Book Review: "THE SHADOW of the GALILEAN"

In a one-sentence review, this work is more about the shadow of Barabbas than that of Jesus. Gerd Theissen, achieves several successes with his approach to the "historical Jesus." Andreas, the fictional Everyman and narrator of The Shadow of the Galilean (Minneapolis, 2007), describes first-century Palestine and the politics of the Jewish patriots (Zealots). The book had my total attention for the first half only. I identified somewhat with Andreas, and with Theissen's fictional colleague who receives a letter at the start of each chapter. Theissen presupposes that historical sources help us reconstruct Christ's life in a more meaningful way. The irony is that Theissen weaves past and present (plus contemporary angst and scholarship) so well readers may need his endnotes to differentiate fictional and historical characters and words. In my opinion this book succeeds and fails for the same reason: Jesus appears only as a shadow. Yes, His shadow may be everywhere, and yet He is absent in the book.

Another presupposition is that Jesus was not the first Christian, but a faithful Jew, and cannot be understood outside of Judaism. I suspect Theissen is also grappling with Germany's guilt for the holocaust and over-compensates with a very unusual Roman official, Metilius, who says and learns everything "right" about Judaism. He does this through his research, and that for which he commissioned Andreas.

After the ninth of 18 chapters I struggled to maintain my enthusiasm for a story that already crucified my Lord, Christ Jesus. I received a small shadow of His Giant Shadow. Not only because I wished Jesus - who will remain a shadow to us in several ways - were more fully fleshed out, but because I was disappointed with Andreas's inner conflict which did not lead him closer to Jesus. Andreas's angst interpenetrates the chapters of the book; after wonderful treatises on Jewish loyalties and not collaborating with Rome, Andreas does precisely what he hates doing - collaborating with Empire. And for the same reasons we might pay more attention to the State than to the Church in our day. Yet, such data is relevant for preaching the Gospel today. There is merit in Andreas's conflict with those questions of practical politics and standing by one's faith, friends and ideals. I grew increasingly disappointed when Jesus is mentioned 58 pages into The Shadow of the Galilean (Chapter 7) but just 15 pages later (Chapter 9, page 73) Andreas tells us "[b]ut I was in no way eager to get to know [H]im. We would probably not get on with each other." His reason pertains to class differences; Andreas belongs to the merchant class and Jesus is from the lower ranks. Andreas did not transcend his prejudices which his new friend's (Chuza's) wife has little difficulty doing, or in secretly sending financial contributions to Jesus.

Chuza's wife, Joanna, might have been an effective Everyman and Everywoman; she might have made Jesus more accessible to us. Andreas seems less fascinated with Jesus but more with Barabbas! Andreas's commission was to ferret out information about Jesus, (a "disciple of John") and Andreas does make clear that Jesus upheld the Commandments and principles of chastity. Again, this is relevant to gospel preaching today. Andreas makes an effort to portray Jesus as a peacemaker but it is less successful than his effort on behalf of Barabbas, despite the ironies involved. Andreas's fine report on His teachings notwithstanding, he personally spurns Jesus because of his class (or worse?). I believe this is a great weakness in the book; Theissen might have said more about why some wealthy Andreases would not "admire" Jesus openly. Jesus appealed to more than a handful of rich and literate persons.

Theissen is more persuasive and effective when he writes about what he himself believes, for instance, Baruch (his business partner and former Essene whom Andreas rescued from the desert) mentions a new commune he joined: "Our commune goes back to Jesus of Nazareth, in whom you used to be interested." The irony again is that Andreas does not defend Jesus as he may have intended when he reported to Metilius (his Roman "handler"). When Baruch tried to break through to a morose Andreas after the crucifixion, Andreas calls Jesus another failed prophet. The quote is stronger: "Jesus is dead. Failed like so many other prophets" (Chapter 18, p. 169). It is left to Baruch to say the most important words about Jesus: "No, he's not dead. He was seen in changed form after his death" (Chapter 18, p.169). The additional notes and sources may be Theissen's "real" voice (Chapter 18, endnote #3); he refers to 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 and to the oral tradition of witnesses to the Resurrection: "There can be no doubt about the subjective authenticity of the appearances tradition" ( The Shadow, p.212).

The metaphor of the shadow works wonderfully well in many respects, except for non-liberal readers. Jesus is not presented as holistically as are the Jewish heroes, anti-heroes and various communities, including the Zealots. Theissen focuses on the narrative form faithfully, and so much more on the primary sources, that he may be conversing with scholars, and only secondarily with Christians. Conservative Christians, in upholding the divinity of Jesus, may not be as impressed by Theissen's "aid" in preaching the Gospel. Both author and narrator are conscientious about rounding out the characters of Barabbas, even Metilius and Herod (the latter over his real reasons for beheading John the Baptist), but less assiduous in allowing Jesus to emerge behind the "shadows." Shadow and light are common metaphors in the Testaments, but shadows cannot be allowed to tell the better part of the tradition or Faith-story. It is again both a success and a failure that Theissen (and Andreas) meet Jesus only when He hangs on the Cross, beaten and bloody - and if I may add this vital fact - unrecognizable!

The current scholarship and wealth of talents among scholars (Theissen or Luke Timothy Johnson et. al.) cannot change this: the narrative form and tradition may please more liberals and people of other faith traditions, that it would non-liberal Christians. Andreas does not meet our Lord in the flesh, as it were, and reports on Him through third-person accounts. Theissen's portraits of the Romans like Metilius and Zealots like Barabbas are greater successes than is the figure of the "historical Jesus." Granted, it is almost impossible to solidify Jesus, other than in the age-old way, and that means studying the Scriptures in an open-minded, prayerful, and open-hearted way. On the other hand, one might recall that Theissen used historical sources to make the Roman characters palpable, tangible, even frightening for 30 C.E. This is my point: a social history of first-century Palestine helped me understand the Zealots ("terrorists" of that era), and John the Baptist, the Essenes and many Jewish subgroups, but not the Christ, who is as "shadowy" as in the Gospels. For the uneducated and illiterate Christian, Christ is "knowable" through hearing the Word; Faith does come through listening, yet.

The book does intersect with biblical preaching today. Christians now do a better job of living fully with the kind of awareness which Theissen values: "Christian love for Jesus is therefore incomplete unless it also displays a deep appreciation for Judaism" (The Shadow, p.181). This question has engaged theologians since about 1980. If "biblical preaching" means teachers and preachers combine literary criticism and textual deconstruction to advise Christians that the Holy Trinity speaks to us through The Word, then the book is successful. The Bible remains, in the oft-used phrase, a mirror to each who approaches it reverentially and yet critically (in some of the ways that Theissen has demonstrated). A book, even a magnificent book, cannot do the work of the Holy Spirit in us. We must invite Faith and Divinity to bless and guide our delving into Scripture.

The metaphor of the "disappeared" made a deep impression on me; as told by Tholomaes and Susanna about their three sons who ran off to the hills. Eleazor, the peasant-farmer who is pushed to breaking point by overseers and landowners, sets a precedent (a violent one) by killing the landowners' rent-and-tax-collectors. These incidents have parallels with the wicked men in the vineyard: sources used by Theissen (Philo, Zeno and others) plus Mark's Gospel (12:1-9 and that of Matthew 5: 25-26; 18: 23-35). Theissen is persuasive in allowing us to see why poor people found hope in Jesus. But the masses and elites still wanted Jesus crucified! The irony in The Shadow is that Jesus is even here a shadow of Himself; in that Eleazor's example and the hope of the Zealots and Barabbas is what allows men and sons, even families, to resist their landlords and oppression violently! In an odd way, this helps explain the crucifixion of Jesus and the reprieve of Barabbas: the people saw more immediate (read: political) hope in Barabbas than in Jesus who was "no threat to the Romans." Not much has changed in this respect among our species. Shalom