Was the historical Jesus an anarchist? Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus Justin Meggitt It is true that if we could follow the precepts of the Nazarene this would be a different world to live in. There would then be no murder and no war; no cheating and lying and profit-making. There would be neither slave nor master, and we should all live like brothers, in peace and harmony. There would be neither poor nor rich, neither crime nor prison, but that would not be what the church wants. It would be what the Anarchists want.1 1. Preliminary issues The claim that Jesus was an anarchist is one that has been made by a variety of individuals and movements since the term “anarchist” itself first began to be commonly used from the 1840s onwards.2 Nietzsche,3 is probably amongst the most culturally significant to have given Jesus this label, though other prominent figures have made more or less the same claim, including Berdyaev,4 Tolstoy,5 and Wilde6 as have a host of lesser known figures. It has been most common amongst groups and networks that are overt in their espousal of some form of Christian anarchism, such as the Catholic Worker 1 Alexander Berkman, Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism (New York: Vanguard Press, 1929), p. 61. 2 The term “anarchist” had been used before this date but was employed solely to refer to someone who sought to create disorder rather than an advocate of a political ideology. It acquired the additional meaning following the publication of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Qu’est-ce que la propriété? Ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernment (Paris: Librairie de Prévot, 1840). 3 Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, ‘Der Antichrist’, in Nietzsches Werke: Der Fall Wagner; Götzen-Dämmerung; Nietzsche contra Wagner; Der Antichrist; Gedichte (Leipzig: C. G. Naumann, 1895), VIII, 211–313. 4 See, for example, Nicolai Berdyaev, Slavery and Freedom (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944), pp. 140-148. 5 See, for example, Leo Tolstoy, ‘The Kingdom of God Is within You’: Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life, trans. by Constance Garnett, 2 vols. (London: William Heinemann, 1894). However, it is important to note that Tolstoy did not explicitly call Jesus an “anarchist”. This is probably explained by the close association between anarchism and violence in Tolstoy's mind, something that almost certainly accounts for his reticence in using the label for himself too. See Brian Morris, Ecology and Anarchism: Essays and Reviews on Contemporary Thought (Malvern: Images Publishing, 1996), p. 159. 6 Likewise, Wilde did not use the term “anarchist” for Jesus but that he believed him to be such is a reasonable inference from such works as The Soul of Man Under Socialism (London: Privately Printed, 1891), in which Jesus is presented as the model of socialist individualism. See Kristian Williams, ‘The Soul of Man Under . . .Anarchism?’, New Politics, 8 (2011) <http://newpol.org/content/soul-man-under-anarchism> [accessed 31 July 2015]. For the anarchism of Wilde see David Goodway, Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward, 2nd edn (Oakland: PM Press, 2011), pp. 62-92. 1 Movement,7 the Jesus Radicals,8 the Brotherhood Church,9 and the Union of the Spiritual Communities of Christ,10 but could also be said to be implied in movements that have been identified as containing implicit anarchist characteristics, such as those associated with some forms of liberation theology11 and related contextual theologies.12 The anarchist potentiality of the historical Jesus was even recognised by classical anarchist thinkers, most prominently Proudhon,13 but also, to varying degrees, Bakunin,14 Kropotkin,15 and Stirner.16 Of course, what exactly is meant when someone calls Jesus an “anarchist” is not self-evident and there is sometimes little, if anything, that such claims have in common. Authors assume a range of different interpretations of the figure of Jesus and also of anarchism itself in making their judgments. This paper is not a criticism of any such estimations of Jesus but rather an attempt to bring a little more clarity to the subject and to see if, historically speaking, there is any analytical value in talking in such a way about Jesus. More specifically, I would like to examine whether the historical Jesus can legitimately be called an anarchist. By using the expression “the historical Jesus” I am assuming a distinction, common in Biblical scholarship since the nineteenth century,17 between the historical figure of Jesus and the Christ of Christian faith, a distinction that assumes that the two are not necessarily the same (a distinction that not all the writers that might be labeled Christian anarchist would share). My concern is not whether the Christ of Christian faith, that believers claim is known from the Christian Bible, doctrine and experience was (or indeed, for them, is) an anarchist but whether the man called Jesus of Nazareth, who lived and died about two thousand years ago, could usefully be called such. I should also make it clear that I am specifically interested in whether Jesus can be called an “anarchist”. This is not necessarily the same as saying that he simply had anti-authoritarian tendencies nor that he was a violent insurrectionist of some kind – something that received considerable attention some decades ago and which has recently been revived.18 Nor is it the same as deciding that he was a 7 Mary C. Segers, ‘Equality and Christian Anarchism: The Political and Social Ideas of the Catholic Worker Movement’, The Review of Politics, 40 (1978), 196–230 and Frederick Boehrer, ‘Christian Anarchism and the Catholic Worker Movement: Roman Catholic Authority and Identity in the United States’ (unpublished PhD, New York: Syracuse University, 2001). 8 See www.jesusradicals.com (accessed 31 July 2015). 9 Charlotte Alston, Tolstoy and His Disciples: The History of a Radical International Movement (London: I.B. Tauris, 2014). 10 See, for example, the official website of the Union of the Spiritual Communities of Christ, the main body of Doukhobors today (http://www.usccdoukhobors.org/faq.htm#faq2. Accessed 31 July 2015). 11 Linda H. Damico, The Anarchist Dimension of Liberation Theology (Pieterlen: Peter Lang, 1987). 12 See, for example, Keith Hebden, Dalit Theology and Christian Anarchism (London: Ashgate, 2011). 13 Proudhon's most substantial work on the subject was Jésus et les origines du christianisme (Paris: G. Havard fils, 1896), though see also Ecrits sur la religion, ed. by M. Ruyssen (M. Rivière, 1959). For a comprehensive treatment of Proudhon's views on Jesus see Georges Bessière, Jésus selon Proudhon: la « messianose » et la naissance du christianisme (Paris: Cerf, 2007) and Henri de Lubac, Proudhon et le christianisme (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1945). 14 Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (London: Freedom Press, 1910 [1882]), p. 54. 15 Peter Kropotkin, Ethics: Origin and Development (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1993 [1924]), pp. 118-119. 16 Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own (New York: Benj. R. Tucker, 1907), pp. 178-179, 17 This distinction is usually attributed to Martin Kähler, and became common following the publication of his Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der eschichtliche, biblische Christus (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1892), although it was employed to describe something that most scholars of the historical Jesus would argue was common from the work of Herman Reimarus and the posthumous publication of his Fragmente eines Ungenannten beginning in 1774. 18 See, for example, S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: a Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967) and the comprehensive response edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. by (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Amongst recent contributions those of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio are of greatest consequence; see, for example, ‘Jesus and the Anti- Roman Resistance’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 12 (2014), 1–105 and ‘Jesus as a Seditionist: The 2 “revolutionary” of some other kind, something that has been a particular interest in contemporary scholarship, especially amongst those concerned with trying to demonstrate that the historical Jesus was an “inclusive” figure of some sort.19 Ideas about what might constitute “politics” have become increasingly nuanced, under the influence of such things as postcolonial and gender theory,20 ideological contexts of both the historical Jesus and New Testament scholars themselves have come under extensive scrutiny.21 However, before we can attempt to answer the question we have posed, there are a number of preliminary matters that need to be addressed. In asking whether the historical Jesus can be usefully labeled an anarchist I am conscious that many anarchists may be familiar with material, academic and otherwise, which maintains that Jesus of Nazareth never existed,22 and they may think that my question is a pointless one to try to answer. Although no questions should be ignored in the critical study of religion, the arguments of those who doubt the existence of the historical Jesus are unpersuasive.23 None of the opponents of early Christianity, although they found numerous grounds for criticising the life and teaching of Jesus, doubted his existence,24 and, to put the matter concisely, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is by far the most plausible way of explaining the traditions we have about a first-century, charismatic, Jewish peasant of that name. Traditions that, culturally speaking, cohere with what we know about the religious and cultural environment of Palestine at the time and which combine to from a picture of a specific and distinctive individual within it – not a banal and fanciful composite. Of course, these sources need to be handled with critical caution, as they have been since the Enlightenment and most are composed by followers of Jesus.25 However, this in itself is not surprising: the poor in the Roman Intertwining of Politics and Religion in his Teaching and Deeds’, in Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, ed. by Zev Garber (London: Routledge, 2015), pp. 232–43. 19 See, for example, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), and Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) and Marcus Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (London: Continuum, 1994), pp. 97-126. For a trenchant critique of attempts to present the historical Jesus as “inclusive” see Markus Bockmuehl, ‘The Trouble with the Inclusive Jesus’, Horizons in Biblical Theology, 33 (2011), 9–23. 20 See, for indicative examples, Colleen M. Conway, Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Anna Runesson, Exegesis in the Making: Postcolonialism and New Testament Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2010) and Michael J. Sandford, Poverty, Wealth, and Empire: Jesus and Postcolonial Criticism (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) 21 For significant contributions in this area see Jesus Beyond Nationalism: Constructing the Historical Jesus in a Period of Cultural Complexity, ed. by Ward Blanton, James G. Crossley and Halvor Moxnes (London: Equinox, 2010), James G. Crossley, Jesus in an Age of Terror: Scholarly Projects for a New American Century (London: Equinox, 2008) and Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism: Quests, Scholarship and Ideology (London: Equinox, 2012). 22 For the most recent, comprehensive statement of this position see Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014). See also Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, ed. by Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012). 23 See, for example, Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014) and Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2012). 24 See, for example, Craig A. Evans, ‘Jesus in Non-Christian Sources’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 443–478. See also John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002). 25 For a useful survey of non-canonical sources of various kinds see James H. Charlesworth and Craig A Evans, ‘Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 479–534. 3 empire – and pictures of Jesus from antiquity are universal in placing him in this category26 – like the poor in most of history, had little and left less behind. Very few, mostly through accident rather than design, left anything, so thoroughgoing has been what E. P. Thompson called “the enormous condescension of posterity”.27 Jesus' significance, to those other than his immediate followers, was only evident in retrospect and so we should not be surprised that there is little in the way of non-Christian documentary or literary evidence for this life28 and that our analysis will have to rely on extensive and diverse but largely Christian sources. However, having accepted that it is possible to talk about a historical Jesus, how should we go about determining whether it is reasonable to label him an anarchist or not? The current literature that has touched on this is of little assistance. Many of those claiming that Jesus was an anarchist are often doing little more than constructing a mythology to give authority to a movement, as Woodcock has suggested.29 Some have arrived at their interpretation of Jesus through more critical, ostensibly historical approach to the sources; Tolstoy's anti-supernaturalist reading of the gospels, which had no place for the miraculous “rotten apples”30 is perhaps the most famous example. However, there has been little systematic or coherent engagement with critical scholarship concerned with the study of the historical Jesus and the problems it has tried to address, and most readings by those who want to label Jesus an anarchist are characterised by rather literalistic and hermeneutically naive approaches to Biblical texts,31 as the analysis of Christoyannopoulos has recently demonstrated.32 The teachings of the historical Jesus are, for example, often assumed to be easily accessible. For some, this is just a matter of rescuing Jesus from Paul (and often, by implication, the later church), but however rhetorically appealing it is to many Christian anarchists for whom Paul can be a rather uncomfortable figure,33 this is not a defensible approach as Paul is the author of the earliest Christian literature that we possess and provides us with data about the historical Jesus, which, limited though it is, actually predates the gospels.34 A number solve the conundrum by giving priority to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.3- 7.27), seeing it as the authoritative epitome of Jesus' teaching,35 but in so doing they ignore its redactional character; it is, to a large extent, the construction of the author of the gospel in which it is found and cannot be said to go back to the historical Jesus.36 Even if the sermon is composed of 26 See, for example, the pagan critic Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28. 27 E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London: Victor Gallancz, 1963), p. 12. 28 For the inconsequential nature of Jesus' life from the perspective of the Romans see Justin J. Meggitt, ‘The Madness of King Jesus’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 29 (2007), 379–413. 29 George Woodcock, Anarchism, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), p. 36. 30 Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2010), p. 19. 31 Few, if any, have paid attention to non-canonical sources despite their significance in contemporary scholarship concerned with the figure of the historical Jesus. For example, as Patterson rightly notes, “anyone who writes today on the historical question of what Jesus said or did must deal with the issue of the Gospel of Thomas” (Stephen J. Patterson, ‘The Gospel of Thomas and Historical Jesus Research’, in Coptica – Gnostica – Manichaica, ed. by Louis Painchaud and Paul-Hubert Poirier [Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006], p. 663). 32 Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism, pp. 15, 295. 33 Tolstoy, for example, called him “the lover of authoritarian teaching” and held him chiefly responsible for Christianity's departure from Jesus' vision. See Leo Tolstoy, Church and State and Other Essays: Including Money; Man and Woman: Their Respective Functions; The Mother; A Second Supplement to the Kreutzer Sonata (Boston: B. R. Tucker, 1891), p. 17. 34 James D G. Dunn, ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. by Bruce Chilton and Craig A Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 155–178. 35 Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism, pp. 43-81. 36 See, for example, Hans Dieter Betz and Adela Yarbro Collins, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew: 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995); W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to 4 elements that early Christians thought originated with Jesus, many of which are paralleled in the so- called Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49), and can also be seen in the epistle of James and the early Christian text, the Didache,37 there is much about its structure and content that clearly owes itself to the final author of the Gospel of Matthew and those who brought together and transmitted the sources from which he created his final text. Of course, there has been a handful of scholars who have been practitioners of critical biblical scholarship and who have also shown an interest in Christian anarchism, most notably Vaage38 and Myers,39 but these are relatively few and, to date, there has been no critical and programmatic attempt to answer the question we have asked. In the light of this it is necessary to sketch, in a little detail, a valid method for scrutinizing the sources we have for the historical Jesus that might provide us with some plausible results. But before I do this, I should add some caveats about my own historical approach here. I am very conscious that in asking questions about the historical Jesus I might well be doing something that strikes some as epistemologically naive – even if a lot of people do it – and I could be accused, along with others who engage one way or another with the “Quest”40 for the historical Jesus, of making oddly positivist assumptions about the nature of historical knowledge and how it can be arrived at.41 However, my aims are quite modest: I am not claiming to uncover the “real” Jesus,42 nor even a useful one, but to make some provisional but, I hope, plausible suggestions about how this figure could be understood if examined in the light of the assumptions, aspirations, and praxis characteristic of anarchism. In asking this question I am not assuming anything about the significance of what follows or its implications: my interest in the historical Jesus is not in uncovering a figure, or an aspect of a figure, that is somehow determinative for Christians or anyone else. The shifting sands of historical reconstruction are not really a very useful foundation for anything much that matters – though many biblical scholars enjoy their time in the sandpit and make quite remarkable claims about the ephemeral Saint Matthew. Volume I. Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 429- 731; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: a Commentary, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007). 37 Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg, Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008); Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries, ed. by David C. Sim and Boris Repschinski (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008). It is no surprise that Tolstoy was keen on the Didache which was only rediscovered in his lifetime. See E. B. Greenwood, 'Tolstoy and Religion', in New Essays on Tolstoy, ed. Malcolm Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 149–74 (p. 166). 38 See, for example, Leif E. Vaage, ‘Beyond Nationalism: Jesus the “Holy Anarchist”? : the Cynic Jesus as Eternal Recurrence of the Repressed’, in Jesus Beyond Nationalism: Constructing the Historical Jesus in a Period of Cultural Complexity, ed. by Halvor Moxnes, Ward Blanton and James G. Crossley (London: Equinox, 2009), pp. 79–95. 39 Although I am not aware of Ched Myers identifying himself as a Christian anarchist, his commentary on Mark's gospel, Binding the Strong Man: a Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988), has been extremely influential on a number of contemporary Christian anarchists (Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism, pp. 39-40), and in the supportive preface that he recently wrote to Van Steenwyk's primer on Christian anarchism he endorses the notion that the Bible contains “anarchist tendencies” (That Holy Anarchist: Reflections on Christianity & Anarchism [Minneapolis: Missio Dei, 2012], p. 9) and suggests that “the anarchist vision may yet be a key to the renewal of church and society” (Holy Anarchist, p. 11). 40 It has become customary to refer to the study of the historical Jesus as the “Quest” for the historical Jesus, following the publication of the English translation in 1910 of Albert Schweitzer's influential Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr ,1906) which was entitled The Quest of the Historical Jesus: a Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (London: A. and C. Black, 1910). 41 See, for example, the criticisms of Bernard C. Lategan, ‘Questing or Sense-Making? Some Thoughts on the Nature of Historiography’, Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches, 11 (2003), 588–601. 42 For a still useful, albeit confessional, critique of such undertakings see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). 5 edifices that they fashion.43 Before I turn to the question of historical method it is also important to address an initial objection to the question this paper tries to answer, which might, in the eyes of some, like the question of Jesus' existence, prevent them proceeding any further: the problem of Jesus' theism. I am conscious that it might be argued that the theism of the historical Jesus precludes him from being considered an anarchist. Most of the words or actions ascribed to him, in one way or another, either reference or are predicated upon belief in God.44 For example, the arrival of God's rule and its implication for humans seems to have preoccupied him and is at the heart of whatever socio-political vision he may have had, as we shall see.45 However, it is not the case that anarchism necessarily implies atheism. Atheism is central to many forms of classical anarchism. One need only think of Bakunin's famous God and the State, Faure's Les douze preuves de l'inexistence de dieu46 or the infamous anti-clerical massacres carried out by anarchist units in the Spanish Civil War.47 Such atheism is often predicated upon the need to reject the tyranny assumed to be inherent in the idea of an omnipotent God (powerfully expressed in Bakunin's famous remark, “If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him”48). However, it is also driven by the desire to oppose the oppression that is thought to result from the social consequences of belief in God, both that oppression caused by religious institutions themselves and the power that they exert, and also the oppression which results from the support such religious institutions, in turn, provide to the state, the prime focus of the anarchist critique of exploitation (Bakunin famously called the state, “the Church's younger brother”).49 Indeed, the apparent demise of religion – even if anarchism has often been rather premature in its claims about this – has been taken by some anarchists as evidence of the likely demise of the state: The history of religion is a model for the history of government. Once it was thought impossible to have a society without God; now God is dead. It is still thought impossible to have a society without the state; now we must destroy the state.50 The atheism of anarchism can be so intense as to spill over into misotheism, not just a denial of the existence of God but an active hatred of God.51 However, as the influential chronicler of anarchism, Peter Marshall has noted, “Anarchism is not necessarily atheistic any more than socialism is.”52 And it is clear from the existence of religious anarchists of various kinds, some 43 See, for example, N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), p. xv. 44 Although characterizing the historical Jesus' understanding of God as a matter of “belief” is, perhaps, unhelpful. “Belief” has a distinctive and specific place in some forms Christianity but cannot be said to be a significant organizing or nodal concept within the religious life of most humans, ancient or modern. See, for example, Malcolm Ruel, Belief, Ritual and the Securing of Life: Reflective Essays on a Bantu Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 36-59. 45 For example, Mark 1.15 and Matthew 4.17 (see also Luke 4.43); Luke 17.20-21, Thomas 3, 113; Matthew 11.11-12, Luke 5.28, 16.16, Thomas 46; Mark 10.15, Matthew 18.3, Luke 18.17; Mark 10.23-25, Matthew 19.23-24, Luke 18.24- 25; Luke 11.20, Matthew 12.28; Matthew 13.44; Thomas 109; Matthew 13.45-46, Thomas 76; Mark 3.22–27, Matthew 12.29–30, Luke 11.21–23; Mark 9:1 (see also Matthew 16.28, Luke 9.27); Mark 14.25, Matthew 26.29 (cf. Luke 22.18); Matthew 8.11, Luke 13.28-30; Matthew 6.10, Luke 11.2 and Didache 8.2. 46 Sébastien Faure, Les douze preuves de l’inexistence de Dieu, (Paris: Librairie sociale, 1908). 47 See, for example, Paul Preston, The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-century Spain (London: HarperPress, 2012), pp. 221-258 48 Bakunin, God and the State, p. 28. For similar sentiments see Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays (New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911), p. 22. 49 Saul Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001), p. 26. 50 Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, 2nd edn (London: Freedom Press, 2002), p. 43. 51 Bernard Schweizer, Hating God: The Untold Story of Misotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 34. 52 Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (Oakland: PM Press, 2010), p. 75. 6 of which we have already mentioned, that this is the case.53 However eccentric they might appear, religious anarchists are not normally considered outside the anarchist fold in studies of the field (unlike, for example, anarcho-capitalists54 or far-right national anarchists55). It would be, for example, an unusual history of anarchism that did not make at least some mention of Tolstoy or the Catholic Worker Movement.56 Therefore the theism of Jesus should not preclude him from being labelled an anarchist. These observations aside, let us now turn to the question of historical method. 2. Constructing the historical Jesus Until recently there was a general agreement on the historical method used by most of those studying the figure of Jesus.57 There was a rough consensus on the range of historical-critical tools that should be employed and the sources that were deemed relevant.58 In addition, most scholars also agreed on the need to apply so-called “criteria of authenticity” to the data in order to distinguish between “authentic” and “inauthentic” traditions about Jesus.59 Five criteria were given particular weight in reconstructions: embarrassment, dissimilarity, multiple attestation, coherence and crucifiability and these, explicitly or implicitly, have underpinned most of the critical studies of Jesus that have appeared in the last few decades.60 However, the field is now experiencing something of a crisis. Consensus on historical method has not produced agreement on the results61 and we have, instead, seen a proliferation of widely divergent reconstructions of the historical Jesus.62 There is a growing recognition that, despite attempts to rectify their weaknesses,63 some of which have long been noted,64 the criteria of authenticity are inadequate for the task, and should be abandoned. The discipline is now (or perhaps, once again) much 53 For examples see Religious Anarchism: New Perspectives, ed. by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2009) and Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism. 54 Such ideas “are described as anarchist only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is” (Jeremy Jennings, ‘Anarchism’, in Contemporary Political Ideologies, ed. by Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright, 2nd edn [London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999], p. 142). 55 Graham D. Macklin, ‘Co-Opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction’, Patterns of Prejudice, 39 (2005), 301–26. 56 Both are mentioned a number of times in such standard histories as Marshall, Demanding; Robert Graham, Anarchism: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300CE to 1939). Volume 1: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 2005); and Woodcock, Anarchism. However, some surveys do pass over Christian anarchism. It is absent from, for example, Michael Schmidt's Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism (Oakland: AK Press, 2013). 57 There are, of course, notable exceptions. See, for example, David Flusser and R. Steven Notley, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, 4th edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007 [1968]). 58 See the survey of the so-called “Third Quest” in John P. Meier, ‘The Present State of the “Third Quest” for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain’, Biblica, 80 (1999), 459–487. There have been significant differences of opinion on the relative weight that should be placed upon non-canonical sources in reconstructions. Contrast, for example, the use of non- canonical texts in Crossan, The Historical Jesus, with that in John P Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991). 59 For a useful introduction to these see Meier, A Marginal Jew and Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Volume 1: How to Study the Historical Jesus, ed. by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 60 These criteria are not new but have been used, in various forms, since the 1920s. See Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 63-102. 61 Joel Willitts, ‘Presuppositions and Procedures in the Study of the Historical Jesus: Or, Why I Decided Not to Be a Historical Jesus Scholar’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3 (2005), 61–108. 62 For a helpful survey of these see Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2012), pp. 19-36; David B. Gowler, What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus? (New York: Paulist Press, 2007). 63 Porter, Criteria, and Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: the Question of Criteria (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002). 64 M. D. Hooker, ‘Christology and Methodology’, New Testament Studies, 17 (1971), 480–487. 7 more alert to the challenges posed by such things as memory65 and has a greater awareness of the problems inherent talking about “authenticity”. A recent essay by Dale Allison, a leading historical- Jesus scholar, in which he chronicled his own growing disillusionment with the way in which the subject has been approached is emblematic of the current state of the field.66 My own position is similar to that at which Allison has recently arrived.67 There is much about Jesus that remains impossible to substantiate if we treat it with the same kind of scepticism that one would responsibly use if you were, for example, trying to establish the details of the life of other figures who were significant in antiquity, such as Socrates,68 Apollonius of Tyana,69 or Rabbi Akiva,70 and to say with any certainty what they may have said or done or what ideas that they might have had. Only a limited amount of information can be ascertained about the historical Jesus with anything approaching confidence, and that, for the most part, is of a general rather than specific kind. The significant creativity evident amongst those who first repeated and recorded traditions about Jesus, and the lack of evidence that the early Christians were discerning in their transmission of stories about him,71 makes such a position unavoidable. Most of the data we have about Jesus can only provide us with impressions of the man but these impressions are relatively trustworthy and reflect the enduring effect he had upon his earliest followers. They remain valid irrespective of the historicity of any particular unit of tradition, regardless of the abbreviation, elaboration, conflation, embellishment and fabrication evident within the sources.72 So, for example, as I have noted elsewhere, when we look at the relevant texts: The virtues that Jesus exhibited in the face of death, of both forebearance and submission, and his refusal to return violence with violence, seem to have been recurring motifs in the pictures of Jesus that emerge from these traditions and tell us something about the enduring impression his personality made on his followers.73 And there are, I believe, many larger patterns evident in the sources, patterns that are sufficiently robust so as to still hold true even if the data that they are derived from includes material that was invented. Indeed, as Allison has said, even “fiction can bring us facts … some of the traditions about Jesus which 65 Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010); Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009) and Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, Jesus and the Historians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 189-224. 66 Dale C. Allison, ‘It Don’t Come Easy: a History of Disillusionment’, in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, ed. by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne (London: T&T Clark, 2012), pp. 186–199. 67 Although I place greater weight on the role of invention within the tradition associated with Jesus. See Justin J. Meggitt, ‘Popular Mythology in the Early Empire and the Multiplicity of Jesus Traditions’, in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth, ed. by R. Joseph Hoffmann (Amherst: Prometheus, 2010), pp. 53–80. 68 See, for example, Louis-André Dorion, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Socratic Problem’, in The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, ed. by Donald R. Morrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 1–23. 69 See, for example, Maria Dzielska, Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1986). 70 As Fonrobert and Jaffee note about Rabbi Akiva, one of the key founders of Rabbinic Judaism, the nature of the sources make it impossible to know, “with any degree of historical certainty”, whether he really said what is attributed to him (Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, ‘Introduction: The Talmud, Rabbinic Literature, and Jewish Culture’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007], pp. 1- 14 [p. 2]). 71 Meggitt, ‘Popular Mythology’. 72 A similar idea can be found in C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (London: Nisbet, 1938) although it was passed over by subsequent work in the field. 73 Justin J. Meggitt, ‘Psychology and the Historical Jesus’, in Jesus and Psychology, ed. by Fraser Watts (London: Darton,Longman & Todd, 2007), pp. 16–26 (p. 24). Also quoted in Allison, Constructing Jesus, p. 433. 8 are, in the strict sense, not historical, surely give us a faithful impression of the sort of person he was or the sort of thing he typically did.”74 The temptation narratives, for example, despite being highly legendary depict Jesus as someone who shows disdain for personal political power, a motif that recurs a number of times in our sources.75 And so I would go along with Allison, albeit for slightly different reasons, and say: So, in the matter of Jesus, we should start not with the parts but with the whole, which means with the general impression that the tradition about him, in toto, tends to convey. The criteria of authenticity are, for this endeavour, simply in the way.76 It is the working assumption of this text that beyond a small cluster of incidents – such as his crucifixion - the details of the life of Jesus are historically elusive although the general picture, and recurrent motifs, are discernible and historically reliable. It follows, therefore, that I am not going to engage in detailed exegesis of specific texts, even those that look particularly relevant to our theme. For example, the “Render unto Caesar” incident,77 something central to most studies of the politics of Jesus,78 will not be the focus of detailed scrutiny because the best that can be said about individual traditions of this kind is that they were the kind of thing Jesus' followers79 thought Jesus might have said. Our business is about seeing the patterns and determining what was characteristic of the figure, not to be too concerned with the historicity of the details. Such an approach also has the advantage of resembling the way that ancient biographies – which to a large extent the gospels are80 – would have been understood in antiquity.81 3. The meaning and utility of the term “anarchist” If we want to determine whether the historical Jesus can be termed an “anarchist” we need to determine not only how we can arrive at knowledge about the figure than might allow us to make such a judgement but also what we mean by the term “anarchist” when we attempt such an evaluation. In addition, we will need to address two potential criticisms of the business of determining whether the term “anarchist” is a fair one to apply to Jesus: that the term “anarchist” is anachronistic and ethnocentric. Any attempt to define anarchism has to deal with the problem of its popular image. The notion that anarchism is about the absence of order rather than the absence of government, that it is 74 Dale C. Allison, ‘Behind the Temptations of Jesus : Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13’, in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 195–213. 75 Matthew 4.8-10; Luke 4.5-8 (Mark 1.12-13). See Matthew 20.26-27, 23.11-12, Mark 9.35, 10.43-44, Luke 14.11, 18.14b, 22.26; Matthew 6.29, Luke 12.27; Luke 13.32; Matthew 27.11, Mark 15.2, Luke 23.3; Luke 22.25; Luke 23.9; John 18.33-38; John 6.15. 76 Allison, 'It Don't Come Easy', p. 198. Although it could be said that this approach, albeit in an attenuated form, makes use of two familiar criteria, those of multiple attestation and, to a lesser extent, coherence. 77 Matthew 22.15-22:22; Mark 12.13-17; Luke 20.20-26; Thomas 100. 78 See, for example, Richard Bauckham, The Bible in Politics: How to Read the Bible Politically, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 2011). 79 Or rather the dominant group amongst those claiming this identity and which probably equated, more or less, with what the pagan critic Celsus called the “great church” (Origen, Contra Celsum 5.59). 80 For the gospels as biographies see Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?: a Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) and Dirk Frickenschmidt, Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst (Tübingen: Francke, 1997). 81 Though obviously there was considerable variation. See Thomas Hägg, The Art of Biography in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). 9 synonymous with chaos and senseless violence, has persisted since the Victorian period82 and was made famous by such works as Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent.83 Of course, there are some forms of insurrectionary anarchism that appear to fit this stereotype – one needs only think of the recent activities of the Federazione Anarchica Informale84 – but counter to the popular image, the use of violence85 is, for most anarchists, subject to considerable constraints, and most would eschew anything that could be deemed to be coercive violence against persons, even if outright pacifism is a minority position.86 Far from being senseless and destructive, most anarchists would consider themselves engaged in a constructive project consisting of “reconstructive visions, prefigurative politics and self- organisation”.87 But once we move past the problem of the popular image of anarchism, and try to define anarchism more accurately, we still face a number of acute challenges. There are, for example, a range of terms commonly used to qualify the word “anarchist”, such as collectivist, communist, individualist, liberal, life-style, mutualist, poststructuralist, primitivist, social, and syndicalist, the diversity of which seems, at first sight, to indicate something that is so pluriform that it resists definition. But whilst such labels, and more, are clearly significant, it is possible to have what has been called “an anarchism without adjectives”,88 some kind of anarchism that is roughly representative of what most forms of anarchism have in common and true to its varied but essentially ecumenical character.89 Although it is customary to begin such fundamental definitions with an etymological point about the Greek word anarchos, from which the term anarchism is derived,90 and to point out that it means “without a ruler”, this does not get us very far, and saying something more is challenging, not least because anarchism is profoundly anti-dogmatic.91 Nonetheless, the definition of the anthropologist Brian Morris is one that is helpful for our purposes, encapsulating both its critical and constructive programme. Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination [... ]But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions.92 However, it might also be helpful to keep in mind, in what follows, the suggestion by David Graeber, that any definition of the term anarchist has to encompass a range of interrelated and overlapping 82 Haia Shpayer-Makov, ‘Anarchism in British Public Opinion 1880-1914’, Victorian Studies, 31 (1988), 487-516 (p. 487). 83 Joseph Conrad, The Secret Agent (London: J. M. Dent, 1907). 84 See, for example, ‘Italian Anarchists Kneecap Nuclear Executive and Threaten More Shootings’, the Guardian, 2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/11/italian-anarchists-kneecap-nuclear-executive> [accessed 31 July 2015]. See also Richard Bach Jensen, The Battle against Anarchist Terrorism: An International History, 1878-1934 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) and John M. Merriman, The Dynamite Club: How a Bombing in Fin- de-Siècle Paris Ignited the Age of Modern Terror (London: JR Books, 2009). 85 Though what constitutes “violence” is itself far from self-evident. For a discussion of definitional problems see Willem Schinkel, Aspects of Violence: A Critical Theory (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010), pp. 16-83. 86 See Ruth Kinna, Anarchism: A Beginner’s Guide (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2009), pp. 158-164. See also Peter Gelderloos, How Nonviolence Protects the State (Cambridge: South End Press, 2007) and Uri Gordon, Anarchy Alive!: Anti-Authoritarian Politics From Practice to Theory (London: Pluto Press, 2008), pp. 78-108. 87 See, for example, Cindy Milstein, Anarchism and its Aspirations (Oakland: AK Press, 2010). 88 George Richard Esenwein, Anarchist Ideology and the Working-Class Movement in Spain: 1868-1898 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 135. 89 Murray Bookchin, Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchy: An Unbridgeable Chasm (Oakland: AK Press, 1996), p. 4. 90 E.g. Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 8. 91 A point made by Marshall, Demanding, p. 3. 92 Brian Morris, Anthropology and Anarchism: Their Elective Affinity (London: Goldsmiths College, 2005), p. 6. 10