Last month two respected scholars, in the field of New Testament studies, published a 'historical-materialist' analysis on the early Jesus movement:
They write from a Marxist historiographical-analytical standpoint, which emphasises that Jesus and his movement were direct outflows of, and responses to, the socio-economic situation of class conflict, social unrest and income disparity then prevailing in the client kingdom of Galilee and Roman-occupied Judea. As they write:
peoplesworld.org
peoplesworld.org
I'm curious to hear what posters think about the applicability (or not!) of historical materialism as a paradigm for reconstructing the historical Jesus?
What made the Jesus movement tick? This thrilling historical materialist take on the historical Jesus situates the life of Jesus of Nazareth in the turbulent troubles of first-century Palestine. Bringing a wealth of knowledge on the social, economic, and cultural conflicts of the time, Crossley and Myles uncover the emergence of a fervent and deadly serious religious organizer. His social and religious movement offered a radical end-time edict of divine reversal and judgment, as well as promising a new world order ruled in the interests of the peasantry. The popular appeal of the movement was due in part to a desire to represent the values of ordinary rural workers.
They write from a Marxist historiographical-analytical standpoint, which emphasises that Jesus and his movement were direct outflows of, and responses to, the socio-economic situation of class conflict, social unrest and income disparity then prevailing in the client kingdom of Galilee and Roman-occupied Judea. As they write:
Class struggle in first-century Galilee produced the ‘Jesus movement’
Books reconstructing the life of Jesus are numerous. They are typically idealistic and focus on Jesus as a great man who changed the course of history through his decisions and deeds.
peoplesworld.org
Books reconstructing the life of Jesus are numerous. They are typically idealistic and focus on Jesus as a great man who changed the course of history through his decisions and deeds.
What is rarely discussed in these modern lives of Jesus is how he was a product of the material circumstances of his time. It is crucial, we contend, to look at Jesus’s upbringing in the context of changing social and economic conditions in first-century Galilee.
There were two major urbanization projects which had a significant impact among the Galilean populace: the rebuilding of Sepphoris and the building of Tiberias. These projects benefited some and destroyed the lives of others. Gifts of land were given to the more influential people, but this also meant the displacement of others and the destruction of traditional rural households.
But we should not expect their reactions to these circumstances to tally with modern expectations of agitation and resistance.
In first-century Galilee and Judea, there were ready-made vehicles for discontent, notably banditry and millenarianism. While these were not mutually exclusive movements, Jesus and his associates sought an alternative in millenarianism.
Developing Eric Hobsbawm’s studies of agrarian social unrest, we should see millenarianism as a “pre-political” or “pre-capitalist” form of agitation. Millenarians offered a fantastical promise of an imminent new world order and a form of resistance to unjust rulers, elites, and their lackeys. Futile, no doubt, but there were limited options for actually transforming the world.
The Jesus movement presented itself as a vanguard millenarian party, custodians of a new theocracy serving the interests of the peasantry.
They promised that the fortunes of the agrarian world would be turned upside-down. Non-elite sectors of Jewish society were guaranteed a life of plenty while the rich were to relinquish their wealth or suffer ruinous consequences. The Jesus movement even organized a “mission to the rich” to get elites to turn from their oppressive ways. Whether it was a successful mission is moot.
Instead of romanticizing Jesus as a great man of history, we instead argue that he should be seen as a culturally credible religious organizer who emerged from non-elite Jewish society. Jesus and his movement were dependent on and were a suitable conduit for the interests of the local peasantry.
And so the Jesus movement’s credibility in Galilee involved an emphasis on traditional peasant values, respectable interpretations of Jewish scriptures, and strict group discipline. This provided a public-facing, dignified alternative to a changing Galilee.
In Jerusalem, during the festival of Passover, underlying social and political anxieties would regularly flare up. In Jesus’s fateful trip to Jerusalem, the movement entangled with (and gained some support from) the volatile and unpredictable Passover crowds where he challenged what he saw as an exploitative financial system.
Jesus was seen to be enough of a threat to the social order for him to be arrested and crucified. Roman power cared little about the niceties of detail concerning whether a popular movement was violent or not.
‘Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict’—book bridges divide between Marxists and Christians
Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict provides an important refocusing and reprioritizing of earlier Scriptural studies as seen through the lens of historical materialist analysis. Although containing little original research, authors James Crossley and Robert J.
peoplesworld.org
Crossley and Myles locate Jesus’s class position as that of a tektōn, an ancient Greek noun meaning craftsman or carpenter. Being born and raised in this artisan rural working stratum, Jesus and his immediate family would have felt the full force of the economic dislocations and displacements caused by the massive Herodian building schemes at Sepphoris and Tiberias.
For some in Galilee, these grandiose projects, constructed in part to solidify the status of the comprador bourgeoisie of their day, resulted in great wealth and an enhanced social standing.
For the rural poor, it meant family and community ruptures and frequent impoverishment.
For many young men of the time, there were only two realistic responses: banditry or hitching themselves to a prophetic itinerant movement.
The authors maintain that Jesus’s actions and teachings, even after being given a considerable makeover by the Gospel writers, were informed as much by this agrarian realism, as by the prevailing Jewish religious expectations and practices.
This combination produced a millenarianism that was both ideologically focused on right behaviors, and adroitly pragmatic enough to embark on a sustained “mission to the rich” to swell its numbers and financing.
I'm curious to hear what posters think about the applicability (or not!) of historical materialism as a paradigm for reconstructing the historical Jesus?
Last edited:
