sent from heaven (Nickelsburg 2003: 91–108). Indeed, even in
the New Testament, the expressions used to articulate Jesus’ mes-
sianic status were similarly varied. For example, the genealogy
that opens the Gospel of Matthew(1.1–7) emphasizes the royal
messiah linked to David, whereas in the Letter to the Hebrews
Jesus is portrayed as an anointed priest. The image of Jesus as
‘the son of man’ (that is, some sort of heavenly figure in human
form) derives from the description of ‘one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven’ whose ‘dominion is an ever-
lasting dominion that shall not pass away’ found in the Old
Testament book of Daniel(7.13–14).
If Jesus’ immediate followers expressed his messianic status
in such a varied fashion, then that suggests his identification as
the Messiah was something that needed to be established through
argument, not something that was an easily recognizable and
uncontroversial fact. The variety of messianic concepts found in
contemporary Jewish writings similarly suggests that the concept
of the Messiah was not clearly established as being one precise
thing. Furthermore, the emphasis in much New Testament schol-
arship in elucidating messianic ideals in the Judaism of Jesus’
time reflects a peculiarly Christian concern that risks distorting
the nature of Jewish beliefs in the first century. It was possible
for Jews to conceive of God intervening in human affairs on his
own without the intercession of any messianic, prophetic, or heav-
enly agent (Nickelsburg 2003: 90–1, 123–35). Thus it is possible
(perhaps even probable) that many Jews would not have agreed
with, or even seen the necessity for, the Christian claim that Jesus
was the unique agent of God’s plan for humankind. To put it
another way, the onus was on Jesus’ followers to convince Jews
that Jesus was the Messiah. If the Jews rejected that idea, it was
not because of any hardness in their hearts (as the Christian
version so often goes), but because those who advocated Jesus’
messianic status were not sufficiently persuasive.
If we look at the question of Jesus’ relationship with
contemporary Judaism in this light, then we see that there are
problems associated with the traditional notions of a JewishCONTEXTS FOR THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY
104