the same time, he is also reported to have said that though John may have been the greatest of men, ‘the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’.124
It is on the interpretation of this remark by Jesus, and of the Baptist’s enquiry concerning Jesus’ role, that a correct assessment of the non-Marcan material concerning the two men depends.
For – supposing it to be historically conceivable that messengers were sent to Jesus by the imprisoned John, with the attendant implications of a rather enlightened jail administration under Herod Antipas, visiting hours, and an open line of communication with the outside world – what can be the meaning of ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect some other?’125 Since, it should be stressed, the question was put after the news of ‘what Christ was doing’ had reached the Baptist126 – who, according to Matthew, had acknowledged Jesus’ role when he baptized him – the words quoted are bound to express doubt: the Messiah is expected to do better than heal and exorcise, so if you are he, make haste and prove it. Jesus avoids the implied query, reasserts his healing mission, and indirectly reproaches those whose faith in him was small:
‘Happy is the man who does not find me a stumbling-block!’127
The apparent sting in the tail of Jesus’ praise of John – ‘the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’ – has baffled many an interpreter. Some have seen in it a contrast between the future glory of the elect, and John’s greatness on earth. Others identify ‘the kingdom’ as the realm of the spirit resulting from the ministry of Jesus and belonging to a higher sphere than the world of the Baptist. Others still understand the phrase, ‘the least in the kingdom’, as a description of Jesus as the servant of God. The first two interpretations are too theological for serious consideration by a historian, but the third is plausible at least as far as its acceptance as a reference to Jesus is concerned. The Servant concept itself becomes less relevant when it is recalled that in Aramaic and Hebrew the phrase, ‘the least one’, ‘the smallest one’, can be used in the chronological sense to designate the youngest or last person in a series. In the belief of the evangelists, Jesus was God’s ultimate envoy, and although it is by no means sure that the words are his own, their significance is: John was very great, but I am greater.
If this explanation is right, it may be inferred that the disciples of Jesus unhesitatingly asserted their master’s pre-eminence over John. An echo to this mood of rivalry in the Gospels makes itself heard in the apostles’ attempt to silence an outsider who dared to cast out demons in Jesus’ name,128 as well as in the complaint of John’s followers, preserved only in the Fourth Gospel, that baptism by Jesus is improper and disrespectful towards their teacher.129
The conflict arising from Jesus’ admiration for the Baptist, and the jealousy of the two groups of disciples, is resolved in the compromise that John, recognized as the precursor, acknowledges the superiority of Jesus at the time of his baptism, or, better still, when they are both in their mothers’ wombs.130 Yet it is interesting to notice that, in contrast to this laboured insistence on the precedence of Jesus over John, Mark is satisfied with a straightforward presentation of Jesus as John’s successor, without discussing their relationship beyond the exegesis, by implication, of Isaiah 40: 3: ‘Prepare a road for the Lord through the wilderness, clear a highway across the desert for our God.’131
Critics and Opponents of Jesus
As an exceptional and controversial religious teacher, it was inevitable that Jesus should encounter criticism and hostility as well as respect and love, but strangely enough, the first opposition came from those closest to him, his family and fellow-citizens in Nazareth. When his relatives heard of his cures, exorcism and preaching, they set off to take hold of him, for they said:
‘He is out of his mind.’132
The scandalous incongruity of this statement is the best guarantee of its historicity, and the Marcan variant, ‘For people were saying that he was out of his mind’, as well as the absence of Synoptic parallels, are no doubt due to an early ‘censorship’ tendency in the evolving Christian tradition. Moreover, it is difficult not to see it as a preliminary to the fuller account, a few verses later, of the arrival of Jesus’ mother and brothers at the house where he was teaching, their summons that he should join them, and Jesus’ subsequent retort that the greater family of those who do the will of God had first claim to his presence.133
Whatever the actual outcome of this apparent refusal to submit to his family’s control, no further contact is mentioned in the Synoptics between them and Jesus. It is to remedy this unfortunate impression that the Fourth Gospel expressly depicts Mary as her son’s first convert, at the wedding feast in Cana,134 and as standing at the last beside him at the cross.135 Luke, too, finds Jesus’ mother and brothers in the company of the apostles after the Ascension.136 The family may, of course, have changed its mind at a later stage and made common cause with the disciples; it is in fact a historically reliable tradition that James, ‘the brother of the lord’, became the head of the Jerusalem Church.137
If his immediate kin were shocked by his behaviour, it is not surprising that friends and neighbours were also scandalized.138 No one is prophet in his own town, Jesus is reported to have commented philosophically,139 though he was taken aback by their want of faith.140 Nevertheless, the Lucan story of an attempted lynching is probably an exaggeration.141
This unsympathetic reception of Jesus in Nazareth may explain his rhetorical disparagement of the ties of nature compared with those which bound men to him, and through him, to God. Happy the womb that carried him! cried a woman admirer, and was corrected, ‘No, happy are those who hear the word of God.’142 On another occasion he was even more direct:
‘He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’143
The conflict between Jesus and the representatives of authority on doctrinal and politico-religious grounds requires several preliminary remarks. Firstly, the identity of the opponents is often unclear because the sources are contradictory regarding them. For instance, the protagonists in what appears to be the same event are described by Mark as Pharisees and Herodians, by Matthew as Pharisees only, and by Luke as lawyers and Pharisees.144 Secondly, interpretative tradition, both scholarly and popular, is too easily inclined to equate Pharisees, scribes and lawyers, but since Mark and Luke expressly refer to the lawyers of the Pharisees, it would follow that those not so described were not necessarily members of that party.145 Thirdly, in the various accounts of the plot which led to the arrest of Jesus and his surrender to Pilate for trial and execution, the Pharisees as a class play no part.146 Lastly, the struggle with the chief priests and elders, and probably with the Sadducees too, is confined to Jerusalem.147
As far as basic Jewish beliefs are concerned, the only serious clash reported in the Gospels between Jesus and the established authority finds him opposing the Sadducees in their denial of the resurrection of the dead.148 Here, as well as in the identification of the greatest commandment – love of God and one’s fellow-men – Jesus is represented as sharing the outlook and winning the approval of the Pharisees.149 Yet it would be a gross overstatement to portray him as a Pharisee himself. Indeed, in regard to those customs which they invested with a quasi-absolute value, but which to him were secondary to biblical commandments, a head-on collision was unavoidable. Jesus ate with sinners and did not condemn those who sat down to table with unwashed hands or pulled corn on the Sabbath.150 The lawyers who accuse him of blasphemy because of his promise to forgive sins, and those who suggest that his exorcistic power is due to his association with the devil, need not have been Pharisees.151 The only other person said to have raised a charge of blasphemy against Jesus was the Sadducean high priest during the
