Jesus, Socialism, and "Judeo-topia"

Abstract

This article addresses the contention commonly expressed among liberal theologians and commentators that the Jesus of history, to the extent that he may be identified, was essentially a social revolutionary, broadly sympathetic to what might be identified in contemporary terms as ideological "socialism." It is often conceived that Jesus' concern for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the underclass of Second Temple Judea endows him with a broad egalitarian ethic, making him akin to an ancient "redistributionist." I will argue, however, that "socialism" did indeed exist in those days, in the form of the Dead Sea sect, and that the historical Jesus was profoundly opposed to the community of property it represented. For him, "social justice " was part of the embedded ethics of Judaism itself, divorced from the "redistributionist" theories of Marxist and neo-Marxist adherents. Whereas the Essene sectarians withdrew from what they called "the material wealth of wickedness," Jesus admonished his disciples to pursue dealings out of economic contact with the world at large.

Headnote

A Paper Presented at the International eConference on the Historical Jesus

Abstract: This article addresses the contention commonly expressed among liberal theologians and commentators that the Jesus of history, to the extent that he may be identified, was essentially a social revolutionary, broadly sympathetic to what might be identified in contemporary terms as ideological "socialism." It is often conceived that Jesus' concern for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the underclass of Second Temple Judea endows him with a broad egalitarian ethic, making him akin to an ancient "redistributionist." I will argue, however, that "socialism" did indeed exist in those days, in the form of the Dead Sea sect, and that the historical Jesus was profoundly opposed to the community of property it represented. For him, "social justice " was part of the embedded ethics of Judaism itself, divorced from the "redistributionist" theories of Marxist and neo-Marxist adherents. Whereas the Essene sectarians withdrew from what they called "the material wealth of wickedness," Jesus admonished his disciples to pursue dealings out of economic contact with the world at large.

Keywords: Historical Jesus, Socialism, Dead Sea Scrolls, Social Justice, Tzedakah

Jesus, Proto-Rabbi

It is a truism that almost every brand of religionist, philosopher, and moral commentator, not to mention political theorist, has attempted to lay claim to the person of Jesus of Nazareth, as if doing so lends unimpeachable stature to one's cause or perspective. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes..."1 As a result, it is arguably the case that much if not most of what is common knowledge with respect to the great Nazarene amounts to anachronistic stereotype. That, commingled with religious doctrine and dogma, leaves the serious scholar and researcher endeavoring to uncover even the slightest trace of the real man and his message, unvarnished by two millennia of force-fitting him into one mold or another. Moreover, when occasional voices from the religious left chime in, justifying everything from social welfare, to woke egalitarianism, to outright Marxism under the guise of "liberation theology," one wonders whether looking at Jesus through the simple lens of the Judaism of his day, albeit filtered through the teachings of the rabbinic sages, might shine a more reliable light on an ancient proto-rabbi, who was, at his core, a Galilean, an Israelite, and a piously observant Jew. Is it fair to assert, given what we know or think we know about the historical Jesus, that he might have been at least somewhat sympathetic to what today might be thought of as socialism? I will argue, however, that faithful Torah observance, the kind to which the historical Jesus certainly adhered, does not a woke socialist make.

The one thing we know with certainty about Jesus is that we know very little with certainty. That being the case, it is fair to ask why anyone would be inclined to turn history's most celebrated Galilean into a dedicated socialist, or even a fellow "traveler" on Karl Marx's utopian journey. Most likely such a perspective is gleaned from Jesus' sensitivity, as recorded in the Christian Gospels, to the poor and downtrodden in tandem with his unrelenting attacks on the rich. Jesus is said to have declared to a certain "rich young ruler," "Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Luke 18:22, NKJV). He is also credited with declaring: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24, NKJV). Not a few contemporary exegetes gleefully rely on such passages to cast Jesus in the role of Robin Hood.

Ayn Rand, noted for her spite for socialist/Marxist theory, was also known to have despised Jesus, since in her words: "Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others."2 In her mind, Jesus, as any good socialist, promoted the collective over the interests of the individual. Or did he? Perhaps it was his interpreters who gave us this image. Perhaps Ayn Rand, like the Marxist theorists she abhorred, was inclined to filter Jesus through John's Gospel, which declares that Jesus came, "that the world [not isolated individuals] through him might be saved" (John 3:17, KJV). That of course is John, which paints Jesus as a self-denying Greco-Hellenistic philosopher. The synoptic Gospels by contrast find room to depict a Jesus who was fully a product of the Jewish world of the pre-rabbinic Sages. Certainly Judaism, in antiquity as well as in the modem world, represents a collective, but it does not involve, as Ayn Rand described Jesus' message, "the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others."3

Judaism classically taught that one should love others "as oneself." However, neither the Jesus of the synoptics nor the religion to which he belonged taught subordinating one's soul to anyone. Hillel summed it up, expressing the "golden rule" later attributed to Jesus, in the negative: "That which is hateful to yourself do not do to others."4 Obviously, the self should not and cannot be subordinated, for it is the measure by which others should or should not be treated. In a larger context, the Jewish collective historically celebrated individual contributions, and while Jews have never quibbled with the notion that it takes a village, the Jewish village has historically been composed of individuals, whose altruism leaves healthy self-interest undiminished. Indeed, a cursory overview of history finds legions of Jewish merchants, entrepreneurs, and capitalists of every variety, and even the rabbis and sages of late antiquity preferred to have a trade, earning their own living rather than subsisting from the contributions of others.5

Are we to conclude that Jesus the Jew, the son of a carpenter, was somehow different, even a "social revolutionary" of sorts? Renowned Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan summed up the great Galilean in one of his tomes, titled Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. He repeatedly refers to Jesus as a presumably impoverished "peasant."6 Yet, contrary to popular perceptions, Jesus' family was well enough off to afford pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which is hardly what we would expect from those who hailed from an impoverished, pastoral society.7 If the Gospel narratives are to be trusted at all, this Jesus was not, in Crossan's words, a "Mediterranean Jewish peasant," or an exploited "peasant with an attitude."8 Josephus attests that Galilee was a land of rich fertility and very highly cultivated. He observes: "Moreover the cities lie here very thick; and the very many villages are everywhere so full of people by the richness of the soil that the very least of them contain above 15,000 inhabitants" (Josephus, B.J. III, iii, 2).9 Arguably, the whole notion of a poverty-stricken population, desperate for social revolution, needs to be reconsidered.

Jesus and Social Justice

When it comes to what is fondly referred to as "social justice," it is fair to point not only to the Torah, but to ancient Israel's prophetic class as the originators of the concept of equity and compassion for all people, and special concern for those in need. Noted religious historian Karen Armstrong has argued that the Jewish society of this period spawned an "egalitarian and socialist ethic."10 Socialist? Perhaps the religious left, Karen Armstrong included, needs reminding that caring for the poor and needy was something that this ancient society practiced, not by governmental fiat, but as a religious obligation only. The amount of "charity" to be distributed was a matter of interpretation. Leviticus 19:9-10 instructs the Israelites not to reap the comers of their fields or pick their vines bare, thereby leaving them for the poor. However, the size of the comers which remain unharvested and the number of grapes which should be left on the vines is not specified.

Ancient Israel was not the Roman empire, where the centralized state was the guarantor of both bread and circuses. For Jews, charity became synonymous with upright conduct on an individual level, and was therefore called in Hebrew tzedakah, literally meaning "righteousness." It became a tradition carried forth by Israel's great Sages, throughout Talmudic times and beyond. It should also be recognized that Judaism, except on rare occasions when the state itself was Jewish (as in David's ancient kingdom and the later Hasmonean dynasty), operated independently of the secular government, which in Jesus' day was a mere proxy of Rome. Unlike Islam, where charity was instituted as a tax, an obligation known as zakat, paid to the religiously dominated state, in Judaism charity was strongly recommended but never coerced. The best situation for which Jews could hope was to be left alone by the state, not sublimated to a governmental collective. The only option, when the land was held captive to an occupying power, was to throw off the foreign yoke, which was certainly an aspect of the geopolitical climate in which the historical Jesus found himself.

Jesus certainly lauded almsgiving, but he was likely of the same mind as his Pharisaic counterparts, that charity (tzedakah) works best when it is distributed privately.11 This was in sharp contrast to the communal lifestyle of the Dead Sea sect, who collectivized their wealth and redistributed (in Marxist lingo) "to each according to his need." It is in this cultural context that his remarks to the rich young ruler should be understood. Rabbinic literature does go into detail about tzedakah, citing various levels of giving, ranking them from lowest to highest. Though the source is medieval, it has much to say about Jewish attitudes going back to antiquity. The third highest level is when the donor is aware of the recipient's identity, but the recipient is unaware of the source. The second highest is when both donor and recipient are unknown to each other. The highest level of charity, however, is to help sustain someone before that individual becomes impoverished, by helping the person find employment or some form of business, so that dependence on others becomes unnecessary.12 Nowhere is what we might conceive as the welfare state referenced in any of this.

In ancient Judea, King Herod the Great, himself a lackey of Rome, pretended to care for all elements of his ethnically diverse population, Israelites and non-Israelites as well, all the while crushing his subjects under burdensome taxation and forced labor/slavery. Those who were more well off, the so-called Herodians and their allies-including the Sadducees in their multiple priestly orders, government officials, and the landed gentry-thrived precisely because of their connections with the ruling authorities. In Ayn Rand's world, the "rich" were the bloat-bellied bureaucrats of centralized government; in ancient Israel under the Herodian dynasty, they were much the same. Given the socio-historical realities of his day, does Jesus still sound like a socialist/Marxist? Who were the oppressed souls he represented? The Galilean fisherman, selling his daily catch for as much hard coinage as he could earn? Or the industrious craftsman, the carpenter, the tool maker, or the tanner, involved in what amounted to cottage industries? These were the "small businesses" of the day, engaged in by generations of what we might think of as early "entrepreneurs"- bourgeois elements capable of warming the cockles of Adam Smith's capitalist heart. Were those the ones Jesus chastised? Or was his castigation of the "rich" code language for a subversive broadside against ancient Israel's version of big-government autocracy, imposed by a foreign power?

The Essenes and "Proto-Communism "

Interestingly, there was indeed an ancient form of socialism/qua "prot°Communism" to be found in the society of Jesus' day. To encounter it, one need look no further than the Dead Sea sect (presumably the Essenes), whom Josephus describes as follows:

These men are despisers of riches.... Nor is there any one to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order, - insomuch, that among them all there is no appearance of poverty or excess of riches... and so there is, as it were, patrimony among all the brethren. (Wars II, viii, 3)

Elsewhere Josephus notes: "Nor do they allow of the change of garments, or of shoes, till they be first entirely tom to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell anything to one another; but every one of them gives what he has to him who wants it... " (Wars, II, viii, 4).

Indeed, their egalitarian ideal amounted to what could well be termed "Judeo-topia." The Dead Sea sectarians repeatedly referred to themselves as "the poor" (Heb. evionim), likely because as committed "proto-socialists," none of them owned anything privately. Jesus, when berated by his disciples for allowing himself to be anointed with costly fragrant oil, quibbles not with such apparent excess, but notes the simple economic reality that "you have the poor with you always" (Mark, 14:7; Matthew 26:11 NKJV). In this he is echoing Deuteronomy 15:11: "For the poor shall never cease out of the land..." Although it flatly contradicts Deuteronomy 15:4: "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you," Jesus cites the verse which acknowledges the presence of poverty, accepting it as a reality that no amount of utopian well-wishing can eradicate.

It is also more than plausible that he takes direct aim at the Dead Sea sect, in telling a parable of an unrighteous steward, who learned that his master was dismissing him. The steward then forgave the debts owed by others to his master, so that they would receive him into their homes when the day came. Jesus concludes the story, saying: "So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light" (Luke 16:8, NKJV). In Christian circles this saying has long been interpreted to mean that "unbelievers," that is, "non-Christians," often act more wisely than people of faith, when Jesus' intent is most likely the exact opposite. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see him, with a wry sense of humor, mocking the Essene sectarians, who, in multiple Qumranic passages, refer to all outsiders as "sons of darkness."13 Jesus' disciples would presumably be among them. By contrast, Jesus quips, we so-called "sons of darkness," or "sons of this world," are wiser than you "sons of light," as the sectarians repeatedly call themselves in the Scrolls.14

Some interpret the parable with a broad socialist brush, since the unrighteous steward is forgiving the debt of those less well-off, at the expense of a wealthy master. He is Robin Hood. However, Jesus' next statement is perhaps even more telling: "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon," i.e. "capital" (Luke 16:9, NKJV).15 The Dead Sea Scrolls speak frequently of the "mammon of unrighteousness," as emblematic of the wealth, currency, and commerce of the outside world. By cutting themselves off from material wealth, the sectarians took one more step toward complete isolation, while bringing to fruition their own brand of socialist Judeotopia. Jesus, with classic sarcasm and sharp wit, charges that, in refusing all commercial dealings involving "unrighteous" material wealth, the members of the sect, notwithstanding their obvious piety, are on the short end of wisdom. In Jesus' mind, mammon should be used shrewdly and certainly to advance selfinterest. Indeed, mammon has value when it comes to living in the real world. As Benjamin Franklin observed, "If you would like to know the value of money, go and try to borrow some." As far as Jesus is concerned, those who appropriate and employ capital shrewdly are "wiser than the sons of light." On that level, as Ayn Rand pointed out in a 1946 letter to a fan, "Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism."16

In the final analysis, there will be no end of debates about Jesus' meaning, his message, and his sympathies. Some scholars see him as a "pacifistic" Pharisee, aware of the rumbles of anti-Roman sentiment, yet counseling a non-violent approach focused on what the modem left calls "social justice." Others see him, not as "Jesus the Jewish socialist," but as "Jesus the Zealot patriot," an insurrectionist in his own right, in league with the equivalent of an ancient Galilean "Tea Party." Interestingly, there is additional evidence in the Gospel itself for the latter interpretation. Specifically, when Jesus is tried before Pontius Pilate before his crucifixion, we are told that his opponents: "began to accuse Him, saying, 'We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King'" (Luke 23:1, NKJV). The accusation is not that Jesus was a social revolutionary, but a tax revolutionary. Perhaps the most pertinent question to be asked is: WWJT-"What would Jesus tax?" Of course, Jesus is earlier quoted as uttering the famous expression, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's" (Matthew 22:21). The passage may in fact represent a later interpolation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining good citizenship and proving that the evolving Christian faith represented no threat to Roman hegemony. However, it might also be taken as a subtle form of sedition, for the Israelite inherently knows that if everything belongs to God, nothing belongs to Caesar. One might reconstruct Jesus' saying: "As a Jew, you decide what belongs to Caesar."

Who, we may ask, were Jesus' genuine opponents? Doubtless, they were the Sadducean priesthood, ever at odds with Israel's Zealot "patriots" and ready to repeat to the authorities the incriminating mmors that had spread through the land. They knew, like the British dealing with their colonies seventeen centuries later, that tyrannical taxation, even to ostensibly advance the general welfare of the citizenry, is the seedbed of revolt. As far as the Jewish population was concerned, neither Rome nor the Herodian state was needed to dispense charity. What belongs to Caesar? Neither taxation nor tzedakah', indeed, nothing. As for Jesus, there is no question that he, like all observant Jews, is deeply concerned with the poor, with the underclass-the "people of the land" (amme ha-areiz'). Ultimately, however, his concern derives not because he is a socialist, nor a proto-Marxist, nor a radical redistributionist, but because he is (borrowing a Yiddish-ism) a mensch.

Sidebar

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kenneth L. Hanson is an associate professor and coordinator of the University of Central Florida Judaic Studies Program. He earned a Ph.D. in Hebrew Studies from the University of Texas at Austin, in 1991. His many scholarly articles focus on the Second Jewish Commonwealth, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the historical Jesus and Jewish Christianity. He has also published several books of popular scholarship, including: Dead Sea Scrolls: The Untold Story, Kabbalah: Three Thousand Years of Mystic Tradition, and Secrets from the Lost Bible. He has been interviewed multiple times on nationally syndicated radio, and his research was featured on the History Channel documentary, "Banned from the Bible." He teaches a wide range of Judaic Studies courses, including the Hebrew language, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish history and culture, and the history of the Holocaust.

Footnote

1 Jefferson, "Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association," January 1, 1802.

2 Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, 237.

3 Rand, Letters, 287.

4 b, Shabbat 31a.

5 See Muller, Capitalism and the Jews, 115-16; see also Rosenfeld and Perlmutter, "The Attitude to Poverty and the Poor in Early Rabbinic Sources (70-250 CE)," 411-38.

6 Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 235; The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.

7 See Luke 2:41-52; see also Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence, 4.

8 Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 198.

9 See Masterman, Studies in Galilee, 131.

10 Armstrong, A History of God: The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam 2.6-7. See also Houston, Contending for Justice: Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the Old Testament, 77ff.

11 Eight levels of charity were later codified by Maimonides: "The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support a fellow Jew by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand so that he will not need to be dependent upon others..." Individuals, together with the religious community (not the state) were viewed as the dispensers of tzedakah. SeeMishneh, Yad, Matanot Ani'im X, 7-14.

12 Donin, To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life, 50.

13 Note CD 1:9-10: ".. .love all the sons of light and hate all the sons of darkness."

14 Note 1QM 1:1 : "The first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial..."

15 Note the Dead Sea Scrolls terminology: ... and ... (CD 6:14; IQS 9:8); also ... IQS 10:14). The Greek ... ("by") is too literal. The text should be understood as saying" from" (...): "Make friends from (not by) the mammon of umighteousness." Hypothetical Hebrew reconstruction: ... . Jesus is not telling his disciples to give alms, but to pursue dealings "out of economic contact with the world at large."

16 See Byrd, A Cyritique of Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Religion: The Gospel According to John Galt, 32.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine Books, 1994.

Byrd, Dustin J. A Cyritique of Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Religion: The Gospel According to John Galt. London: Lexington Books, 2015.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.

-. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

-. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperOne, 2009.

Donin, Hayim. To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Gibson, Shimon. The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Houston, Walter J. Contending for Justice: Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2006.

Josephus, Flavius, and William Whiston. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.

Masterman Ernest W. Gurney. Studies in Galilee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909.

Muller, Jerry Z. Capitalism and the Jews. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Rand, Ayn. Letters of Ayn Rand. New York: Penguin Group, 1995.

Rosenfeld, B. Z. and H. Perlmutter, "The Attitude to Poverty and the Poor in Early Rabbinic Sources (70-250 CE)," Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 47, no. 3 (2016): 411-38.