Was the historical Jesus an anarchist?^135nineteenth century, or the brief periods of prominence it enjoyed
with the Maknovists in Ukraine,^97 the CNT-FAI in Republican
Spain,^98 its prominence in events in France in May 1968,^99 or its
more recent re-emergence within anti-capitalist and anti-globali-
sation movements, and anarchist volunteers contributing to the
defense of the Rojava revolution in north Syria/West Kurdistan.^100
All these are a long way from first-century Palestine and so it
seems legitimate to ask whether it is just downright anachronistic
to even pose the question whether the historical Jesus was an an-
archist. If it is then we are wasting our time.
However, the problem of using contemporary terminology to
describe and elucidate past realities is not a new one and obviously
not limited to the study of the historical Jesus (although scholars of
the historical Jesus often behave as though they were engaged in a
unique endeavour). Given the opprobrium that has faced those who
have maintained that the historical Jesus can be usefully described
as a Jewish Cynic,^101 a not unreasonable suggestion given the clear
resemblances between Jesus and the philosophical movement of
that name active in the early Roman empire, and a suggestion that
at least had the virtue of applying to the historical Jesus a term that
was current in the first-century world,^102 to ask whether Jesus could
usefully be called an “anarchist” seems unwise. However, it is a term
that is, generally speaking, particularly amenable to being used of
a figure in the past. As Graeber has noted, the founding ideologues
of anarchism, such as Proudhon, “did not think of themselves as
having invented anything particularly new. The basic principles of
anarchism – self-organization, voluntary association, mutual aid
- referred to forms of human behaviour they assumed it had been
around about as long as humanity.”^103 It is certainly a less problem-
atic term to use than, say, “Marxist”. The latter has always been
associated with high theory and the fundamental project of analy-
sis begun with Karl Marx, whilst anarchism is, again in the words
of Graeber, “more a moral project”^104 and the only thing that really
changed in the nineteenth century was that it acquired a name.^105
Such thinking lies behind, for example, Robert Graham’s recent
documentary chronicle of anarchism, which begins at 300CE,^106
or Peter Marshall’s Demanding the Impossible, a substantial and
influential history of anarchism that traces the origins of anarchism