58 J.J.C. Smart
The historical Jesus has proved to be elusive. All sorts of accounts have
been made, ranging from the literalist and supernaturalist to the sceptical and
naturalistic. A naturalistic account that has appealed to me as plausible is that
of S.G.F. Brandon.^101 However, I am not a historian or a New Testament
scholar, and so I suggest that the cautious reader should take what I say about
Brandon’s theory as merely illustrative of the possibility of a plausible natural-
istic theory and also illustrative of Bradley’s view about the importance of
presuppositions (mine being naturalistic) in critical history.
Brandon’s hypothesis is that Jesus was closely connected with the zealots,
Jewish resistance fighters against the Roman occupation. This explains his
trial at the hands of Pilate, which must have been for sedition, not for
blasphemy. Blasphemy was a matter for the Jewish religious establishment
and the penalty for this was not crucifixion but stoning. That Jesus’ trial was
for sedition explains Pilate’s involvement: if it had been for blasphemy it
would have been in a Jewish court. Mark had a motive for wanting to transfer
responsibility from the Romans to the Jews. Mark was writing largely for the
Roman Christians, whose position was uncomfortable as it was at the time of
the great Jewish revolt and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem, and he
would have been at pains to conceal the connection of the original Christians
with zealotry and hence sedition, for fear of bringing harm to the Christians
in Rome. At least one of the disciples actually was a zealot, Simon the zealot.
Luke, writing later after the fuss over the Jewish revolt had died down, explicitly
called Simon by the Greek word ‘zelotes’, whereas Mark more cagily used
the Aramaic word, ‘Cananaean’, which would not be easily understood by the
Roman Christians. The two ‘thieves’ who were crucified with Jesus were
probably zealots, since the Romans referred to zealots as ‘lestai’ (brigands).
The above is merely meant as a very small sampleof considerations brought
forward by Brandon in a book full of technical philological and historical
scholarship. The interested reader is referred to Brandon’s work itself.
‘A pretty tall story’, an orthodox believer might say, ‘Jesus a leader of revolu-
tionaries, something like modern mujahideen? Poppycock! Jesus said “Turn
the other cheek”.’ Yes, one might reply, but he also said that he did not come
to bring peace but a sword. The disciples in Gethsemane were armed. And so
the dialogue might go on. What should we believe, the orthodox story or the
naturalistic one or something in between? (Or of course some other possible
naturalistic story?)
Brandon’s theory might be shown to be implausible, but could it be less
plausible than the orthodox story that Jesus performed miracles and not only
claimed to be the son of God (and even this has been doubted) but was the
son of God, and after the crucifixion rose bodily into heaven? A balancing of
plausibilities is needed and the metaphysical presuppositions of the reader
will largely determine which way the balance falls.