a few years back that Romans specifically outlawed grave robbing in the 1st Century. This "could" be linked to the story of the resurrection? I can't confirm this fact, however. So take this account at face value only.

Eliyahu
September 5th, 2008
4:09 AM
A bit of a tiptoe through the tulips, but not very enlightening or scholarly. How about a Jewish Ribi named Yehoshua who came to call only the Jews that had strayed from Torah back to Torah. How about the Mashiach who would fight the battles of HaSheim which was to heal the breaches in Torah. What is this misojudaic term Palestine. The term which was only created after the second war of 135. No, this article may be closer to the truth but it is a far way off still. By the way if you don't mind I will call Geza, Georgine. After all that would only be right. Helloooo J-e-s-u-s never existed. As you said so weakly "a form......would have perplexed......" so Yehoshua would have been incensed to be called J-e-s-u-s, a non-existant Roman idol.

Anonymous
September 4th, 2008
9:09 PM
Jesus resurrection is as historical fact as Jesus curing the leper. Mr Vermes don ´t question Jesus supernatural powers. They are indeed the "authority" of his learnig. And the fact is attested by a handful hundred of people, Paul said in his epistles. It deserves some consideration, like so many historical facts taken like truth but more scarcely attested. I read your classical book, Mr Vermes, Jesus the Jew, and I will read this one you say. Thanks for the counsel and the article.

Geza Vermes
September 4th, 2008
2:09 PM
Those interested in my views concerning the resurrection of Jesus should glance at my book, The Resurrection, published by Penguin earlier this year.

Richard
September 4th, 2008
12:09 PM
A more than interesting summary of scholarship and remaining challenges. The damage done through misconception and misrepresentation of Jesus is beyond calculation -- and with unlimited potential to recur. Hence the great value of such analysis in triaging human bad behavior. Finally, it is well to omit discussion of the resurrection, a thoroughly vexatious topic, in a text addressing the "likely historical"reception of Jesus -- one actor among many in the religious theater of his times.

Anonymous
September 3rd, 2008
12:09 PM
An interesting article but Vermes don ´t mention resurrection. And I think in this very point his paralelism with the other prophet Hanina Ben Dosa crumbles and disappears. The christians believe for Christ ´s resurrection ´s sake, said Paul. And Vermes omits the miracolous thing: a depressed team, Christ ´s group, runing to convince all the world of their Master ´s resurrection. By the way, Vermes don ´t mention the Facts of the Apostles, as canonical writing as the gospels and surely writeen by one of the evangelists.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.