Neurological Disorders Case Study [WLOs: 1, 2] [CLOs: 1, 2]
Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, read Chapter 15 of your course text.
For this discussion, you will pick one of the cases listed in the Week 5 Discussion – Case Studies Download Week 5 Discussion – Case Studiesdocument, and take on the role of the clinician.
In your initial post,
Identify the patient’s symptoms and the available demographic and historical data.
Discuss your differential diagnosis and provide a thorough basis for any diagnoses you have included.
Determine what (if any) additional testing you would order and how this would be helpful in clarifying the diagnosis.
Finally, explain recommendations for the patient/family for ongoing functioning (social, occupational and academic, if applicable).
You must use a minimum of two peer-reviewed articles in your discussion to support your diagnostic conclusions.
To assist you with your research consider using the library’s Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) tip sheet.
The posts will be graded according to the following criteria:
Part one: Identify different historical definitions of, and causal explanations for sex work Part two: Apply a combination of social learning and anomie theories to sex work Part three: Analyze the interactional contexts in which various forms of sex work occur Part four: Explain the risks of violent exploitation associated with the various contexts of sex work
Relevance: the ideas expressed indicate that the student has read and comprehended the assigned material.
Clarity, coherence: the ideas are stated clearly and coherently.
Critical thinking: there is evidence that the student has adequately analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated the assigned material.
Poses a question for discussion: the posting articulates a question for discussion that pertains to the assigned material.
Spelling, grammar: the posting must meet university-level standards of spelling and grammar
Christianity is rooted in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, often also referred to as “Jesus Christ.” Christianity is not simply the body of teachings that derive from Jesus of Nazareth – ideas that could be dissociated from the person and history of their originator. Marxism, for example, is essentially a system of ideas grounded in the writings of Karl Marx (1818–1883). But Marx himself is not part of Marxism. At a very early stage, however, the identity of Jesus became part of the Christian proclamation. The Christian faith is thus not merely about emulating or adopting the faith of Jesus of Nazareth; it is also about placing faith in Jesus of Nazareth.
The Significance of Jesus of Nazareth for Christianity
As we have already noted, the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is central to Christianity. Christianity is not a set of self-contained and freestanding ideas; it represents a sustained response to the questions raised by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Before we begin to explore the historical background to Jesus and the way in which the Christian tradition understands his identity, we need to consider his place within Christianity. To begin with, we shall consider the ways in which Christians refer to the central figure of their faith. We have already used the name “Jesus of Nazareth”; but what of the related name, “Jesus Christ”? Let’s look at the latter in more detail.
The name “Jesus Christ” is deeply rooted in the history and aspirations of the people of Israel. The word “Jesus” (Hebrew Yeshua) literally means “God saves” – or, to be more pre- cise, “the God of Israel saves.” The word “Christ” is really a title, so that the name “Jesus Christ” is better understood as “Jesus who is the Christ.” As a derivative of the verb “to anoint” (chriō), the word “Christ” is the Greek version of the Hebrew term “Messiah,” which
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
1
4 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
refers to an individual singled out or raised up by God for some special purpose (p. 23). As we shall see, this captured the early Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the culmination and fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of Israel.
Initially, since so many of the first Christians were Jews, the question of Christianity’s relationship with Israel was seen as being of major significance. What was the relation of their old religion to their new faith? Yet, as time passed, this matter became less important. Within a generation, the Christian church came to be dominated by “Gentiles” – that is, people who were not Jews – to whom the term “Messiah” meant little – if anything. The name “Jesus Christ” seems to have been understood simply as a name. As a result, even in the New Testament itself, the word “Christ” came to be used as an alternative way of referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
This habit of speaking persists today. In contemporary Christianity, “Jesus” is often seen as a familiar, intimate form of address, often used in personal devotion and prayer, whereas “Christ” is more formal, often being used in public worship.
As we have noted, Christianity is an historical religion, which came into being in response to a specific set of events, which center upon Jesus of Nazareth and to which Christian the- ology is obliged to return in the course of its speculation and reflection. Yet the importance of Jesus far exceeds his historical significance. For Christians, Jesus is more than the founder of their faith or the originator of Christianity: he is the one who makes God known, who makes salvation possible, and who models the new life with God that results from faith. To set this out more formally:
1 Jesus tells and shows what God is like; 2 Jesus makes a new relationship with God possible; 3 Jesus himself lives out a God-focused life, acting as a model of the life of faith.
In what follows we shall explore each of these ideas briefly; then we shall consider them further later in this volume.
First, Christianity holds that Jesus of Nazareth reveals both the will and the face of God. The New Testament sets out the idea that God, who is invisible, is in some way made known or made visible through Jesus. Jesus does not simply reveal what God is like, or what God expects of believers. Rather he enables us to see God. This point is made repeatedly in the New Testament – for example in statements like this: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14: 9). God the Father is here understood to speak and act in the Son. God is revealed through, in, and by Jesus. To have seen Jesus is to have seen the Father.
This point is developed further in the doctrine of the incarnation – the characteristically Christian idea that God entered into the world of time and space in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The doctrine of the incarnation provides a basis for the distinctively Christian belief that Jesus opens a “window into God.” It also underlies the practice, especially associated with the Orthodox church, of using icons in worship and personal devotion. The doctrine of the incarnation affirms that Jesus “fleshes out” what God is like.
In the second place, Jesus is understood to be the ground of salvation. One of the more significant titles used in the New Testament to refer to Jesus is “Savior.” Jesus is the “Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2: 11). According to the New Testament, Jesus saves his
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 5
people from their sins (Matthew 1: 21); in his name alone is there salvation (Acts 4: 12); and he is the “author of their salvation” (Hebrews 2: 10). One of the earliest symbols of faith used by Christians was a fish. The use of this symbol may reflect the fact that the first disciples were fishermen. Yet this is not the main reason for adopting the symbol. The five Greek letters spelling out the word “fish” in Greek (I-CH-TH-U-S) are an acronym of the Christian creedal slogan “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior” (see p. 258).
Third, Jesus is understood to disclose the contours of the redeemed life. Jesus of Nazareth shows us both what God is like and what God wants from us. Jesus is not simply the basis of the life of faith; he is also the model for that life. Traditionally, this was interpreted ethi- cally in terms of exercising self-denial and showing self-giving love. Yet this feature is also important spiritually – for example, in the Christian use of the “Lord’s Prayer,” a prayer also used by Jesus of Nazareth. The way in which Jesus prayed is seen as an example for the way in which Christians ought to pray, in much the same way as the moral example of Jesus is seen as normative for Christian ethics.
The Sources of Our Knowledge about Jesus of Nazareth
Christianity is an historical religion, which came into being in response to a specific set of events – above all, the history of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that Jesus of Nazareth is an historical figure raises two fundamental questions, which remain integral to Christian reflection. First, how does the story of Jesus of Nazareth fit into his historical context – namely that of first-century Judaism? And, second, what documentary sources do we possess for our knowledge of Jesus and its perceived significance?
We shall consider both these questions in the present chapter. Christianity began as a reform movement within the context of Judaism, which gradually
clarified its identity as it grew and began to take definite shape in the world of the first- century Roman Empire. There are no historical grounds for believing that the term “Christian” originated from Jesus of Nazareth himself. Early Christians tended to refer to each other as “disciples” or “saints,” as the letters of the New Testament make clear. Yet others used alternative names to refer to this new movement. The New Testament suggests that the term “Christians” (Greek Christianoi) was first used by outsiders, to refer to the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. “It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians’” (Acts 17: 26). It was a term imposed upon them, not chosen by them. Yet it seems to have caught on.
However, we must be careful not to assume that the use of the single term “Christian” implies that this new religious movement was uniform and well organized. As we shall see, the early history of Christianity suggests that it was quite diverse, without well-defined authority structures or carefully formulated sets of beliefs. These began to crystallize during the first centuries of Christian history and became increasingly important in the fourth, when Christianity became a legal religion within the Roman empire.
Traditionally, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is dated to the opening of the Christian era, his death being dated to some point around ad 30–33. Yet virtually nothing is known of Jesus of Nazareth from sources outside the New Testament. The New Testament itself
6 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
provides two groups of quite distinct sources of information about Jesus: the four gospels and the letters. Although parallels are not exact, there are clear similarities between the gospels and the classical “lives” written by leading Roman historians of the age – such as Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars (written in ad 121).
The gospels mingle historical recollection with theological thought, reflecting both on the identity and on the significance of Jesus of Nazareth. The four gospels have their own distinct identities and concerns. For example, the gospel of Matthew seems especially concerned with establishing the significance of Jesus for a Jewish readership, whereas the gospel of Luke seems more concerned with explaining his importance to a Greek-speaking community. Establishing the identity of Jesus is just as important as recording what he said and did. The gospel writers can be thought of as trying to locate Jesus of Nazareth on a map, so that his relationship with humanity, history, and God may be understood and appreciated. This leads them to focus on three particular themes:
● What Jesus taught, particularly the celebrated “parables of the Kingdom.” The teaching of Jesus was seen as important in helping believers to live out an authentic Christian life, which was a central theme of Christian discipleship – most notably in relation to culti- vating attitudes of humility toward others and obedience toward God.
● What Jesus did – especially his ministry of healing, which was seen as important in establishing his identity, but also in shaping the values of the Christian community itself. For example, most medieval monasteries founded hospitals as a means of continuing Christ’s ministry in this respect.
● What was said about Jesus by those who witnessed his teaching and actions. The gospel of Luke, for example, records Simeon’s declaration that the infant Jesus was the “consolation of Israel,” as well as the Roman centurion’s assertion that Jesus was innocent of the charges brought against him. These can be seen as constituting public recognition of the identity of Jesus.
The letters of the New Testament – sometimes still referred to as “epistles” (Greek epistolē, plural epistolai) – are addressed to individuals and churches and often focus on issues of conduct and belief. These letters are important in helping us grasp the emerging under- standings of the significance of Jesus of Nazareth within the Christian community. The example of Jesus is regularly invoked to emphasize the importance of imitating his attitudes – for example, treating others better than yourself (Philippians 2). Although the letters make virtually no direct reference to the teachings of Jesus, certain patterns of behavior are clearly regarded as being grounded in those teachings – such as humility, or a willingness to accept suffering.
The letters also emphasize the importance of certain patterns of behavior – for example repeating the actions of the Last Supper, using bread and wine as a way of recalling and celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ (pp. 112–117). The sacraments of both baptism and the eucharist are clearly anticipated in the New Testament and are traced back to the ministry of Jesus himself.
Yet, perhaps more importantly, the letters also reveal understandings of the identity and significance of Jesus of Nazareth that were becoming characteristic of early Christian
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 7
communities. The most important of the themes associated to such understandings are the following:
● Jesus of Nazareth is understood to be the means by which the invisible God can be known and seen. Jesus is the “image” (Greek eikōn) “of the invisible God” (Colossians 1: 15), or the “exact representation” (Greek charaktēr) of God (Hebrews 1: 3).
● Jesus is the one who makes salvation possible and whose life reflects the themes characteristic of redeemed human existence. The use of the term “savior” (Greek sōtēr) is highly significant in this respect.
● The core Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is seen as a vindication of his innocence, a confirmation of his divine identity, and the grounds of hope for believers. Through faith, believers are understood to be united with Christ and sharing in his sufferings at present, while also sharing in the hope of his resurrection.
Each of these themes would be further developed as the Christian community reflected on their significance and on their relevance for the life and thought of believers. We shall explore some of these more developed ideas about Jesus in a later chapter, setting out the shape of Christian beliefs.
Jesus of Nazareth in His Jewish Context
From the outset, Christianity saw itself as continuous with Judaism. Christians were clear that the God whom they followed and worshipped was the same God worshipped by the Israelite Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The New Testament sees the great hope of the coming of a “Messiah” to the people of Israel as having been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. As we saw earlier (p. 3), the New Testament use of the title “Christ” (the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah”) reflects this belief.
There seems to have been a general consensus within Judaism that the Messiah would be like a new king David, opening up a new era in Israel’s history. While Israel looked forward to the coming of a messianic age, different groups understood this in diverging ways. The Jewish desert community at Qumran thought of the Messiah primarily in priestly terms, whereas others had more political expectations. Yet, despite these differences, the hope of the coming of a “messianic age” seems to have been widespread in early first-century Judaism and is echoed at points in the gospel’s accounts of the ministry of Jesus.
During the first phase of its development, Christianity existed alongside (or even within) Judaism. Christians insisted that the God who was known and encountered by the great heroes of faith of Israel – such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses – was the same God who was more fully and clearly revealed in Jesus. It was therefore of importance to the early Christians to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, brought the great messianic hopes of Judaism to fulfillment.
The continuity between Judaism and Christianity is obvious at many points. Judaism placed particular emphasis on the Law (Hebrew Torah), through which the will of God was made known in the form of commands, and on the Prophets, who made known the will of
8 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
God in certain definite historical situations. The New Testament gospels report that Jesus of Nazareth emphasized that he had “not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5: 17).
The same point is made by Paul in his New Testament letters. Jesus is “the goal of the Law” (Romans 10: 4, using the Greek word telos, which means “end,” “goal,” or “objective”). Paul also stresses the continuity between the faith of Abraham and that of Christians (Romans 4: 1–25). The letter to the Hebrews points out the continuity of relationship both between Moses and Jesus (Hebrews 3: 1–6) and between Christians and the great figures of faith of ancient Israel (Hebrews 11: 1–12: 2).
The New Testament makes it clear that Christianity is to be seen as being continuous with Judaism and as bringing to completion what Judaism was pointing toward. This has several major consequences, of which the following are the most important. First, both Christians and Jews regard more or less the same collection of writings – known by Jews as “Law, Prophets, and Writings” and by Christians as “the Old Testament” – as having religious authority. Although some more radical thinkers within Christianity – such as the second-century writer Marcion of Sinope – argued for the breaking of any historical or theological link with Judaism, the main line within the Christian movement both affirmed and valued the link between the Christian church and Israel. A body of writings that Jews regard as complete in itself is seen by Christians as pointing forward to something that will bring it to completion. Although Christians and Jews both regard the same set of texts as important, they use different names to refer to them and interpret them in different ways. We shall consider this point further when we look at the Christian Bible.
Second, New Testament writers often laid emphasis on the manner in which Old Testament prophecies were understood to be fulfilled or realized in the life and death of Jesus Christ. By doing this, they drew attention to two important beliefs: that Christianity is continuous with Judaism; and that Christianity brings Judaism to its true fulfillment. This is particularly important for some early Christian writings – such as Paul’s letters and the gospel of Matthew – which often seem to be particularly concerned with exploring the importance of Christianity for Jews. For example, the gospel of Matthew notes at twelve points how events in the life of Jesus can be seen as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies.
This continuity between Christianity and Judaism helps us understand some aspects of early Christian history. The New Testament suggests that at least some Christians initially continued to worship in Jewish synagogues, before controversy made this problematic. The letters of Paul help us understand at least some of the issues lying behind those controversies. Two questions were of particular importance and were keenly debated in the first century.
First, there was a debate about whether Christian converts should be required to be circumcised. Those who emphasized the continuity between Christianity and Judaism believed they should be. Yet the view that ultimately prevailed was that Christians were no longer subject to the cultic laws of Judaism – such as the requirement to be circumcised or to observe strict dietary laws.
Second, there was the question of whether non-Jewish converts to Christianity were to be treated as Jews. Those who emphasized the continuity between Judaism and Christianity argued that Gentile believers should be treated as if they had become Jews – and hence they
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 9
would be subject to Jewish religious observances and rituals, such as the requirement for males to be circumcised. For this reason, a group within early Christianity demanded the circumcision of male Gentile converts.
Yet the majority, including Paul, took a very different position. To be a Christian was not about reinforcing a Jewish ethnic or cultural identity, but about entering a new way of living and thinking, which was open to everyone. By the late first century Christians largely saw themselves as a new religious movement, originating within Judaism but not limited by its cultic and ethnic traditions.
The Gospels and Jesus of Nazareth
Our primary sources for the life of Jesus of Nazareth are the four gospels of the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these gospels are often referred to as “the Synoptic Gospels,” in that each lays out a summary (Greek sunopsis) of the activities and teachings of Jesus. There is little historical information about Jesus available from any other source. Thus the great Roman historians of this age provide little on this score, although they are important sources for our understanding of the way in which Jesus was received within early Christianity.
It is easy to understand this lack of interest in Jesus in the writings of Roman historians. They had relatively little time for events that took place in the backwaters of their empire, such as the distant and unimportant province of Judaea. Their histories focused on Rome itself and on the leading figures and events that shaped its destiny.
Three Roman historians make reference to Jesus in their writings: Pliny the Younger, writing around ad 111 to the Emperor Trajan about the rapid spread of Christianity in Asia Minor; Tacitus, who wrote around ad 115 concerning the events of ad 64, when Nero made the Christians scapegoats for the burning of Rome; and Suetonius, writing around ad 120 about certain events during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Suetonius refers to a certain “Chrestus” who was behind riotings at Rome. “Christus” was still an unfamiliar name to Romans at this stage, whereas “Chrestus” was a common name for slaves at this time (the Greek adjective chrēstos meant “useful”).
Four points emerge from the brief comments of these three historians:
1 Jesus had been condemned to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (Tacitus). Pilate was procurator (governor) of Judaea from ad 26 to ad 36, while Tiberius reigned from ad 14 to ad 37. The traditional date for the crucifixion is some time around ad 30–33.
2 By the time of Nero’s reign, Jesus had attracted sufficient followers in Rome for Nero to make them a suitable scapegoat for the burning of Rome. These followers were named “Christians” (Tacitus).
3 “Chrestus” was the founder of a distinctive group within Judaism (Suetonius). 4 By ad 112, Christians were worshipping Jesus of Nazareth “as if he were a god,” aban-
doning the worship of the Roman emperor to do so (Pliny).
10 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
The main sources for the life of Jesus of Nazareth are thus the four gospels. Each of these texts presents related, though distinct, accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Matthew’s gospel, for example, brings out the importance of Jesus for the Jewish people and is particularly concerned to explore the way in which Jesus brings the expectations of Israel to their proper fulfillment. Mark’s gospel takes the form of a rapidly paced nar- rative, often leaving readers breathless as they are led from one event to another. Luke’s gospel has a particular interest in bringing out the importance of Jesus for non-Jewish readers. John’s gospel is more reflective in its approach, characterized by a distinctive emphasis on the way in which the coming of Jesus brings eternal life to those who believe in him.
The gospels cannot really be thought of as biographies of Jesus in the modern sense of the term, although they unquestionably provide much helpful biographical information. They do not present us with a full account of the life of Jesus. Mark’s gospel, for example, focuses on a few years of Jesus’ life, which are characterized by his intensive public ministry and end in his crucifixion and resurrection. Matthew and Luke both give brief accounts of the birth and childhood of Jesus before resuming their narratives of his public ministry.
It is clear that the gospels weave together several sources to build up their overall por- trayal of the identity and significance of Jesus. Thus Mark’s gospel draws on material that is traditionally attributed to Peter, Jesus’ leading disciple. Furthermore, the gospels are more concerned with bringing out the significance of the life of Jesus than with documenting it in full detail. Nevertheless, they present us with a portrait of Jesus that mingles history and theology to tell us who Jesus is – not simply in terms of his historical identity, but in terms of his continuing importance for the world.
We will follow the account of the birth and early ministry of Jesus of Nazareth as laid out in the Synoptic Gospels. Space does not allow a detailed interaction with the historical, theological, and cultural issues raised by these accounts. In what follows we shall set out the basic narratives and reflect on their general significance.
The Birth of Jesus of Nazareth
Mark’s account of the ministry of Jesus begins with Jesus’ appearance as an adult in Galilee; it makes no reference to his birth or childhood. Matthew and Luke provide different yet complementary accounts, which narrate the birth of Jesus and have had a major impact on Christian art (and subsequently on traditional Christmas cards and carols). Matthew’s account is related from the standpoint of Joseph, and Luke’s from that of Mary. Neither the day nor the year of Jesus’ birth are known for certain. Non-Christians often assume that Christians believe that Jesus was born on December 25. In fact Christians have chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus on Christmas Day. December 25 is the date fixed for the celebra- tion of the birth of Jesus, not the date of his birth itself.
Early Christian writers suggested a variety of dates for the celebration of Jesus’ birth – for example, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) advocated May 20. By the fourth
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 11
century the date of December 25 had been chosen, possibly to take advantage of a traditional Roman holiday associated with this date. For Christians, the precise date of the birth of Jesus is actually something of a non-issue. What really matters is that he was born as a human being and entered into human history.
The traditional Christmas story has become somewhat stylized over the years. For example, most traditional versions of the story tell of the “three wise men” and of Jesus “being born in a stable.” In fact the New Testament relates that the wise men brought three gifts to Jesus; many have simply assumed that, as there were three gifts, there must have been three wise men. Similarly, we are told that Jesus was born in a manger; many have assumed that, since mangers are kept in stables, Jesus must have been born in a stable.
The birthplace of Jesus is identified as Bethlehem, a minor town in the region of Judaea, not far from Jerusalem. Its significance lies in its associations with King David, given particular emphasis by the Prophet Micah. Writing in the eighth century before Christ, Micah declared that a future ruler of Israel would emerge from Bethlehem (Micah 5: 2). This expectation is noted in Matthew’s gospel (Matthew 2: 5–6), where it is presented as one of many indica- tions that the circumstances of the birth and early ministry of Jesus represent a fulfillment of Israelite prophecies and hopes.
Luke stresses the humility and lowliness of the cir- cumstances of the birth of Jesus. For example, he notes that Jesus was placed in a manger (normally used for feeding animals), and that the first people to visit him were shepherds. Although the force of the point is easily lost, it needs to be remembered that shepherds were widely regarded as socially and reli- giously inferior people in Jewish society, on account of their nomadic lifestyle.
Both Matthew and Luke stress the importance of Mary, the mother of Jesus. In later Christian thought, Mary would become a focus for personal devotion, on account of her obedience and humility. She often had a particular appeal to women, who felt marginal- ized by the strongly masculine ethos of Christianity, for example during the Middle
Figure 1.1 The angel Gabriel declaring to Mary that she is to bear the savior of the world, by Dante Gabriel Rossetti; this incident is related early in Luke’s gospel. Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828–1882), Ecce Ancilla Domini (The Annunciation), 1850. Oil on canvas, mounted on wood, 72 × 42 cm. Source: Erich Lessing/AKG Images.
12 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
Ages. The hymn “Stabat mater” (a Latin title that means “The Mother Stood [by the Cross]”), which was written in the thirteenth century, describes the deep feeling of sor- row experienced by Mary at the death of her son on the cross. This hymn, which was subsequently set to music by several major composers, had a deep impact on the spiri- tuality of the Middle Ages and beyond. At the time of the Reformation, devotion to Mary was often criticized. It was suggested that this devotion could threaten the central place of Jesus Christ in Christian prayer and worship. Nevertheless, most Christians regard Mary as an excellent example of several cardinal Christian virtues, especially obedience to and trust in God.
The place of Joseph in the gospels’ accounts of Jesus should also be noted. At no point is he described as the “father of Jesus,” despite the numerous references, here and elsewhere, to Mary as the “mother of Jesus.” Matthew shows how Joseph was legally related to David (Matthew 1: 1–17), so that Jesus possessed the legal status of being descended from David. Yet Joseph is not understood to be Jesus’ physical father. For Matthew and Luke, it is under- stood that the conception of Jesus is due to God, although the theme of the virginity of Mary – seen as immensely important by some Christian writers – is given less weight than might be expected.
Figure 1.2 The birth of Christ, as depicted by Fra Angelico in a mural in the monastery of San Marco, Florence, between 1437 and 1445. Fra Giovanni da Fiesole (1387–1455) and workshop, Birth of Christ, with the Saints Catherine of Alexandria and Peter the Martyr (1437–1445). Fresco, 193 × 164 cm. Florence, S. Marco, upper storey, dormitory, cell No.5 (east corridor). Source: Rabatti-Domingie/AKG Images.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 13
The Early Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth
The gospels all locate the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus in the countryside of Judaea, by the Jordan River. It is specifically linked with the activity of John the Baptist, who attracted widespread attention with his calls to repentance. It is clear that John’s ministry takes place at a moment of some significance in the history of Israel. Perhaps there were those who felt that God had abandoned Israel; perhaps there were those who felt that the great acts of divine deliverance and encouragement in the past would never be repeated. Israel was under Roman occupation and seemed to have lost its identity as the people of God.
The New Testament picks up two themes that may help us understand why John the Baptist attracted such enormous interest at the time. The final work of Jewish prophecy – the book of Malachi, probably dating from the fifth century before Christ – spoke of God sending a messenger, to prepare the way for the coming of God (Malachi 3: 1–2). It also hinted at the return of Elijah, one of the great figures of faith in Israel, before this event. When John the Baptist appeared, he wore the same simple clothes of camel’s hair as Elijah had before him. Malachi spoke of the need for corporate repentance. The whole people of God needed to repent of its sins before national restoration to divine favor was possible. John the Baptist spoke of this same need for repentance and offered baptism as a symbol of an individual’s willingness to repent. (The word “baptism” comes from a Greek word meaning “to wash” or “to bathe.”)
The implications of these developments would have been clear to anyone with a knowledge of the Jewish prophets and alert to the signs of the times. The coming of John the Baptist could be seen as a pointer to the coming of God. John himself made this point, declaring that someone greater than him would follow him – someone whose sandals he was not worthy to untie (Mark 1: 8). And at that moment Jesus appeared. Mark’s vivid and racy account of this encounter makes it clear that John was referring to Jesus, even though he did not specifically name him. John is thus seen as the forerunner of Jesus, pointing the way to his coming – a bridging figure between the Old and New covenants.
After Jesus was baptized by John, he slipped away into a solitary place for 40 days and nights. This period of Jesus’ ministry – usually referred to as “the temptation of Christ” – involved his being confronted with all the temptations he would encounter during his ministry. Although Mark only hints at this (Mark 1: 12), Matthew and Luke provide fuller details (e.g., Luke 4: 1–13), allowing us to see how Jesus was confronted with the temptation to personal power and glory. The New Testament writers subsequently stress the importance of Jesus’ obedience to the will of God. The period of Lent, immediately before Easter (pp. 240–241), marks the time of year when Christians are encouraged to examine them- selves in this way, following the example of Christ.
A theme that now emerges is that of the rejection of Jesus by his own people. This theme culminates in the crucifixion, in which Jesus is publicly repudiated by a crowd in Jerusalem and taken off to be crucified by the Roman authorities. The theme also appears at earlier points in the ministry of Jesus and is particularly linked with the severely hostile criticism of Jesus by the Pharisees and the teachers of Jewish law. For the New Testament writers, the paradox is that those who were most deeply committed to and familiar with the Jewish law failed to recognize its fulfillment when this took place.
14 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
Nevertheless, the theme of “rejection” can be found much earlier than this. One incident in particular illustrates this point: the rejection of Jesus in his home town of Nazareth. Luke’s gospel relates how Jesus attended synagogue regularly on the sabbath. On one occasion he was asked to read a section from the prophecy of Isaiah, which included the following words:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour. (Luke 4: 18–19)
After reading these words, Jesus solemnly declared that he they had been fulfilled – implying that he himself was their fulfillment. The synagogue congregation was outraged by what it clearly saw as a self-serving publicity stunt, probably amounting to blasphemy. Its members threw him out of their town, even trying to push him over the edge of a nearby hill. After this, Jesus moved to minister in the region of Capernaum, on the northwestern shore of Lake Galilee.
Jesus then gathered around himself a small group of disciples, who would accompany him as he traveled and would subsequently form the core of the early church. The group of twelve apostles (often referred to simply as “the twelve”) was drawn from a variety of back- grounds, mostly from jobs in the rural economy of the region. Two pairs of brothers – Peter and Andrew, James and John – were called to leave behind them their fishing business on Lake Galilee and follow Jesus. At a late stage, possibly a year or so into his ministry, Jesus
Figure 1.3 Jesus of Nazareth calling Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (1481), by Domenico Ghirlandaio. Domenico Ghirlandaio (Domenico Bigordi) (1449–1494), The Calling of SS. Peter and Andrew, 1481. Fresco. Source: Vatican Museums and Galleries/Bridgeman Art Library.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 15
divided the twelve into two groups of six, sending them out into the countryside to preach the kingdom of God.
Jesus began his ministry of teaching and healing in the region around Galilee and subse- quently expanded it into Judaea. On the basis of the accounts provided in the gospels, it may be estimated that this period lasted roughly three years. Important though both the teaching and healing are in their own rights, their true importance lies partly in what they demon- strate about Jesus. This becomes clear from a question posed later by John the Baptist. By this stage, John had been imprisoned by Herod Antipas, ruler (or, more precisely, “tetrarch”) in the region of Galilee. Still uncertain as to the true identity of Jesus, John asked him this question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” The implications of the question are enormous. Is Jesus the Messiah? Has the messianic age finally dawned?
Jesus answers this question indirectly, by pointing to what has happened in his ministry: “The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor” (Matthew 11: 6). In other words, the expected signs of the messianic age were present in his ministry. Jesus does not directly answer the question of whether he is the Messiah. The implication, however, is that the healing miracles are to be seen as signs, pointing to a right understanding of the identity and significance of Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah.
The Teaching of Jesus of Nazareth: The Parables of the Kingdom
The theme of the “kingdom of God” (or, in the case of Matthew’s gospel, “the kingdom of heaven”) is widely agreed to be central to the preaching of Jesus. The public ministry of Jesus begins with his declaration that the kingdom of God has “drawn near” and that “the time is fulfilled” (Mark 1: 15). The Greek word basileia, traditionally translated as “kingdom,” does not so much express the idea of a definite political region over which a king rules as the action of “ruling” itself. In other words, the Greek word refers to the idea of “kingship” rather than of a “kingdom.”
The “Sermon on the Mount” (the block of teaching contained in Matthew 5: 1–7: 29) is often referred to as setting out the “ethics of the kingdom of God.” The acknowledgement of the rule of God is expected to lead to a certain pattern of behavior, which is embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth himself and echoed in his teaching. The basic theme of Jesus’ preaching can thus be thought of in terms of the coming of the kingly rule of God. This theme is expressed in the prayer that Jesus instructed his followers to imitate, which is widely known as “the Lord’s Prayer.”
Jesus’ preaching about the kingdom is best understood in terms of “inauguration.” Something has happened that sets in motion a series of events that has yet to reach its fulfillment. A series of parables express the idea that the kingdom is something that prog- resses from a seemingly insignificant starting point to something much greater. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13: 31–32) illustrates this idea of growth and development. The Parable of the Vineyard (Matthew 21: 33–41) makes the point that those who are enti- tled to be tenants of the vineyard are those who produce its fruit, a clear indication of the
16 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
need, for those who claim to be within the kingdom, to conform to its ethics. The kingly rule of God carries obligations.
Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom is largely expressed using “parables,” which can be thought of as earthly stories with heavenly meanings. The word “parable” conveys a number of ideas, including “illustration” and “mystery” or “riddle.” A parable conveys a spiritual truth – but the meaning may not be clear, and may therefore require illustration. Some of the parables are based on shrewd observation of everyday life in rural Palestine. Just as a pearl of great value is worth one’s selling lesser possessions in order to own it, so the kingdom of God is worth one’s giving up everything for it (Matthew 13: 45–46). Just as a small amount of yeast can raise a large amount of dough, so the kingdom of God can exercise a wide influence throughout the world, despite its small beginnings (Matthew 13: 33). Just as a shepherd will go out and look for a sheep that has got lost, so God will seek out those who have wandered away (Luke 15: 4–6).
Key
N Town mentioned in the New Testament
Galilee and vicinity
City of the Decapolis
City of the Decapolis mentioned in the New Testament
Political boundary
Ptolmais
SY RI
A
M ED
IT ER
RA N
EA N
S EA
Capernaum
Gamala
Dion Abila
Valley of Jezreel
Gadara
10 miles
10 km50
0 5
DECAPOLIS
GALILEE (R
OM AN
P RO
VI N
CE )
Gergesa?
Sea of Galilee
Seleucia
Lake Huleh
Caesarea Philippi (Paneas)
TETRARCHY OF PHILIP
Chorazin
Ginnesar (Gennesaret)
Magdala
Cana Sepporis
Nazareth
Nain
JUDAEA R .Jo
rd an
R .Jo
rd an
R.Kishon
Caesarea
Figure 1.4 The Galilean ministry of Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 17
Sometimes the parables are more complex. The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11–32) tells of a son who decides to leave his father’s home and to seek his fortune in a dis- tant land. Yet life away from his father turns out not to be as rosy as the prodigal son had expected. He falls on hard times. The prodigal son comes to long to return home to his father. However, he is convinced that his father will have disowned him and will no longer wish to acknowledge him as his son. The remarkable feature of the parable is the picture of God it gives us. The father sees the returning son long before the son notices him; he rushes out to meet him and to celebrate the return of the son he had given up for lost. The message of the parable is that, just as the father was overjoyed at the return of his son, so God will be overjoyed at the return of sinners.
The teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God is an important element in the Christian faith. However, Christianity is not only about what Jesus taught. It is also about the person of Jesus himself. Who is he? And what is his importance? For the New Testament, the death and resurrection of Jesus are of central importance to any full understanding of his identity and significance. We shall consider these themes in what follows.
The Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth
Christianity is the only major faith to focus attention on the death of its founder and to see this episode as being of pivotal importance to its ideas and ethos. This emphasis is not a later development; it can be seen from the outset. One of the earliest literary witnesses to the central importance of the crucifixion is Paul’s first letter to the Christian church at Corinth, which probably dates from the early months of ad 55. In the first chapter of this letter, Paul lays considerable emphasis upon the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. The subject of his preaching was “Christ crucified” (1: 23); the power lying behind the gospel proclama- tion is “the cross of Christ” (1: 17); the entire Christian gospel can even be summarized as “the message of the cross” (1: 18).
Yet crucifixion was seen as a scandalous form of death within Roman imperial culture. It was reserved for traitors, rebels, and the lower classes. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution in the Roman empire, and we possess many accounts of the process from classical writers. The Latin word “crucifixion” literally means “being placed on a cross.” The victim was generally flogged or tortured beforehand, and then might be tied or nailed to the cross in practically any position. This form of punishment appears to have been employed ruthlessly in order to suppress rebellions in the provinces of the Roman empire – such as the revolt of the Cantabrians in northern Spain, as well as those of the Jews. Probably the most famous example of crucifixion being used as a deterrent was in 71 bc, when the Romans crucified 6,000 slaves who had joined Spartacus’ rebellion. The crosses were erected along the Appian Way, one of the busiest commercial transport routes in Italy.
Josephus’ accounts of the crucifixion of the many Jewish fugitives who attempted to escape from besieged Jerusalem at the time of its final destruction by the Roman armies in ad 70 make deeply disturbing reading. In the view of most Roman legal writers, notorious criminals were to be crucified on the exact location of their crime, so that “the sight may deter others from such crimes.” Perhaps for this reason, the Roman Emperor Quintillian
18 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
crucified criminals on the busiest thoroughfares, in order that the maximum deterrent effect might be achieved.
Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for the lowest criminals, which clearly implied that Jesus belonged to this category of people in Roman eyes. For a Jew, anyone hanged upon a tree was cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21: 23), which would hardly commend the Christian claim that Jesus was indeed the long-awaited Messiah. Indeed, one of the Dead Sea scrolls suggests that crucifixion was regarded as the proper form of execution for a Jew suspected of high treason.
The New Testament makes two statements about the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, which are integral to its understanding of his identity and significance. First, the crucifixion really happened – specifically, during the time when Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea. And, second, this event needed to be interpreted correctly. It did not signify shame, guilt, or rejection by God. When rightly understood, it was about the forgiveness of sins and the dawn of new hope.
Before we reflect further on the interpretation of the crucifixion, we need to outline the basic structure of the gospel narratives of this event. The background to the crucifixion is the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, mounted on a donkey, in fulfillment of a great messianic prophecy of the Old Testament (Zechariah 9: 9). Jesus enters Jerusalem as its king, an event recalled and celebrated by Christians on Palm Sunday. Yet this final week in the life of Jesus is marked by increasing controversy, culminating in his betrayal, arrest, and execution. Luke relates how Jesus and his disciples gather together “in an upper room” to celebrate Passover (Luke 22: 14–23).
The Jewish feast of Passover commemorates the events leading up to the exodus and the establishment of the people of Israel. The Passover lamb, slaughtered shortly before and eaten at the feast, symbolizes this great act of divine redemption. It is thus very significant that the Last Supper and the crucifixion of Jesus took place at the feast of Passover. The Synoptic Gospels clearly treat the Last Supper as a Passover meal where Jesus initiates a new version of the meal. While Jews celebrated their deliverance by God from Egypt by eating a lamb, Christians would henceforth celebrate their deliverance by God from sin by eating bread and drinking wine.
John’s gospel suggests that Jesus is crucified at exactly the same moment as the slaughter of the Passover lambs, so that Jesus is to be seen as the true Passover lamb, who died for the sins of the world. In the light of this, the full meaning of the words of John the Baptist, as presented in John’s gospel, becomes clearer: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1: 29). The point being made is that the death of Christ is understood to take away sin and to cleanse believers from its guilt and stain.
The coincidence of the Last Supper and of the crucifixion with the Passover feast makes it clear that there is a connection between the exodus and the death of Christ. Both are to be seen as acts of divine deliverance from oppression. However, while Moses led Israel from a specific captivity in Egypt, Jesus of Nazareth is seen as delivering his people from a universal bondage to sin and death. While there are parallels between the exodus and the cross, there are also differences. Perhaps the most important difference relates to the New Testament’s affirmation of the universality of the redemption accomplished by Christ. For the New Testament, the work of Christ benefits all who put their trust in him, irrespective of their ethnic identity or their historical or geographical location.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 19
The Last Supper – famously depicted by Michelangelo in 1498 – is of particular impor- tance to Christians, in that it is remembered in Christian worship. The use of bread and wine as a remembrance of Jesus – which focuses on the sacrament usually referred to as “Holy Communion,” “the Lord’s Supper,” “the eucharist,” or “the mass” – has its origins here. We shall return to consider this “remembrance” in greater detail later (pp. 116–117). The Last Supper is followed by the betrayal of Jesus to the Jewish authorities for 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 27: 1–10).
After a theological interrogation, Jesus is handed over to the Roman authorities. He is brought before Pontius Pilate, who was the Roman governor of Judaea from ad 26 to ad 36. Pilate’s inclination would probably have been to order some token punishment, but to take things no further. However, the crowd demands that Jesus be crucified. Washing his hands of the whole affair, Pilate sends Jesus off to be flogged and crucified. Jesus is then humiliated by the Roman soldiers, who dress him up in a caricature of royal costume, including a crown of thorns.
The floggings administered by the Romans were vicious; they had been known to cause the death of victims before they were crucified. Under Jewish law, victims were only allowed to be flogged with 40 strokes; this was invariably reduced to 39, as an act of leniency. But under Roman law there were no limits to the extent of the suffering to be inflicted. The whips used for this purpose generally consisted of several strands of leather with small pieces of metal or broken bones at the end; these tore apart the skin of those being whipped, with the result that many did not survive the ordeal.
Clearly Jesus was severely weakened by his beating and proved unable to carry his own cross. Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry it for him. Finally they reached Golgotha, the place of execution (Matthew 27: 32–43). This place is also often referred to as “Calvary,” from the Latin word calvaria, which means “skullcap, top of the skull” – the literal meaning of the Aramaic word of “Golgotha.” As Jesus hangs on the cross, he is mocked by those watching him die, while the Roman soldiers cast lots for his clothes. After being taken down from the cross, Jesus is buried in a borrowed tomb (Matthew 27: 57–61). That is not, how- ever, the end of the story, according to the New Testament.
The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
The gospels now turn to narrate a series of events traditionally referred to as “the resurrection.” This phrase is used to refer to both an historical event – the “empty tomb” – and a specific inter- pretation of the significance of this event. The discovery of the empty tomb was not in itself the resurrection; other interpretations were possible, such as the body’s having been stolen. The idea of “resurrection” is a specific interpretation of the discovery of the empty tomb.
The gospels’ resurrection narratives have three main elements:
1 The tomb in which the corpse of Jesus was laid late on the Friday afternoon was discov- ered to be empty on the Sunday morning. Those who discovered the empty tomb were frightened by what they found; their reports were not taken seriously by many of those in Jesus’ close circle of friends.
20 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
2 The disciples reported experiencing personal encounters with Jesus, in which he appeared to them as a living human.
3 The disciples began to preach Jesus as the living Lord rather than as a dead teacher from the past.
The “empty tomb” tradition is of considerable importance here (Matthew 28: 1–10; Mark 16: 1–8; Luke 24: 1–11; John 20: 1–10). The story is told from different angles in each of the gospels and includes divergence on minor points of detail, which is so characteristic of eye witness reports. Interestingly, all four gospels attribute the discovery of the empty tomb to women. The only Easter event to be explicitly related in detail by all four of the gospel writers is the visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus. Yet Judaism dismissed the value of the testimony or witness of women, regarding only men as having significant legal status in this respect. Mark’s gospel even names each of the women three times: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 15: 40, 47; 16: 1). It is interesting that Mark does not mention the names of any male disciples who were around at the time.
The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth appears to have come as a surprise to the disciples. There was, in Jewish thought, no real precedent for a resurrection of this kind. Far from fitting into popular Jewish expectations of the resurrection of the dead, what happened to
Figure 1.5 Piero della Francesca’s depiction of the resurrection of Christ, c. 1460–1464. Piero della Francesca (c.1410/20–1492), The Resurrection of Christ (c. 1460–1464). Fresco (removed), 225 × 200 cm. Sansepolcro, Pinacoteca Comunale. Source: Rabatti-Domingie/AKG Images.
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 21
Jesus actually contradicted them. Most Jews at the time seem to have believed in the resur- rection of the dead at the end of time itself. The Pharisees, for example, believed in a future resurrection, and held that men and women would be rewarded or punished after death according to their actions. The Sadducees, however, insisted that there was no resurrection of any kind. No future existence awaited men and women after death. (Paul was able to exploit the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees on this point: see Acts 26: 6–8.)
Thus the Christian claim about the resurrection of Christ in history – rather than at the end of history – does not fit any known Jewish pattern at all. The resurrection of Jesus is not declared to be a future event, but something that had already happened in the world of time and space, in front of witnesses.
In addition to reporting the basic events that underlie the Christian gospel, the New Testament includes extensive reflection on the identity and significance of Jesus. The pre- sent chapter provides an analysis of the main lines of reflection we find in the New Testament, as well as exploring how Jesus has been understood as a result of the church’s long reflections on how best to represent and describe him. This process of reflection and development is often likened to the growth of a plant.
But, before we can begin to explore Christian understandings of the meaning of Jesus, we need to consider the all-important distinction between events and meanings. In what way can something that happened in history be said to possess a meaning over and above the event itself ?
Events and Meanings: The Interpretation of the History of Jesus
In thinking about the significance of Jesus, we need to explore the relation between the events of his life and their deeper meaning. Christianity does not merely recite the history of Jesus; it affirms a specific way of making sense of that history, particularly his death on the cross and resurrection. The Christian faith certainly presupposes that Jesus existed as a real historical figure, and that he was crucified. Christianity is not, however, simply about the mere facts that Jesus existed and was crucified. Some words of the Apostle Paul, prob- ably written 15 years after the resurrection, will help make this point clear.
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved … For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve [Apostles]. (1 Corinthians 15: 1–5)
Paul here seems to be using (and passing on to his readers) an accepted formula or form of words, which was in general use in the early church and which he transmits to Corinthian Christians. This formula makes a clear distinction between the event of the death of Christ and the significance of this event. That Christ died is a simple matter of history; that Christ died for our sins is an insight that lies right at the heart of the Christian faith itself.
22 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
This important distinction between an event and its meaning can be illustrated with the help of an event that took place in 49 bc, when the great Roman commander Julius Caesar crossed a small river with a legion of soldiers. The name of the river was Rubicon, and it marked an important frontier within the Roman empire. It was the boundary between Italy and Cisalpine Gaul, a colonized region to the northwest of Italy, in modern-day France.
Considered simply as an event, Caesar’s crossing was not especially important. The Rubicon was not a major river, and there was no particular difficulty about crossing it. People had crossed wider and deeper rivers before and since. As a simple event, it was not remarkable. But that is not why the crossing of that river was important. It is the meaning of the event that guarantees its place in history books, in that its political significance was enormous. Crossing this national frontier with an army was a deliberate act of rebellion against Rome. It marked a declaration of war on the part of Caesar against Pompey and the Roman senate. The event was the crossing of a river; the meaning of that event was a decla- ration of war.
In many ways, the death of Christ may be said to parallel Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. The event itself appears unexceptional, except to those who know its significance. On the basis of contemporary records, we know that an incalculable number of people died like that at the time. Jesus would not have been alone in being executed in this way. Indeed the gospels’ accounts of the crucifixion make it absolutely clear that two other criminals were crucified with Jesus on that day, one on either side of him. As an event, the crucifixion hardly seems important or noteworthy. It is one more witness to the cruel and repressive measures used by the Romans to enforce conformity throughout their empire.
Yet the New Testament makes it clear that behind the external event of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth lay what this event signified; and this is the reason why it was important. Pompey and the Roman senate were not especially interested in the mechanics of how Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon: for them, the bottom line was crystal clear – it meant war. Similarly, Paul was not particularly interested in the historical details of the crucifixion of Jesus. The historicity of the crucifixion is assumed; what really matters is its theological significance as the ground of salvation, forgiveness, and victory over death. The Christian proclamation was about far more than the simple historical fact that Jesus was crucified. It was about the significance of this event for humanity: Jesus was numbered among sinners, so that sinners might be forgiven.
Thus far we have focused on the distinction between “event” and “meaning.” Once the importance of this distinction has been appreciated, we are in a position to move on and look at some of the interpretations of Jesus that we find in the New Testament.
The New Testament Understandings of the Significance of Jesus
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What does he mean? One of the easiest ways to begin to reflect on these questions is to look at the terms used to refer to Jesus in the New Testament, espe- cially in the gospels. These terms are often referred to as the “Christological titles” of the New Testament. Each of them must be considered as the outcome of a process of reflection on what Jesus said and did and on the impact that he had upon people. In what follows we
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 23
shall explore three of these titles – “Messiah,” “Lord,” and “Son of God” – which have found their way into the creeds of the churches, and we shall consider their implications for the Christian understanding of the identity of Jesus.
1 Messiah It is very easy for a modern western reader to assume that “Christ” was Jesus’ surname and to fail to appreciate that it is actually a title – “Jesus the Christ,” or “Jesus the Messiah.” The Hebrew word “Messiah” means “the anointed one” – someone who has been ritually anointed with oil, as a mark of having been singled out by God as having special powers and functions. Some of Israel’s greatest kings were referred to as “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24: 6). As time passed, the term gradually came to refer to a deliverer, himself a descendant of David, who would restore Israel to the golden age it enjoyed under the rule of David.
During the period of Jesus’ ministry, Palestine was occupied and administered by Rome. There was fierce nationalist feeling at the time, fueled by intense resentment at the presence of a foreign occupying power, and this appears to have given a new force to the traditional expectation of the coming of the Messiah. For many, the Messiah would be the deliverer who expelled the Romans from Israel and restored the line of the greatest king of Israel, David.
Jesus does not appear to have been prepared to accept the title “Messiah” in the course of his ministry. For example, when Peter acclaims him as Messiah – “You are the Christ!” – Jesus immediately tells Peter to keep quiet about it (Mark 8: 29–30). It is not clear what the full sig- nificance of the “Messianic secret” is. Why should Mark emphasize that Jesus did not make an explicit claim to be the Messiah, when he was so clearly regarded as such by so many?
Perhaps the answer may be found later, in Mark’s gospel, when Mark recounts the only point at which Jesus explicitly acknowledges his identity as the Messiah. When Jesus is led, as a prisoner, before the High Priest, he admits to being the Messiah (Mark 14: 61–62). Once violent or political action of any sort is no longer possible, Jesus reveals his identity. He was indeed the deliverer of the people of God – but not, it would seem, in any political sense of the term. The misunderstandings associated with the title “Messiah,” particularly in Zealot circles, appear to have caused Jesus to play down the messianic side of his mission.
2 Lord A second title used to refer to Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament is “Lord” (Greek kurios). The word is used in two main senses in the New Testament. It is used as a polite title of respect, particularly when addressing someone. When Martha addresses Jesus as “Lord” (John 11: 21), she is probably, although not necessarily, merely treating him with proper respect. However, the word is also used in another sense.
The confession that “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10: 9; 1 Corinthians 12: 3) was clearly regarded by Paul as a statement at the heart of the Christian gospel. Christians are described as those who “call upon the name of the Lord” (Romans 10: 13; 1 Corinthians 1: 2). But what does this imply? It is clear that there was a tendency in first-century Palestinianism to use the word “Lord” (Greek kurios; Aramaic mare) to designate a divine being, or at the very least a figure who is decidedly more than just human – in addition to this word’s function as a polite or honorific title. But of particular importance is the use of this Greek word kurios to translate the special cypher of four letters used to refer to God in the Old Testament.
24 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
This cipher was often referred to as the “Tetragrammaton” (a Greek word meaning “the four letters”), and written as “Yahweh.”
When the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek, the word kurios (“Lord”) was generally used to render this special sacred name of God. Of the 6,823 instances in which the sacred name is used in the Hebrew, the Greek word kurios is used to translate it on 6,156 occasions. This Greek word thus came to be an accepted way of refer- ring, directly and specifically, to the God who had revealed himself to Israel at Sinai and had entered into a covenant with his people on that occasion. Jews would not use this term to refer to anyone or anything else. To do so would be to imply that this person or thing was of divine status. The historian Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to call the Roman emperor kurios, because they regarded this name as reserved for God alone.
The writers of the New Testament had no hesitation in using this sacred name to refer to Jesus, with all that this implied. A name that was used exclusively to refer to God was regarded as referring equally to Jesus. In fact, on several occasions the New Testament takes an Old Testament text that refers to “the Lord” – in other words, to “the Lord God of Israel” – and deliberately applies or transfers the reference to “the Lord Jesus.” Perhaps the most striking example of this tendency may be found by comparing Joel 2: 32 with Acts 2: 21. The passage in Joel refers to a coming period in the history of the people of God, in which the Spirit of God will be poured out upon all people (Joel 2: 28). On this “great and dreadful day of the Lord” (that is, God) “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Joel 2: 31–32) – in other words, all who call upon the name of God will be saved.
This prophecy is alluded to in Peter’s great sermon on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 17–21), which ends with the declaration that “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2: 21). Yet the “Lord” in question here is none other than “Jesus of Nazareth,” whom, Peter declares, God has made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2: 36).
3 Son of God A third title used by the New Testament to refer to Jesus is “Son of God.” In the Old Testament the term is occasionally used to refer to angelic or supernatural per- sons (see Job 38: 7; Daniel 3: 25). Messianic texts in the Old Testament refer to the coming Messiah as a “Son of God” (2 Samuel 7: 12–14; Psalm 2: 7). The New Testament use of the term seems to mark an intensification of its Old Testament meaning, with an increased emphasis upon its exclusiveness.
The belief that Jesus was the “son of God” arose partly from reflection on the resurrec- tion. Paul opens his letter to the Christians at Rome by stating that Jesus “was descended from David at the human level, and was designated as the Son of God … by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1: 3–4). This brief statement picks out two reasons why Jesus was understood to be the Son of God. First, on the physical level, he was a descendant of David, the great king of Israel to whom God had promised a future successor as king. A similar point is made by Matthew as he opens his gospel (Matthew 1: 1). Second, Jesus’ resurrection established his identity as the Son of God. We see here how an appeal to the resurrection clinches the argument as to the true identity of Jesus as the “son of God.”
The New Testament uses other terms to refer to Jesus of Nazareth – for example, “Son of Man” (traditionally understood to emphasize the humanity and humility of Jesus), and “Savior” (a theme we shall explore in more detail in Chapter 3, when we consider the Christian understanding of the nature and grounds of salvation).
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 25
Later in this work we shall be exploring some classic approaches to the identity of Jesus, along with other basic ideas of the Christian faith, when we reflect on the creeds.
Jesus of Nazareth and Women
Much recent discussion within Christian churches in the West has focused on the place of women within the church, particularly in professional ministries. Should women be ordained? The gospels’ accounts of the ministry of Jesus are important to such discussions. They show that women were an integral part of the group of people who gathered round him. They were affirmed by him, often to the dismay of the Pharisees and other Jewish reli- gious traditionalists. Not only were women witnesses to the crucifixion; they were also the first witnesses to the resurrection. The only Easter event to be explicitly related in detail by all four of the gospel writers is the visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus. Yet, as stated above, first-century Judaism disparaged women’s testimonials and their credibility.
It is interesting to note that the gospels occasionally portray women as being much more spiritually perceptive than men. For example, Mark portrays the male disciples as having little faith (Mark 4: 40, 6: 52), while he commends women: a woman is praised for her faith (Mark 5: 25–34), a foreign woman, for responding to Jesus (Mark 7: 24–30), and a widow is singled out as an example to follow (Mark 12: 41–44). Further, Jesus treated women as human subjects rather than simply as objects or possessions. Throughout his ministry, Jesus can be seen engaging with and affirming women – often women who were treated as outcasts by contemporary Jewish society on account of their origins (e.g., Syro-Phoenicia or Samaria) or their lifestyle (e.g., prostitutes).
Jesus refused to make women scapegoats in sexual matters – for example in adultery. The patriarchal assumption that men are corrupted by fallen women is conspicuously absent from his teaching and attitudes, most notably toward prostitutes and the woman taken in adultery. The Talmud – an important source of Jewish law and teaching – recommended that its readers (who are assumed to be men) should “not converse much with women, as this will eventually lead you to unchastity.” Such advice was studiously ignored by Jesus, who made a point of talking to women (the conversation with the Samaritan woman, related in John 4, being an especially celebrated instance). In much the same way, the tradi- tional view that a woman was “unclean” during her period of menstruation was dismissed by Jesus, who taught that it is moral impurity that defiles a person (Mark 7: 1–23).
Luke’s gospel is of particular interest in relation to understanding Jesus’ attitude to women. Luke brings out clearly how women are among the “oppressed” liberated by the coming of Jesus. Luke also sets out his gospel in a way that emphasizes that both men and women are involved in, and benefit from, the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The following passages demonstrate this parallelism especially clearly:
Luke 1: 11–20, 26–38 Zacharias and Mary rejoice at God’s faithfulness Luke 2: 25–38 Simeon and Anna praise the infant Jesus Luke 7: 1–17 A centurion and a widow Luke 13: 18–21 A man with mustard seed and a woman with yeast Luke 15: 4–10 A man finds a lost sheep and a woman finds a lost coin
26 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
By this arrangement of material, Luke expresses that men and women stand together side by side before God. They are equal in honor and grace; they have the same gifts bestowed upon them and have the same responsibilities.
Luke also draws our attention to the significant role of women in the spreading of the gospel. For example, Luke indicates that “many women” (Luke 8: 2–3) were involved in spreading the news of the coming of the Kingdom of God. Indeed, Luke specifically names some of these women: “Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others.” Granting women such a significant role would have seemed incomprehensible to the male- dominated society of contemporary Palestine.
It is probably difficult for modern western readers, who are used to thinking of women as having the same rights and status as men, to appreciate how novel and radical these attitudes were at the time. Possibly the most radical aspect of Jesus’ approach to women is that he associated freely with them and treated them as responsible human beings, indulging in theological conversation with them, encouraging and expecting a response. It is hardly surprising that early Christianity proved to have a deep appeal for women.
It is entirely possible that Jesus’ teachings attracted women partly on account of the new roles and status they were granted in the Christian community. There were many cults in Greece and Rome that limited their membership to men or allowed women to participate only in very limited ways. We shall explore developments in Christian attitudes toward women during the Roman empire in a later section of this work (pp. 127–129).
The Reception of Jesus of Nazareth outside Judaism
Although its historical origins lay in Palestine, Christianity rapidly gained a following in the Greek-speaking world, especially within the cities of the Roman empire. The missionary journeys of Paul of Tarsus, described in the New Testament, played an important role in spreading Christianity in Europe and Asia Minor. Paul was a Jewish religious leader who converted to Christianity, changing his name from “Saul” to “Paul.” His missionary expedi- tions took him to many cities and regions throughout the northeastern Mediterranean area – including Europe. As Christianity began to gain a foothold on the European mainland, the question of how it was to be preached in a non-Jewish context began to be of increasing importance.
Early Christian preaching to Jewish audiences, especially in Palestine, tended to focus on demonstrating that Jesus of Nazareth represented the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel. Peter’s sermon to Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2) follows this pattern. Peter argues there that Jesus represents the culmination of Israel’s destiny. God has declared him to be both “Lord and Christ” – highly significant terms (pp. 23–24), which Peter’s Jewish audience would have understood and appreciated. But what were Christians to do when preaching to Greek audiences, who knew nothing of the Old Testament and had no connection with the history of Israel?
An approach that came to be particularly significant in the early Christian world can be found in Paul’s sermon; it was preached on the Areopagus, the famous hill in the Greek city
Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity 27
of Athens, possibly around ad 55. Since his audience included no Jews, Paul made no refer- ence there to the ideas and hopes of Judaism. Instead he presented Jesus of Nazareth as someone who revealed a god whom the Athenians knew about but had yet to encounter definitively. “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17: 23). Paul declared that the god who was made known through Jesus of Nazareth was the same god who had created the world and humanity – the god in whom, as the Athenian poet Aratus declared, “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17: 28).
Where early Christian preaching to Jewish audiences presented Jesus as the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel, Paul’s preaching to Greek audiences presented the Christian faith as the fulfillment of the deepest longings of the human heart and of the most profound intuitions of human reason. This view was easily adapted so as to incorporate some of the core themes of classic Greek philosophy, such as the idea of the “word” (Greek logos) – the fundamental rational principle of the universe, according to popular Platonic philosophy in the first century. This theme is developed in the opening chapter of the gospel of John, which presents Jesus of Nazareth as the “word” by which the universe was originally created and that entered into the world to illuminate and redeem it. “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory” (John 1: 14).
This was not necessarily seen as dismantling or displacing Christianity’s historical and theological roots in Judaism. Rather it was seen as a way of affirming Christianity’s cultural origins, while at the same time setting out the universal appeal of the Christian faith, which was held to transcend all ethnic, racial, and cultural barriers. The universal validity of the Christian gospel meant that it could be proclaimed in ways that would resonate with every human culture. As we shall see, this approach to the appeal of Christianity would be of immense significance throughout its history, especially in missionary contexts.
The material presented in this chapter clearly leads us into other areas of the Christian faith. One is that of its ideas, particularly those concerning the identity and significance of Jesus of Nazareth. We shall consider these further in Chapter 3. Yet our reflections in the present chapter also lead us to think further about the Christian Bible, the source of our understanding of the context against which Jesus of Nazareth is to be set, of our knowledge of his teaching and deeds, and of our information about how Jesus was understood within the first Christian communities. In the next chapter we shall consider the Christian Bible in more detail.
Chapter 1 Jesus of Nazareth and the Origins of Christianity
The Significance of Jesus of Nazareth for Christianity
The Sources of Our Knowledge about Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus of Nazareth in His Jewish Context
The Gospels and Jesus of Nazareth
The Birth of Jesus of Nazareth
The Early Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth
The Teaching of Jesus of Nazareth: The Parables of the Kingdom
The Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth
The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
Events and Meanings: The Interpretation of the History of Jesus
The New Testament Understandings of the Significance of Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth and Women
The Reception of Jesus of Nazareth outside Judaism
You will develop a Multicultural Lesson Plan based on your knowledge of culturally diverse populations.
Instructions
You will develop the Multicultural Lesson Plan in two steps.
Step One: Multicultural Lesson Plan Introduction
Select the grade level and content area you plan to teach in the future. While planning, select an interest you have from the list of tpoics below, or examine your content area of interest and develop a lesson that incorporates multiculturalism within that content area. Prioritize your topics and select one topic for lesson plan development. Use the topics below to build an awareness of the elements needed to meet your assignment’s goals.
To develop a multicultural lesson, you may address one of the following topics:
Lesson Plans that Develop Multiple Historical Perspectives
Lesson Plans that Develop Cultural Consciousness
Lesson Plans that Develop Intercultural Competence
Lesson Plans that Combat Racism, Sexism, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Lesson Plans that Develop State of Planet Awareness
Lesson Plans that Develop Social Action Skills
Once you have chosen your topic addressing multiculturalism, you will submit a one-page paper that includes a brief introduction to your plan for your topic and lesson, your plan should include the essential question and goals for your lesson, and a rationale for why you made these choices. Ask yourself how you can plan for the needs of diverse students to ensure that all have access to the content of the lesson.
Step Two: Multicultural Lesson Plan
This assignment is concerned with your ability to plan and develop a lesson plan within a template that delivers a multicultural or diversity objective or goal. It should also prioritize differentiated instructional strategies that promote an inclusive environment for diverse students. Use the following suggested outline to prioritize and organize your lesson plan to guarantee in-depth development of each aspect of your lesson plan:
What specific strategies will you prioritize to respond to the diverse learning needs in your classroom?
For example, how will you differentiate your instruction to respond to English learners, students with special needs, or gifted learners in your lesson?
Are there any other individuals or groups you need to modify your instruction for?
How can you engage your peers, team teachers, and others at the school site to help diverse students achieve your goals within the lesson?
What research from the field will support your plan for diverse learners?
How will the lesson sequence be modified so various groups or individuals will be successful with your learning objective?
How does this demonstrate that the lesson plan prioritizes the needs of diverse learners?
Once you have completed your planning and in-depth research, create a lesson plan using the attached lesson plan template. It may be a lesson plan that you have conducted or will conduct, or it may be a lesson plan for a fictitious classroom created for this assignment
Multicultural Lesson Plan
Purpose
You will develop a Multicultural Lesson Plan based on your knowledge of culturally diverse populations.
Instructions
You will develop the Multicultural Lesson Plan in two steps.
Step One: Multicultural Lesson Plan Introduction
Select the grade level and content area you plan to teach in the future. While planning, select an interest you have from the list of tpoics below, or examine your content area of interest and develop a lesson that incorporates multiculturalism within that content area. Prioritize your topics and select one topic for lesson plan development. Use the topics below to build an awareness of the elements needed to meet your assignment’s goals.
To develop a multicultural lesson, you may address one of the following topics:
Lesson Plans that Develop Multiple Historical Perspectives
Lesson Plans that Develop Cultural Consciousness
Lesson Plans that Develop Intercultural Competence
Lesson Plans that Combat Racism, Sexism, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Lesson Plans that Develop State of Planet Awareness
Lesson Plans that Develop Social Action Skills
Once you have chosen your topic addressing multiculturalism, you will submit a one-page paper that includes a brief introduction to your plan for your topic and lesson, your plan should include the essential question and goals for your lesson, and a rationale for why you made these choices. Ask yourself how you can plan for the needs of diverse students to ensure that all have access to the content of the lesson.
Step Two: Multicultural Lesson Plan
This assignment is concerned with your ability to plan and develop a lesson plan within a template that delivers a multicultural or diversity objective or goal. It should also prioritize differentiated instructional strategies that promote an inclusive environment for diverse students. Use the following suggested outline to prioritize and organize your lesson plan to guarantee in-depth development of each aspect of your lesson plan:
What specific strategies will you prioritize to respond to the diverse learning needs in your classroom?
For example, how will you differentiate your instruction to respond to English learners, students with special needs, or gifted learners in your lesson?
Are there any other individuals or groups you need to modify your instruction for?
How can you engage your peers, team teachers, and others at the school site to help diverse students achieve your goals within the lesson?
What research from the field will support your plan for diverse learners?
How will the lesson sequence be modified so various groups or individuals will be successful with your learning objective?
How does this demonstrate that the lesson plan prioritizes the needs of diverse learners?
Once you have completed your planning and in-depth research, create a lesson plan using the attached lesson plan template. It may be a lesson plan that you have conducted or will conduct, or it may be a lesson plan for a fictitious classroom created for this assignment
Competencies: #1 Discussing the historical development of business ethics, including the evolution of professional and corporate Codes of Ethics. #3 Assessing his/her own values, attitudes, and beliefs as a member of the workforce. #6 Understanding that sometimes conflicting values, attitudes, and beliefs held by employees, customers, suppliers, managers, owners/stakeholders, and members of the larger community. Having read Chapter 5, address the following: Review the Balancing Beliefs section, beginning on page 135, and provide your response to the Discussion Post. Being aware of sometimes conflicting values, attitudes and beliefs are held by employees, customer, suppliers, managers, owners/stakeholder, and members of the larger community, address such in your response. Assignment #4 will be graded on conveying a clear understanding of the topic, providing a clear discussion of such, as well as utilizing correct grammar. Grade: 10% of total grade, along with accurate grammar
Original and non-plagiarized custom papers. Our writers develop their writing from scratch unless you request them to rewrite, edit or proofread your paper.
Timely Delivery. capitalessaywriting.com believes in beating the deadlines that our customers have imposed because we understand how important it is.
Customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction. We have an outstanding customer care team that is always ready and willing to listen to you, collect your instructions and make sure that your custom writing needs are satisfied
Privacy and safety. It’s secure to place an order at capitalessaywriting.com We won’t reveal your private information to anyone else.
Writing services provided by experts. Looking for expert essay writers, thesis and dissertation writers, personal statement writers, or writers to provide any other kind of custom writing service?
Enjoy our bonus services. You can make a free inquiry before placing and your order and paying this way, you know just how much you will pay. A verdict was rendered against three parent chaperones. How was the third parent included in the case?
Premium papers. We provide the highest quality papers in the writing industry. Our company only employs specialized professional writers who take pride in satisfying the needs of our huge client base by offering them premium writing services historical development of business ethics
You will work with one, two, or three of the poems studied this week. Show direct control over theme and analysis. You may incorporate the historical time frame, cultural emphasis, and/or how the author’s background impacted the work.
Lead with a thesis sentence that contains the title(s) of the poem (s).
In brainstorming, consider the angle you intend to use to examine them/it.
Would it help to know their/its context?
How might you define their/its message?
Would comparison/contrast be valuable?
Can you communicate how they/it contributes to the body of literature both idiosyncratic to the Black tradition and broader implications?
Certainly, you are not compelled to work with each of these prompts. They are just here to help you focus.
The assignment is 75 points, uses MLA, and has a fuller discussion in the compacted Week 14 at end of course. Notice the extensive preparation time. Planning is such a valuable tool. So is persistence. 🙂 Scroll to the end of the reading materuial for research helps
Original and non-plagiarized custom papers. Our writers develop their writing from scratch unless you request them to rewrite, edit or proofread your paper.
Timely Delivery. capitalessaywriting.com believes in beating the deadlines that our customers have imposed because we understand how important it is.
Customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction. We have an outstanding customer care team that is always ready and willing to listen to you, collect your instructions and make sure that your custom writing needs are satisfied
Privacy and safety. It’s secure to place an order at capitalessaywriting.com We won’t reveal your private information to anyone else.
Writing services provided by experts. Looking for expert essay writers, thesis and dissertation writers, personal statement writers, or writers to provide any other kind of custom writing service?
Enjoy our bonus services. You can make a free inquiry before placing and your order and paying this way, you know just how much you will pay. A verdict was rendered against three parent chaperones. How was the third parent included in the case?
Premium papers. We provide the highest quality papers in the writing industry. Our company only employs specialized professional writers who take pride in satisfying the needs of our huge client base by offering them premium writing services incorporate the historical time frame
Describe two historical events that have influenced the development of ethical codes and regulations for nursing and healthcare research. Explain how each event has impacted ethical codes and regulations.
Your initial posting should be at least 400 words in length and utilize at least one scholarly source other than the textbook.
Assignment:
Ethics and Evidence-Based Research
Write a 1250-1500 word essay addressing each of the following points/questions. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. There should be three main sections, one for each bullet below. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. Support your ideas with at least two (2) sources using citations in your essay. Make sure to cite using the APA writing style for the essay. The cover page and reference page in correct APA do not count towards the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.
Part 1: Describe why ethical safeguards designed for clinical research may not be feasible or appropriate for evidence-based practice or evidence-based practice implementation projects.
Part 2: Review the sectioned headed, Two Ethical Exemplars in Chapter 22 of the textbook (Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, 2015, pages 518-519). Discuss three main ethical controversies related to implementing Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) Initiatives. Describe how these controversies relate to the four core ethical principles.
Part 3: Identify which ethical principles may be in conflict with the concept of “patients having an ethical responsibility in improving healthcare.” Discuss how these conflicts may be resolved.
Assignment Expectations:
Length: 1250 – 1500 words Structure: Include a title page and reference page in APA format. These do not count towards the minimum word count for this assignment. Your essay must include an introduction and a conclusion.References: Use appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions. A minimum of two (2) scholarly sources are required for this assignment.
Original and non-plagiarized custom papers. Our writers develop their writing from scratch unless you request them to rewrite, edit or proofread your paper.
Timely Delivery. capitalessaywriting.com believes in beating the deadlines that our customers have imposed because we understand how important it is.
Customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction. We have an outstanding customer care team that is always ready and willing to listen to you, collect your instructions and make sure that your custom writing needs are satisfied
Privacy and safety. It’s secure to place an order at capitalessaywriting.com We won’t reveal your private information to anyone else.
Writing services provided by experts. Looking for expert essay writers, thesis and dissertation writers, personal statement writers, or writers to provide any other kind of custom writing service?
Enjoy our bonus services. You can make a free inquiry before placing and your order and paying this way, you know just how much you will pay. A verdict was rendered against three parent chaperones. How was the third parent included in the case?
Premium papers. We provide the highest quality papers in the writing industry. Our company only employs specialized professional writers who take pride in satisfying the needs of our huge client base by offering them premium writing services Describe two historical events that have influenced the development of ethical codes and regulations for nursing and healthcare research.
In the Article Critique Assignments, you will systematically and objectively critique criminal justice-related research articles to understand published research. You will critique the strengths and weaknesses of peer-reviewed journal articles and carefully analyze arguments and points in the article. You will develop the technical writing skill of critiquing while furthering critical thinking application and knowledge of the topics investigated. You will incorporate and apply a Christian worldview perspective to each topic and Article Critique Assignment.
Instructions
· 4-7 pages excluding the title page, abstract, and reference pages.
· Current APA format.
· Minimum of two (2) peer-reviewed journal articles from Liberty University library.
· Acceptable sources (peer-reviewed articles published within the last 5-10 years only).
· Include a critique of least two (2) strengths and two (2) weaknesses from each article.
· Include a Christian and Biblical Worldview perspective.
This Article Critique Assignment requires that you follow a template. Please review and follow the template carefully. Include a running header, title page, abstract (between 120-250 words), proper APA headings/subheadings, and a reference page. Please note that you are asked not to change or omit any of the bold headings that are already in the template. You are only asked to insert your written content into the appropriate sections of the template.
Article Critique: Police Ethnocentricity, Subculture, and Historical Evolution Assignment
Locate two (2) peer-reviewed articles no older than 5-10 years about ethics in policing administration. Provide an in-depth discussion of the findings in each article.
· Based on your critique of the literary pieces, what might an ethical organization look like?
· Specify the characteristics of training, leadership, and employees that might be expected in an ethical police organization.
· Review the biblical themes in the video titled: “Police Ethnocentricity, Subculture, and Historical Evolution” found in the module’s Learn section.
· Discuss some of the challenges associated with organizations that are replete with corruption like racism and discrimination from a Christian and Biblical worldview.
Timely Delivery– primewritersbay.com believes in beating the deadlines that our customers have imposed because we understand how important it is.
Customer satisfaction- Customer satisfaction. We have an outstanding customer care team that is always ready and willing to listen to you, collect your instructions and make sure that your custom writing needs are satisfied
Writing services provided by experts- Looking for expert essay writers, thesis and dissertation writers, personal statement writers, or writers to provide any other kind of custom writing service?
Enjoy Please Note-You have come to the most reliable academic writing site that will sort all assignments that that you could be having. We write essays, research papers, term papers, research proposals Police Ethnocentricity, Subculture, and Historical Evolution
On the “Industry Performance” tab, scroll down to the bottom of the page to the section entitled, Historical Performance Data. Click the small arrow pointing downward (located at the top right of the Historical Performance Data section) and export the data to Excel. Once you have the Excel spreadsheet with the data for “Historical Performance Data”:
Highlight the data in column B, then create a Column Chart illustrating the Revenue ($m) data. For example,
Use the Excel formula to calculate the Average for each column of data within the sheet.
Add this information to the bottom of each column.
Use Excel to calculate the Sum for each column of data within the sheet.
Add this information below the row of Averages for each column.
Timely Delivery– primewritersbay.com believes in beating the deadlines that our customers have imposed because we understand how important it is.
Customer satisfaction- Customer satisfaction. We have an outstanding customer care team that is always ready and willing to listen to you, collect your instructions and make sure that your custom writing needs are satisfied
Writing services provided by experts- Looking for expert essay writers, thesis and dissertation writers, personal statement writers, or writers to provide any other kind of custom writing service?
Enjoy Please Note-You have come to the most reliable academic writing site that will sort all assignments that that you could be having. We write essays, research papers, term papers, research proposals Historical Performance Data
An Historical Critique of the Emergence and Evolution of Ernesto Che Guevara’s Foco Theory Author(s): Matt D. Childs Source: Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Oct., 1995), pp. 593-624 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/158485 Accessed: 25-10-2017 18:47 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Latin American Studies
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
An Historical Critique of the Emergence and Evolution of Ernesto Che Guevara’s Foco Theory*
MATT D. CHILDS
Abstract. This article provides an analysis of Ernesto Che Guevara’s theory of guerrilla warfare, the foco. The numerous changes to the originalfoco thesis, as presented in Guerrilla Warfare (1960), are examined in detail covering two dozen articles, speeches, essays, interviews and books authored by Guevara, Castro and Debray while stressing their relation to national and international politics. The author argues that there was an apparent discourse between Cuban politics and the numerous changes in Guevara’s writings. Juxtaposing changes to the foco theory from I960 to 1967, to Cuban historical events, reflects the political expedience of the i96os and the primary interests of the fidelistas, specifically Guevara.
Scholarly analysis of the Cuban Revolution, both inside and outside Cuba, describes the role the sierra (guerrillas) and llano (urban underground) played in the overthrow of Batista. Maurice Halperin, in his recently published memoirs, points out the uneven focus in Cuban historiography on the sierra’s role in the Revolution: ‘Although the underground played a crucial role in the triumph of Castro’s guerrilla forces, the full story has never been told to this day.’1 According to Halperin, ‘Castro discouraged… publicity concerning the underground exploits [because] it could diminish the exclusive role he wished to attribute to his guerrilla troops…in the overthrow of Batista’s government.’2 As a result, the
* The author would like to thank Ernest Boyd, Edward Gonzalez, Juan Moreno, and Roberto Oregel, in addition to the anonymous JLAS referees, for their helpful comments and suggestions; however, the author is solely responsible for the content of the article and any errors or oversights.
1Halperin taught at the University of Havana and served as an economic advisor in Cuba between 962 and 968 where he worked closely with many high officials of the regime, including Ernesto Che Guevara. The quote is taken from an early publication of his memoirs which appeared as ‘Return to Havana: Portrait of a Loyalist’, in Cuban Studies/Estudios Cubanos, vol. 23 (I993), pp. I87-93.
2 Ibid., p. I88. Halperin is certainly not the first to make this observation. The historiography of the Cuban Revolution as commented on by Andres Suarez, ‘The Cuban Revolution: The Road to Power’, Latin American Research Review, vol. 7, no. 3 (Fall, 1972), pp. 5-29, notes the paucity of material on the llano’s contribution to the
Matt D. Childs is a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin.
J. Lat. Amer. Stud. 27, 593-624 Copyright ? 1995 Cambridge University Press 593
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
5 94 Matt D. Childs
history of the Cuban Revolution, especially in the I96os, by elevating and focusing on the role of Castro and his supporters, while neglecting the activities of the urban underground, served to justify and strengthen the fidelistas’ centrality in the Cuban political apparatus.
The selective emphasis and representation of the Cuban Revolution by veterans of the Sierra Maestra is apparent not only in the historiography,3 but numerous other areas such as politics, culture, economics, and society. In this article I will focus specifically on the corpus of writings on guerrilla warfare produced in Havana following the Revolution, with special attention given to how the ahistorical representation of the sierra affected the emergence and evolution of Ernesto Che4 Guevara’s guerrilla warfare theory, the foco.5 I will argue that there existed an implicit – and sometimes an explicit- discourse between national and international politics and formulation of the foco theory. The gradual, yet noticeable, evolution of the foco theory from 1960 to 1967 reflects a fundamental distortion of the Cuban guerrilla experience, reveals the primary interests
Batista struggle. Fidel Castro himself later acknowledged the sierra biass in 1968: ‘[A]lmost all attention, almost all recognition, almost all the admiration and almost all the history of the Revolution has centred on the guerrilla movement in the mountains. And this fact tended to play down the role of those who fought in the clandestine movement, and the extraordinary herosim of young persons who died fighting under very difficult conditions.’ Quoted in Edward Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro: The Limits of Charisma (Boston, 1974), pp. 91-2. Three works, among others, which adequately address the role of the llano in the revolutionary war are Ram6n L. Bonachea and Marta San Martin, The Cuba Insurrection, r9f2-19y9 (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1974); Hugh Thomas, Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom (New York, I97I); and useful documents on llano activities can be found in the work by one-time regime supporter Carlos Franqui, Diario de la Revolucidn Cubana (Paris, 1976).
3 For example see Ernesto Che Guevara, Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War, trans., Victoria Ortiz (New York, I968).
4 Throughout this essay Che will be written without the accent which numerous authors place over the e. I have chosen not to use the accent because Che himself never employed it nor did Fidel Castro in their correspondence, whether it was linguistically correct or not. Ernesto Guevara officially became El Che ‘on 9 January I959 [when] the council of ministers made Che Guevara a Cuban citizen, and at that time, he legalised Che as part of his name’. Taken from the introduction by John Gerassi to Ernesto Che Guevara, Venceremos! The Speeches and Writings of Che Guevara (New York, 1968), p. 14. Guevara actually became an official citizen of Cuba on 9 February 1959. See ‘Che Guevara, I959-I 967: Cronologia’, Universidadde la Habana (Julio-Dic, I967), pp. 270-6.
5 Thefoco theory will be elaborated and analysed later. In brief, the ‘foco’ refers to a small guerrilla band located in the mountains, while the ‘foco theory’, or ‘foquisimo’, refers to the primacy given to the rural armed struggle centralised in the sierra with emphasis on subjective conditions. The terminology may be confusing since the ‘foco theory’ and the ‘foco’ itself have distinct connotations. Throughout this essay the ‘foco theory’ will refer to the guerrilla warfare literature authored by Guevara, Debray, and Castro. The ‘foco’ will represent the insurrectionary force.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 595
of the fidelistas, most prominently Guevara, and offers insights into the strong divisions within the government as they spilled onto the pages of guerrilla warfare. This point will be demonstrated through a close examination of the ‘Escalante Affair’ where the foco theory and national and international politics all intertwined. Before delving directly into the foco theory, it is first necessary to address its overall significance and the empirical base from which it emerged, the Cuban Revolution.
The Importance of the Foco Theory
A critical examination of the foco theory will address several important issues. First, and most obviously, why did thefoco theory change? Second, a critical analysis of thefoco theory enables a better understanding of Che’s Bolivian fiasco whereby it becomes obvious that the strategy and tactics of Bolivia differed from those of the Sierra Maestra. Third, nearly every Latin American guerrilla movement of the I96os adopted Guevara’s theory. And fourth, an examination of how and why the foco theory changed illustrates that it did change from Guerrilla Warfare to Che’s death, which many authors do not acknowledge. For example, the respected Mexican political scientist Jorge G. Castafeda in his latest book, Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War, cites Che’s I960 tenet that ‘where a government has come to power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted’.6 Castafieda then goes on to comment in a footnote that ‘it is worth noting that on various occasions and in several countries, the Cubans and Latin guerrillas themselves disregarded Guevara’s law’.7 Castafeda does not recognise that Guevara himself changes his own ‘law’ in an article published in Cuba Socialista during I963 in which he dropped the democratic corollary and advocated armed struggle in existing democracies such as Venezuela.8
6 Jorge G. Castafeda, Utopian Unarmed: The Latin America Left after the Cold War (New York, 1993), p. 329. For lengthy reviews of Utopia Unarmed see essays by Enrique A. Baloyra, Gustavo Gorriti, and Anthony P. Maingot all in the Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, vol. 36, no. I (Spring, I994), pp. 150-85; and James Dunkerley, ‘Beyond Utopia: The State of the Left in Latin America’, New-Left Review, no. 206 (July-Aug., 1994), pp. 27-43.
7 Castafeda, Utopia Unarmed, p. 329, fn. 2. 8 The article, which Castafieda was not aware of or did not recognise, is actually well
known and will be analysed later; Ernesto Che Guevara, ‘Guerra de Guerrillas: Un Metodo’, Cuba Socialista (Sept., 1963), pp. I-17. Perhaps even more surprising, Regis Debray, who surely studied the article, was thanked by Castafieda in the preface for reading the manuscript. Castaneda is by no means the first not to take account of the important changes in Guevara’s guerrilla thought, and hence the need for such analysis. The well known spokesman for the American ‘new-left’, I. F. Stone, who knew
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
596 Matt D. Childs
The importance of the foco theory in Cuba’s foreign policy throughout the I96os until Guevara’s death cannot be overemphasised. As Jorge I. Domfnguez pointed out in his book, To Make a World Safe for Revolution, it became the guiding principle of Cuba’s international organisations such as the Organisation of Latin American Solidarity (OLAS) and Tri- continental, both of which sought to combat Cuba’s isolation.9 The Guevarista line also served as a medium by which Cuban communism stood in clear contradistinction from the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet
Union as it advocated the primacy of subjective conditions, the ability to speed up history, not to mention its mocking attitude of detente. In addition, as Edward Gonzalez argues, the Cuban Revolution’s strong following in Latin America increased the value of Cuba as an ally to the Soviet Union, multiplying the island’s worth several fold in Moscow.10
The Cuban Revolution caused shock waves that resonated throughout the hemisphere, qualifying 95 9 as the watershed date in the history of the armed Latin American left, or as Castafieda appropriately labels the year, the ‘Cuban Crucible’.1 While it is undoubtedly true that the left’s overall following increased as a result of Castro’s victory, at the same time it became increasingly sectarian and divided.12 Among the Latin American
Guevara personally, made the same comment in an obituary/homage article which appeared in New Statesman (20 October 967) and reprinted as a ‘Prefatory Note’ to the 1968 Vintage edition of Guerrilla Warfare. Equabal Ahmad was also unaware of the change when he criticised Debray’s Revolution in the Revolution? claiming there is ‘no discussion of Che Guevara’s contention that guerrilla insurgency cannot succeed against a government which is able to maintain some legitimacy through the pretense of democracy’. Eqabal Ahmad, ‘Radical But Wrong’, in Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy (eds.), Regis Debray and the Latin American Revolution (New York, I968), p. 73.
9 ‘Once the revolution had won power at home, Cuba had to attempt to make the world safe for its revolution…. Cuban leaders [sought] to make a world safe for revolution in order to promote and safeguard their values, advance their interests, achieve their ambitions and enhance their influence.’ Jorge I. Dominguez, To Make a World Safe for Revolution: Cuba’s Foreign Policy (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989), pp. 6-7.
10 ‘Fidelista movements in Latin America not only offered the means by which Cuba could overcome its hemispheric isolation, but also provided Castro either with the means for maintaining and revitalising Soviet interests in Cuba as a revolutionary base, or with a negotiable issue with which he could bargain for major Soviet concessions.’ Edward Gonzalez, ‘Relationship with the Soviet Union’, in Carmelo Mesa-Lago (ed.), Revolutionary Change in Cuba (Pittsburgh, I970), p. 87.
1 Castafieda, Utopia Unarmed, pp. 5 -90. 12 For a discussion of the left in Latin America following the Cuban Revolution, see the
following: Richard Gott, Guerrilla Movements in Latin America (Garden City, New York, I972); the well detailed ‘case studies’ of guerrilla movements in seven Latin American countries from the i96os to the mid i98os in Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, introduction and case studies by Brian Loveman and Thomas M. Davies Jr. (Lincoln, Nebraska, I985); Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, Guerrillas e Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 9If6 (Princeton, 1992);
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’sfoco theorj 597
left, the overwhelming issue of division involved the primacy of objective or subjective conditions in the armed struggle. Fidel Castro plainly stated the Cuban position favouring subjective conditions in the famous Second Declaration of Havana, (i 962) declaring: ‘The duty of every revolutionary is to make the revolution!l13
Unsurprisingly, the foco theory and students of the Cuban Revolution found its strongest following in Nicaragua where Fidel Castro and Che Guevara provided inspiration in an almost religious manner. Tomas Borge described Fidel Castro as ‘the resurrection of Sandino, the answer to our reservations, the justification of the dreams of heresy of a few hours before’.14 The influence of the Cuban Revolution is further reflected in the
opening lines of the Sandinista oath: ‘Before the images of Augusto Cesar Sandino and Ernesto Che Guevara, before the memory and the heroes and martyrs of Nicaragua, Latin America and all of humanity, before history: I place my hand on the red-and-black banner that signifies Patria Libre o Morir!’5 While it is true that during the early years of the FSLN (I96os) adherence to the foco theory was strictly maintained, it later became an issue of division. Beginning in the mid-1970s three tendencies emerged within the FSLN over what tactics to pursue, specifically challenging the viability of thefoco theory in Nicaragua. Today, the continuance of this division within the FSLN remains one of the major obstacles to creating an effective political party. In fact, the present division within the FSLN
Thomas C. Wright, Latin America in the Eera of the Cuban Revolution (New York, g199); and in particular, William E. Ratliff, Castroism and Communism in Latin America, 19y9-1976: The Varieties of the Marxist-Leninist Experience (Stanford, 1976).
13 Despite Castro’s commitment to the armed struggle, in I964 Cuba hosted the Conference of Latin American Communist Parties, giving high priority to various guerrilla movements and agreeing with the Soviet Union on the unfavourability of revolutionary conditions in other countries. Cuban tolerance for several Latin American communist parties unwilling to adopt the armed struggle served to strengthen relations with the Soviet Union. See Ratliff, Castroism and Communism, passim, and Appendix A, pp. I95-9.
14 Tomas Borge, Carlos, el Almanecerya no es una Tentacion (Managua, I 989), p. 27. See also his work La Paciente Impaciente (Managua, 1989); the autobiographical work by Omar Cabezas, La Montana es Algo Mds Que un Enorme Estepa Verde (Managua, i982); and Ernesto Cardenal, En Cuba (Mexico, I977) all provide insight into the importance of the Cuban Revolution from high ranking Sandinistas. Also, works by David Nolan, FSLN: Ideology of the Sandinista and the Nicaraguan Revoluiton (Miami, I 984); and Donald Hodges, Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution (Austin, 1986) are both essential.
15 Quoted in Stephen Kinzer, The Blood of Brothers: Life and War in Nicaragua (New York, 1991), p. 62. While the importance of the Cuban Revolution to the Sandinistas was immense in providing a model and a theory, one author exaggerates when he describes Che Guevara as ‘the single most important icon for revolutionary Nicaraguans’. The author apparently has forgotten the name of the Nicaraguan revolutionaries- Sandinistas! Wickham-Crowley, Guerrillas & Revolution in Latin America, p. 227.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
5 98 Matt D. Childs
can trace its origin to the interpretation of the applicability of the foco theory in Nicaragua.l1
Guevara’s theory served Cuban foreign policy. Until his death in I967 it became the main tool, guiding ideology and providing inspiration for those insurgents who aligned themselves with Cuba. In addition, to the painful realisation of many guerrillas, defeat of the foco theory became the primary obsession of United States foreign policy towards Latin America. Loveman and Davies claim:
[I]n many respects, it may be said that the last quarter century of United States foreign policy toward Latin America has consisted essentially of defeating the threat, the legacy, the legend of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara – the most important martyr of revolutionary struggle in Latin America in the twentieth century,17
Che Guevara’s writings on guerrilla warfare found a receptive audience not only in Latin America, but throughout the world. In the United States, during the I96os, several groups went beyond simply quoting Che Guevara, as Stokely Carmichael often did, and put his theory into practice. The ‘Weathermen’ during their ‘Days of Rage’ in Chicago legitimised their actions through Guevara’s doctrine of dividing United States forces through the creation of ‘one, two, three … many Vietnams’. Further, the Black Panthers operated a guerrilla training centre in Cuba, and, as leader Eldrige Cleaver commented, seriously considered adopting the foco theory: ‘Trained and equipped forces would be dropped into the mountain areas of North America. The plan here was to have small mobile units that could shift easily in and out of rural areas, living off the land, and tying up thousands of troops in fruitless pursuit.’18
The analysis in this article of the emergence and evolution of the foco theory will follow a rather simple method: the primary writings of Guevara, Regis Debray, and to a lesser extent Fidel Castro will be examined as they appeared chronologically, while placing them in their proper historical and political context.19 In all, over two dozen documents
16 The emergence of this division during the I970S is clearly detailed in Nolan’s work. The persistence of the division and the obstacles they currently present is tightly analysed by Andres Perez, ‘The FSLN After the Debacle: The Struggle for the Definition of Sandinismo’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, vol. 34, no. i (Spring, I992), pp. 11 -39.
17 Brian Loveman and Thomas P. Davies Jr., ‘Preface’ to Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare (Lincoln, Nebraska, I985), p. ix.
18 Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Fire (Waco, Texas, 1978), p. 108. He further commented that there ‘was much excitement over the possibilities of building of units, surrounded by acres of revolutionary camps and personnel, all working rigorously’. He also added, to emphasise its perceived importance at the time, ‘I do not mean to be sarcastic; but in retrospect the grand design seems pretty ridiculous’.
19 A two volume edition entitled Obras Completas, s9f7-i967 (Havana, I970) contains almost all of Guevara’s important works on guerrilla warfare. Most of Guevara’s writings have been translated into English. The best source for reliability in translation,
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 5 99
will be surveyed to permit a thorough critique. Analysis will be enhanced by various studies, most of them introductions to Guevara’s and Debray’s writing, which address the foco theory. Unfortunately, Guevara’s works have not been subjected to scholarly criticism, most with commentary simply referring to his unorthodox Marxism. Debray, on the other hand, has been highly scrutinised and blamed for most of the flaws of the foco theory.20 Apparently, Debray was easier to criticise, since an attack on the apostle of armed struggle would have jeopardised Havana’s support. Indeed, according to Dominguez: ‘Cuba expects to be recognized as the leader of international revolutionaries because it believes it has the correct
strategy for victory… [I]t does not support revolutionary movements that do not defer to Cuba.’21
Because of the need for brevity in this article, I will treat Guevara’s, Debray’s, and Castro’s writings as one unit. Although different tendencies
completeness, and introduction is Che: Selected Works of Ernesto Guevara, edited by Rolando E. Bonachea and Nelson P. Valdds (Cambridge, Massachusetts, I969). Several works not found in the Bonachea and Valdes edition are in Gerassi’s Venceremos!. Che’s
book length works such as Guerra de Guerrillas, Pasajes de la Guerra Revolucionaria, and Diario del Che en Bolivia have all been translated into English and gone through numerous editions. Debray’s important essays are found in Regis Debray, Strategyfor Revolution, edited with an introduction by Robin Blackburn (New York, I97I). His well known lengthy essay has been published in book form, Revolution in the Revolution ?, with an introduction by Leo Huberman and Paul M Sweezy, (New York, I967). Debray’s writings following his release from prison such as the Chilean Revolution: Conversations with Allende (New York, I971); Che’s Guerrilla War (Harmondsworth, I975); and Critique of Arms (New York, I977) will not be examined in detail. Only those works by Fidel Castro which clearly deal with guerrilla warfare such as the Second Declaration of Havana will be addressed. The political context is covered in the following: Theodore Draper, Castroism: Theory and Practice (New York, 1965); Jorge I. Dominguez, Cuba: Order and Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1978); Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro; Marifeli Perez-Stable, The Cuban Revolution: Origins, Course and Legacy (New York, 1993); Andres Suarez, Cuba: Castroism and Communism, is9g-z966 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967); and Thomas, Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom.
20 For analysis of Guevara’s writings see the introductions by Loveman and Davies, Guerrilla Warfare; Bonachea and Valdes, Che; Gott, Guerrilla Movements; Gerassi, Venceremos!; Donald Hodges, The Legacy of Che Guevara: A Documentary Study (London, 1975), pp. 11-75; Michael Lowy, The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics and Revolutionary Warfare (New York, I973); Sheldon B. Liss, Marxist Thought in Latin America (Berkeley, 1984), pp. 256-65; and Carlos Jesis Delgado, ‘La concepci6n de la guerra revolucionaria de guerrillas de Ernesto Che Guevara’, Casa de las Americas, no. I63 (Julio-Aug., 1987), pp. 25-36. Debray’s works are analysed admirably by Harmut Ramm, Marxism of Regis Debray: Between Lenin and Guevara (Lawrence, Kansas, 1978). In addition, see the introduction by Blackburn to Strategy for Revolution and the collection of essays by prominent members of the Latin American Left in Huberman and Sweezy (eds.), Regis Debray and the Latin American Revolution.
21 Dominguez, To Make a World Safe for Revolution, pp. 124-5.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
60o Matt D. Childs
existed in their writings, they were neither significant nor a point of contention during the period I959-67. According to Ramm and others, there existed, in fact, a large degree of co-authorship and co-editing of each others’ works. The difficulty in separating their different perspectives is that authorship is often attributed to someone other than the actual author. For example, Bonachea and Valdes credit Guevara for authorship of the Second Declaration of Havana. ‘Che developed a radical categorical imperative: The duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution. To push history, to catalyze, is the function of the revolutionary’ (italics in original).22
One could argue, however, that after Guevara’s death and Fidel’s condoning of the USSR’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, a division emerged in the interpretation of Guevara writings.23 In Venezuela, Douglas Bravo of the FALN declared himself a guevarista but not a fidelista due to the Czech invasion.24 Thus, the divergences and connotations around such titles as guevarista or fidelista do not describe differences among Che and Castro, but rather peoples’ interpretation of their ideas. Before proceeding to examine Guevara’s writings, beginning with Guerrilla Warfare, it is necessary to touch briefly upon the empirical base from which the foco theory was drawn, the Cuban Revolution.
The Cuban Revolutionary War
As already indicated by Maurice Halperin, the ‘official’ history of the Cuban Revolution does not adequately address the role of the llano. While the llano has yet to receive the same attention of historians as the sierra, several works describe llano activities during the Revolution.25 Most works on the Cuban Revolution propagated by the state simply start with Batista’s coup of 10 March I952, followed by Castro’s Moncada assault, and then a narrative of the Rebel Army’s activities from the December 1956 Granma ‘shipwreck’, as Guevara put it, to Batista’s flight into exile. Descriptions of the llano’s role in the Cuban Revolution tend to focus on failures such as the Student Directorate’s attack on the Presidential Palace
in an attempt to assassinate Batista, the death of Frank Pais on 30 July
22 Bonachea and Valdes, ‘Introduction’, p. 28. I am confident that Bonachea and Valdes are aware that Castro authored the Second Declaration of Havana. Their point, and mine as well, is that their writings are so similar that they can be treated as by one author, or coauthors. Davies and Loveman make the same assumption: ‘Guevara’s primary message was that the duty of revolutionaries is to make revolution’, p. 14; as does Lowy: ‘Che’s famous slogan: The duty of a revolutionary is to make revolution’, p. 21. 23 Hodges, Legacy of Che Guevara, pp. 3 -3.
24 Ratliff, Castroism and Communism, pp. 03-1 I. 25 For example, see the sources listed in fn. 2.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’sfoco theory 6oi
1957, or the failure of the 9 April 1958 general strike. For example, Guevara writes: ‘April 9th was a painful failure which did not for a moment succeed in threatening the regime’s stability. Far from it: after this tragic date the government was able to withdraw its forces and send them little by little to Oriente, to sow destruction as far as the Sierra.’26 According to Guevara, insurgent activities of the llano not only failed to remove Batista from power, but in turn made the armed struggle even more difficult for the sierra.
After the revolutionary victory, Cuban historiography purposely ignored the important role groups other than the fidelistas played in elevating the revolutionary environment. The failure of each group to attain power served to put the burden of the revolution on Fidel Castro’s shoulders, but with the burden also came support. Domfnguez succinctly summarises how the sierra emerged as the leader of the revolution, partially by default.
The insurrectionist opposition to Batista gradually concentrated around the person of Fidel Castro through a mixture of competence, shrewdness, and luck. Castro’s luck, in the form of accidental elimination of any alternative leaders, was remarkable. The Prio-financed attack on the Goicuria military barracks in Matanzas in April 1956 failed; Barquin’s plot in April 195 6 failed; the university student attack on the Presidential Palace in March 19577 failed and ended with the death of Havana student leader, a serious rival, Jose Antonio Echeverrfa; the Prio-financed landing of the Corintha expedition in May I957 failed; the Cienfuegos naval uprising failed; Frank Pafs, leader of the Oriente provincial underground of the Twenty-Sixth of July Movement, Castro’s most serious rival within the organization, was killed in July I957; the general strike of April I95 8 failed, and led to the subordination of the urban and labour underground to the leadership in the mountains.27
The important point to note is that Castro did not emerge as the undisputed leader in the struggle against Batista until the second half of I 958. According to Gonzalez, prior to the failure of the general strike, the ‘guerrillas remained a virtual appendage of the July 26 Movement’, playing only a secondary role in the overall struggle.28 The initial revolutionary strategy of the July 26 Movement confirms Gonzalez’s statement. Throughout the revolutionary war, until April 1958, strategy called for armed struggle in the countryside to weaken the Batista dictatorship, with the final blow to be delivered by a general strike. After April, Castro placed primacy on the armed struggle, recalling the July 26 Movement urban leader in Havana, Faustino Perez, to the Sierra Maestra.29 Nonetheless, Castro still recognised the importance of the llano,
26 Guevara, Reminiscences, p. 243. 27 Dominguez, Cuba: Order and Revolution, p. I27. 28 Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro, p. 86. 29 Ibid.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
602 Matt D. Childs
by his call for a general strike on I January 95 9 to ensure a complete rebel victory.30
One could surmise that Guevara, Castro and Debray did not incorporate the llano experience into the foco theory since they were not personally associated with the struggle in the city, and, as a result, did not grasp its overall significance in the overthrow of Batista. While there is surely some validity to this hypothesis, several examples tend to counter it. First, as cited above, Castro called for a general strike on I January 1959. Second, Castro’s micromanagement political style, whereby he is personally involved and informed on all activities, suggests that he was well aware of llano activities.31 And third, there are several documents by Guevara from the first half of 19 5 9 which acknowledge the importance of the llano.
On 19 January I959, Guevara spoke at the headquarters of the Cuban Confederadion of Labour. ‘I have not come here to be paid homage, but to pay tribute in the name of the Rebel Army to the Cuban working class.’32 After recognising the role of the working class in the revolutionary struggle, he claimed Latin America ripe for the overthrow of dictatorships, but not the defeat of the bourgeoisie. This speech, given before Cuba joined the socialist camp, suggests that Castro and Guevara may have initially sought a workable relationship with the national bourgeoisie. Also, only three weeks before, Castro looked down on Cuba from the Sierra Maestra while Guevara battled in Las Villas; thus, they did not yet grasp their political strength to move against the national bourgeoisie and initially wanted to extend their political base in order to prevent any counterrevolutionary activity.
Less than ten days later, Guevara once again extolled the role of the urban working class in the Revolution.33 He commented on the important role of the llano in complementing the activities of the Rebel Army:
The victories of the Rebel Army and the great efforts of the underground created within the country a state of unrest… [These experiences] taught us a precious truth mainly that the Revolution did not belong to any one group in particular, but all of the Cuban people. Consequently all energies of our militants in the mountains and cities were aimed toward that end.34
30 See Castro’s ‘General Strike Proclamation’, reprinted in Fidel Castro, Revolutionary Struggle, s947-i9f8: Selected Works of Fidel Castro, vol. I, edited and with an introduction by Rolando E. Bonachea and Nelson P. Valdes (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), pp. 348-50.
31 Castro’s writings in the Bonachea and Valdes edition and Franqui’s Diario de la Revolucidn Cubana give evidence of Castro’s daily awareness of llano activities.
32 The speech appeared in El Mundo, 20 Jan. 1959, pp. i-8. Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Honoring the Labor Movement’, p. 195.
33 Speech delivered to the Sociedad de Nuestro Tiempo on 27 Jan. 1959. Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Social Ideas of the Rebel Army’, pp. 196-204.
34 Ibid., p. I98.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 603
Additionally, Che remarked that due to repression, the peasants joined the Rebel Army resulting in ‘an army of civilians [becoming] an army of peasants’. In this and the previous speech, Che pointed out the role that other groups played in the revolution, but at the same time emphasised that the Rebel Army led the struggle in the vanguard position.
Because the later history of the Cuban Revolution and the foco theory minimised the role of the llano, these speeches can be interpreted as attempts by thefidelistas to increase their base of support by bringing other
groups under the umbrella of the overall struggle. Guevara’s recognition of the importance of the working class coincided with the expulsion by anti-communist July 26 Movement elements of Popular Socialist Party (PSP), members of the Executive Committee of the Confederation of Cuban Workers (CTC), and their replacement by July 26 Movement leaders.35 Also, classification of the Revolution as against a dictatorship and not against the national bourgeoisie, reflected the representation of the first cabinet, ‘lawyers, judges, economists, ortodoxos,… and social activists .36
In two separate interviews in April 19 59, Guevara began to describe the Revolution, somewhat cautiously, along class lines by denouncing those sectors of the national bourgeoisie who opposed changes, such as agrarian reform.37 According to Ramm, however, Guevara continued to deny that the Cuban Revolution ‘was a class revolution, its only enemies were those who opposed land reform – latifundistas and the reactionary bour- geoisie’.38 Guevara specifically identified the reactionary bourgeoisie and did not condemn the bourgeoisie in general. These two interviews reflect a noticeable shift in Guevara’s thought from recognition of the role of the bourgeoisie in the revolution to regarding them as neither an ally nor an enemy in the post-insurrectionary stage. Later, he would identify the bourgeoisie as an obstacle to the construction of socialism.
Again, these changes serve as an index to national politics. In April, the July 26 Movement accused the PSP of bourgeois tendencies and collaboration with Batista.39 Guevara apparently anticipated the bourgeoisie’s unfavourable reaction to the Agrarian Reform Law of 17 May 959. The Law resulted in the resignation of five moderate members of the July 26 Movement who held positions in the cabinet.40 Two months later, Castro forced the resignation of President Manuel Urrutia,
35 Perez-Stable, Cuban Revolution, p. 70. 36 Ibid., p. 62. 37 The interviews were conducted on i8 April 1959 and 28 April I959 and appear in
Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘A New Old Che Guevara Interview’, pp. 368-76; and ‘Interview by Telemundo Television’, pp. 378-83.
38 Ramm, Marxism of Regis Debray, p. 35. 39 Perez-Stable, Cuban Revolution, p. 71. 40 Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro, p. 97, fn. 33.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
604 Matt D. Childs
severely weakening bourgeoisie representation in the revolutionary government.41 By early I960 the fidelistas firmly controlled all the important positions of power, ready to radicalise the Revolution. In this increasingly radical environment, where the sierra held government positions they both did and did not deserve, Guevara wrote Guerrilla Warfare.
Guerrilla Warfare42
From the first page of the first chapter of Guerrilla Warfare Guevara clearly spells out the fundamental lessons of the Cuban Revolution.
(i) Popular forces can win against the army. (2) It is not necessary to wait until all the conditions for making revolution exist;
the insurrection can create them.
(3) In underdeveloped America the countryside is the basic area of armed fighting.43
The first lesson simply stated that a guerrilla army can defeat a regular army. The second lesson caused Marxists to claim heresy as Che advocated speeding up history and giving primacy to subjective conditions over objective ones.44 And the third lesson called for the leadership, the base, and the theatre of revolutionary struggle to be located in the mountains directed by the sierra.
The overall focus of the manual lies in lessons number two and three.
Guevara even calculated the number of guerrillas necessary to form afoco and begin the armed struggle:
The minimum number with which it is possible to initiate a guerrilla war can be mentioned. In my opinion, considering the normal desertions and weakness in spite of the rigorous process of selection, there should be a nucleus of 30 to 50 men; this figure is sufficient to initiate an armed fight in any country of the Americas with their conditions of favourable territory for operations, hunger for land, repeated attacks upon justice, etc.45
The above quote clearly draws from the sierra experience and does not account for the important role played by urban groups. He then explains that the guerrilla will be supplied internally by the peasants, not giving credit to the essential role Frank Pais and the Santiago July 26 Movement played in arming and supplying recruits following the disaster at Alegria
41 Ibid., pp. 98-9. 42 Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare (Lincoln, Nebraska, I985). 43 Ibid., p. 45. 44 Marx warned against such attempts: ‘Their activities consist precisely of trying to
anticipate the revolutionary process, to carry it on to a crisis artificially, and to impose a revolution without the conditions for a revolution being present. For them, the only condition for revolution is sufficient organization of their conspiracy.’ Quoted in Ratliff, Castroism and Communism, p. I79.
45 Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, pp. I57-8.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory Go5
de Pio.46 Nonetheless, Che does not completely ignore the role of the urban underground or their potential, stating that ‘the city’s masses of organized workers should not be underrated’.47 Guevara also spelled out the essential duties of the llano in relation to propaganda, intelligence and sabotage, but all the while emphasising their subordination to the directives of the sierra.
Che developed a democratic corollary to Guerrilla Warfare, already cited by Castafieda, which prevented the development of the armed struggle:
When a government has come to power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.48
I will later discuss when and why Che abrogated the democratic exclusion. Guevara also briefly touched on a point that would later be further
explored by Debray, the vanguard foco in place of the Leninist vanguard party. ‘The guerrilla fighter, as a person conscious of the role in the vanguard of the people, must have a moral conduct that shows him to be a true priest of reform.’49 The vanguard foco, however, does not solely radicalise the peasantry; in addition, the peasants serve to politicise the guerrilla fighters and vice versa in a symbiotic revolutionary relationship:
It happens that a genuine interaction is produced between these leaders, who with their acts teach the people the fundamental importance of the armed fight, and the people themselves who rise in rebellion and teach the leaders these practical necessities of which we speak. Thus, as a product of this interaction between the guerrilla fighter and his people, a progressive radicalization appears which further accentuates the revolutionary characteristics of the movement and gives it a national scope.50
In summary, Guerrilla Warfare places primary importance on the role of the foco in creating conditions for revolution. Both the base of operations and leadership are to be located in the sierra. Guerrilla Warfare did not totally exclude the role of the llano in the revolutionary struggle, nor did it adequately accredit it. The democratic corollary stated that guerrilla movements could not be pursued in countries such as Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile and Venezuela. While Guerrilla Warfare is not a true representation of the Cuban Revolution, it does present most of its principal phenomena, albeit in a distorted manner.
It is important to note that throughout the work Che emphasised he was drawing from the Cuban Revolution: ‘I repeat once more, it is our
46 At Alegria de Pio Castro’s forces were reduced from 82 to the mythical figure of I only days following the Granma landing. During December I956 and January 1957 Pais was Castro’s lifeline in the Sierra Maestra. 47 Ibid., p. 48. 48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., p. 80. 50 Ibid., p. 81.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
606 Matt D. Childs
Cuban experience which speaks through me; new experiences can vary and improve these concepts. We offer an outline, not a bible.’51 This point has two important implications. First, since the Cuban experience ‘spoke through Che’, he was retelling the Cuban Revolution, and thus the ahistorical elevated role of the sierra and the minimised role of the llano
served to legitimise fidelista monopolisation of power. Second, Guevara’s emphasis on representing an ‘outline’ and not a ‘bible’ would later be ignored as the foco theory became increasingly theoretical and dogmatic.52 The remainder of the article will proceed by examining the changes which occurred in the foco theory from the publication of Guerrilla Warfare until Che’s death in Bolivia in 1967, by juxtaposing these corrections or distortions (depending on your interpretation) against a political and historical backdrop.
‘Sierraisation’ of the Foco, 1960-2
The three years following the publication of Guerrilla Warfare witnessed a strong and gradual shift towards increasing the importance of the sierra in the foco theory. I will label this trend and period ‘sierraisation’ of the foco owing to the elevated role of the sierra in the foco theory. The process by which the sierra became increasingly important in the armed struggle was not limited solely to the period 1960-2, and is a recurring theme until 1967; nonetheless, these years represent the time frame for the most commonly marked changes in the foco theory. ‘Sierraisation’ of the foco, was followed by ‘Marxianisation’ of the foco, I963-5, and ‘internationa- lisation’ of the foco, 1965-7; the later two periods will be analysed in the following sections. By employing this categorisation and periodisation I am not implying that these were the only types of changes made during the indicated periods, for there is considerable overlap. Despite the deficiencies in this categorisation and periodisation, the approach will assist in analysing the foco theory and identifying its major trends.53
51 Ibid., p. 132. 52 Fidel and Che criticised allegiance to Marxian orthodoxy only to demand strict
following of their own formulation. ‘It appears as though slavish obedience to old doctrine was replaced by equally inflexible awe for a new one, whose superiority may have lain in its psychological immediacy and temporal proximity, rather than its political efficiency.’ Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, ‘A Sociological Analysis of Latin American Guerrilla Movements, I956-i970’, unpubl. PhD diss., Cornell University, I98I, p. 68.
53 Unsurprisingly, these categories correspond to Guevara’s primary roles in the Cuban government. Che became president of the National Bank in I959 and quickly surrounded himself with veterans of the sierra. From I962 to I965, Che challenged many of the ‘old Communists’ during the ‘Great Debate’, justifying his unorthodox Marxism by quoting the early writings of Marx. And from i965 onward, Che made several trips throughout the world where he personally sought to ‘export’ the Cuban Revolution.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 607
In March I960, Guevara spoke on television and affirmed that for Cuba to be politically sovereign, she would have to be economically independent from the metropolises, specifically the United States.54 According to Guevara, Cuba would have to break free from her colonial economic structure of providing raw materials and dependence on sugar exports in order to be politically independent. Although many agreed with Guevara’s economic plan of diversification, several within the government, both Marxist and non-Marxist, but all primarily former bourgeois represen- tatives of the llano, voiced opposition. Disagreements, however, were not welcomed as demonstrated by Guevara replacing Felipe Pazos as president of the National Bank in the fall of 1959. The fidelistas of the sierra chose the correct path in the armed struggle and assumed they could do the same in the economic struggle as well.
Several months later, Guevara turned his attention to the working class of Cuba and its role in industrialisation.55 The speech incorporated the working class into the revolution via the foco in the post-insurrectionary stage. Hodges carefully analysed the speech claiming the ‘original aim [of the revolutionary movement] to mobilize the peasants through a programme of agrarian reform subsequently shifted during its con- structive stage to the principle of mobilizing the workers through a program of industrialization’.56 The speech, according to Hodges, justifies the sierra bias of the foco theory by claiming that although the proletariat does not play the primary role in the insurrectionary stage, its participation will be fundamental in the post-revolutionary period.57
The increasing polarisation between the United States and Cuba is reflected in Guevara’s speech made at the First Congress of Latin American Youth in July I960.58 Earlier in the year, Mikoyan visited Havana, establishing the first trade agreements between the two countries and confirming Washington’s suspicion of the communist turn in the Cuba Revolution.59 In June, after Texaco, Shell and Standard Oil refused to refine Soviet crude oil, the Cuban government confiscated their holdings. A rapid deterioration of relations between the two countries followed, in which the sugar quota was cut and United States properties
54 Speech delivered on the television programme ‘Universidad Popular’, 20 March I960 and printed the following day in Revolucion, pp. i-8. Reprinted in Bonachea and Vald6s, Che, ‘Political Sovereignty and Economic Independence’, pp. 213-29.
55 Speech delivered to the Havana assembly of workers on 18 June I960 and printed in Obra Revolucionario, I960, no. II. Reprinted in Venceremos!, as ‘On Sacrifice and Dedication’, pp. 92-108. 56 Hodges, Legacy of Che Guevara, p. 28.
57 Ibid.
58 Speech delivered to the First Congress of Latin American Youth on 28 July I960 and printed in Obra Revolucionario, 25 August i960, pp. I3-20. Reprinted in Bonachea and Vald6s, Che, ‘Development of a Marxist Revolution’, pp. 246-56.
59 Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro, pp. 123-4.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6o8 Matt D. Childs
nationalised.60 Castro realised by late i959 and the first months of I960 that if Cuba wanted to follow through with its radical reforms it would have to attract the security of the Soviet Union. Thus, Cuba began a process whereby its leaders ‘seduced’ the Soviets by quoting Marx and Lenin and carrying out anti-United States policies.61
Guevara’s speech, in which he neither labelled the revolution socialist nor claimed that it was not socialist, reflected contemporary politics and expediency. Che developed a masterful compromise:
[I]s the Cuba Revolution communist? Some will wishfully state this is so, or that it is moving in that direction. Others, perhaps feeling disappointed, will also answer in the affirmative, and still others with disappointment will think that this is not a communist revolution. Others, still hoping, will answer no. And if someone asks me if this Revolution before your eyes is a communist revolution, I would reply (leaving aside all the accusations made by imperialism and the colonial powers who try to bring confusion to everything) that we realize that this revolution, if it happens to be Marxist – and listen carefully, I say Marxist – is thus because it discovered by its own means the path that Marx pointed out. [emphasis added]62
The dominant theme of the speech, clearly indicated in the above quote, is that the truths of Marxism are not understood solely from studying Marx; rather, they can be naturally discovered through the revolutionary process. Not only is this statement interesting because of its claim of the natural discovery of Marxism, but the audience was made up of students. It can be deduced that Che was indirectly mocking those who simply studied Marx and did not put his ideas into practice.
The speech could very easily be placed in the category of ‘Marxianisation’ of the foco; nonetheless, I believe it has important reference for the ‘sierraisation’ of the foco. Guevara advocated going beyond simply studying Marx by making an existential commitment to revolutionary action. Guevara implied that because the guerrillas were not as versed in Marxism as the PSP, the Cuban Revolution occurred. Thus, as a result of subjective conditions, the foco brought about the Cuban Revolution and, in the process, discovered the ‘path that Marx pointed
60 Perez-Stable, Cuban Revolution, p. 80. 61 On i6 October I959 Alexandr Alexeev visited Cuba to arrange Mikoyan’s visit.
‘Alexeev reports that he was “stunned” when Castro quoted Marx and Lenin at their October 16 meeting “because at that time we could not even imagine that he knew Marxist theory”. Few Soviets knew much about Cuba; most were sceptical of the revolutionaries’ credentials because so many of them were ‘bourgeois liberals.”‘ Guevara told Alexeev that ‘the only way to achieve Cuba’s full independence was to build a socialist society’. Dominguez, To Make A World Safe for Revolution, pp. 20-3. Also see Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro, p. I46 for insightful comments on Fidel’s Marxist credentials, or, more aptly, lack thereof.
62 Guevara, ‘Development of a Marxist Revolution’, p. 247.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 609
out’. In the end, Guevara claimed that because he had learned Marxism in its appropriate laboratory of revolutionary action, rather than through books or party cells in the llano, his Marxian credentials were more valid.63
Guevara’s speech to the First Congress of Latin American Youth, later became more forcefully represented in an article which appeared in October I960.64 He specifically sought to reply to the Leninist revolutionary doctrine that ‘without a revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement’, which refuted his contention of naturally discovering Marxism and the primacy of military actions over political ones:
This is a unique Revolution which some people assert contradicts one of the most orthodox premises of the revolutionary movement expressed by Lenin: ‘without a revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement’. It would be suitable to state that a revolutionary theory, as the expression of a social truth, is beyond any enunciation of it, that is to say, the revolution can be made if the historical realities are interpreted correctly and if the forces involved are utilized correctly.65
To be direct, Guevara claimed Lenin was wrong. The Cuban Revolution demonstrated that there could be a revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory. He then went on to claim: ‘One should be a “Marxist” as naturally as one is a “Newtonian’ in physics, or a “Pasteurian” in biology considering that if new facts determine new concepts these new concepts will never take away that path of truth which the older concept had.’66 Che emphasised pragmatism rather than adherence to dogmatic interpretations. In an interview with Laura Berquist in November I960, he once again referred to the importance and validity of discovering truth through revolutionary praxis. ‘Where one really learns is in a revolutionary war; every mistake teaches you more than a million volumes of books. You mature in the extraordinary university of experience.’67
Guevara’s constant return to the maxim of discovering truth through revolutionary action served in part to defend himself from his Marxian critics, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to remind others of the inactivity of the PSP in the revolutionary war. The ‘old Communists’ did not join the armed struggle until late I958 and played a largely
63 Guevara, of course, did not dismiss the necessity for reading Marx or revolutionary theory, which he often did on his own campaigns in addition to other genre. However, if these theories were not put into practice in the revolutionary laboratory they would only remain ideas of bourgeois abstraction.
64 Ernesto Che Guevara, ‘Notas para el Estudio de la Idelogia de la Revoluci6n Cubana’, Verde Olivo, 8 Oct. I960, pp. 10-I4. Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Notes for the Study of the Ideology of the Cuba Revolution’, pp. 48-56.
65 Ibid., p. 48. 66 Ibid., p. 49. 67 Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Interview with Laura Berquist (#I)’, pp. 384-7.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 io Matt D. Childs
insignificant role. Following the revolutionary victory, Castro resurrected the PSP for administrative reasons and to garner Soviet recognition. In the process, however, the PSP represented a force which could, and did, challenge Castro’s political authority. The foco theory’s supremacy of subjective conditions and the concentration of political activity in the countryside served to check PSP power and reinforce their historically unrevolutionary attitude.
In April I96I, before the Bay of Pigs invasion, Guevara answered his critics once again with the article ‘Cuba: Exceptional Case or Vanguard in the Struggle Against Colonialism’.68 The article was addressed to the Latin American communist parties who claimed, just as the PSP had, that the conditions were not appropriate for armed revolution. Guevara recognised two ‘exceptional characteristics’ of the Cuban revolution: (i) the leadership of Fidel Castro; and (2) a somewhat ‘proletarianised’ peasantry. These aside, the objective conditions in Cuba at the time of the revolution could be found throughout Latin America. Guevara summarised the hemispheric universality of objective conditions from the ‘Rio Bravo to the South Pole’ as ‘Hunger of the People’:
Weariness from being oppressed, abused, and exploited to the maximum; weariness from selling one’s labor day after day for fear of becoming part of the great mass of the unemployed – all so that maximum profit is squeezed from each human body only to be squandered in the orgies of the owners of capital.69
Guevara claimed that the common denominator of ‘Hunger of the People’ made almost all of Latin America ripe for revolution. Only the ‘[s]ubjective conditions were missing in America – the most important being the consciousnes of the possibility of victory through violent struggle against the imperialist powers and their internal allies’.70 According to Guevara, objective conditions were present everywhere, but only in Cuba through the exceptional leadership of Castro were the subjective conditions developed to carry out the revolution. Repeatedly, Guevara emphasised the primacy of subjective conditions and the necessity for the political struggle to be subordinate to the armed struggle. Also, he touched upon his theme once again of discovering ‘through revolutionary praxis the correct methods of achieving socialism’.
Although addressed to Latin American communist parties, Guevara’s article solicited a response from PSP leader Anlbal Escalante in Verde Olivo, the official organ of the Cuban Armed Forces. The article, entitled ‘The True Breeding Ground of Communism’, challenged Guevara’s notion of the discovery of the truths of Marxism through revolutionary struggle. More importantly, Escalante attacked Guevara’s primacy on 68 Verde Olivo, 9 April I961, pp. 22-9. Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, pp. 57-70. 69 Ibid., p. 6z. 70 Ibid., p. 63.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 6II
subjective conditions in determining the revolutionary victory in Latin America – amazingly citing the Cuban Revolution as a counter example.71 Escalante claimed that the ‘exceptional’ nature of the Cuban Revolution was not subjective, as Guevara had suggested; rather, Cuba’s objective level of capitalist development was one of the highest in Latin America. Escalante’s open challenge to the validity of the foco theory presaged the division between the ‘old Communists’ and the veterans of the sierra,
which would later become fully manifest in the ‘Escalante Affair’. In January 1962, the Organisation of American States (OAS) adopted
several resolutions which directly criticised Cuba, such as: ‘The principles of Communism are incompatible with the principles of the Inter-american system’, and the ‘present government of Cuba, which has officially identified itself as a Marxist-Leninist government, is incompatible with the Inter-american system’.72 Castro wasted no time in responding to hemispheric isolation when in February 1962 he released his famous Second Declaration of Havana claiming the ‘duty of every revolutionary is to make the revolution’. Any support previously given secretly by Castro to insurgent groups was now done openly and defiantly. From 1962 until Guevara’s death in October 1967, Cuba actively pursued a policy of ‘exporting the revolution’ through hosting numerous con- ferences, supporting hemispheric and international organisations, and providing arms and funds to insurgents.73
While the Second Declaration of Havana represented the strongest statement to date on the role of the subjective conditions, Edward Gonzalez noted a passage which tends to contradict the ‘sierraisation’ of the foco:
[T]he peasantry is a class which, because of the uncultivated state in which it lives, needs the revolutionary and political leadership of the working class and revolutionary intellectuals for without them it would not by itself be able to plunge into the struggle and achieve victory. [emphasis added by Gonzalez]74
Gonzalez then went on to explain in a footnote that ‘the reference to the leadership of the working class appears to have been a concession to communist orthodoxy: The Second Declaration of Havana came on the
71 See Draper, Castroism: Theory and Practice, pp. 84-99 for Escalante’s challenge to the Guevara line.
72 OAS actions followed Castro’s 2 December 1961 claim that he was a Marxist-Leninist. Dominguez, To Make A World Dafe for Revolution, p. 27.
73 Guevara repeated and confirmed most of the ideas of the Second Declaration of Havana in a speech given in May 1962. He recommended that Cuba seek allies among their ‘ respective peoples’, calling for Cuba to encourage and support armed struggle as part of’ Cuba’s own strategy of defense’. Ernesto Che Guevara, Obras Completas, 79y7-7967, vol. II, ‘La influencia de la Revoluci6n Cubana en la Am6rica Latina’ (Havana, 1970), pp. 469-92. 74 Quoted in Gonzilez, Cuba Under Castro, p. 93.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
62 Matt D. Childs
heels of Castro’s public conversion to Marxism-Leninism in his speech of 2 December I96I’.75 The ‘concession’, however, was highly restricted because the following month Castro moved against the leading proponents of communist orthodoxy, Anibal Escalante and other PSP members who held important positions in the Integrated Revolutionary Organisation (ORI). In the end, as Gonzalez remarks, the statement should be regarded as a ‘concession’ which does not represent a significant reorientation of the foco theory.
Another interesting aspect of the Second Declaration of Havana is its childlike portrayal of the peasantry. The earlier statement of Guevara in Guerrilla Warfare of ‘a genuine interaction’ whereby ‘leaders teach the people’ and ‘people teach the leaders’ is replaced by the stronger vanguard position that the peasantry need appropriate ‘revolutionary’ and ‘political leadership’ owing to their ‘uncultivated state’. Overall, the Second Declaration of Havana follows the general trend of increasing emphasis on subjective conditions and the role of the foco in developing them.
In March 1962, in the ‘Escalante Affair’, Cuba experienced its most decisive government shake up since the tense months of June-November 1959 which witnessed Manual Urrutia’s forced resignation and rebel leader Hubert Matos’s imprisonment.76 After Fidel declared the socialist nature of the Cuban Revolution, only days before the Bay of Pigs invasion, a proto-communist party was created combining the July 26 Movement, the Revolutionary Student Directorate, and the PSP into one apparatus, appropriately called the ORI. Perez-Stable logically remarks that the PSP was given significant authority within the ORI since they had the personnel, experience in organising parties, and ‘knew about socialism, vanguard parties, and the Soviet Union, [while the] July 26 Movement and Revolutionary Student Directorate did not’.77 Surprisingly, Anibal Escalante who characterised the Cuba Revolution as ‘bourgeois- democratic’ and advocated the inclusion of the ‘national bourgeoisie’ because the ‘socialist transformation was not foreseen in the immediate
future’, headed the task of creating the ORI.78 The ORI was formed in July 1961, but its national directorate was not announced until 9 March 1962. Escalante gave preference to the ‘old communists’ who received ten seats on the 25-member National Directorate. The PSP within the ORI
clearly threatened Castro’s authority. Two weeks after the selection of the
75 Ibid., p. 93, fn. 24. 76 The discussion of the March I962 ‘Escalante Affair’ is taken from the following:
Dominguez, Cuba: Order and Revolution, pp. 210o-4; Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro, pp. 100-4; Perez-Stable, Cuban Revolution, pp. 98-101; and Suarez, Castroism and Communism, pp. I46-53. 77 Perez-Stable, Cuban Revolution, p. 1oI.
78 Gonzalez, Cuba Under Castro, pp. Ioo-i.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 61 3
ORI National Directorate, Castro attacked Escalante on national
television, removing him from power.79 While the division between the ‘old communists’ and the fidelistas could
be found in various issues of the ‘Escalante Affair’, apparently an important one was the foco theory. After the July 26 Movement gained clear control of the ORI, membership in the party required ‘acceptance of the two Declarations of Havana as the party’s program’.80 The very fact that this was required reflects the strong division the foco theory created within Cuban politics and the need to demand its adherence.
‘Sierraisation’ of the foco, in summary, defines the process whereby the sierra members of the armed struggle played an increasingly elevated role in thefoco theory. This phenomenon resembled a similar tempo in national politics, and at times, was even a part of it. Guevara’s unfavourable perception of the bourgeoisie in the armed struggle deprived the llano of an important role in the overall struggle. In addition, Che’s notion of the natural discovery of Marxism through armed struggle reinforced and justified his contention that military action precedes political action; the former crystallised the latter. In the following two sections it becomes increasingly difficult to draw similarities between changes in the foco theory and national politics. The primary explanation for this difficulty is that Cuban politics is notably less dynamic and volatile as a result of the fidelistas’ consolidation of power.
‘Marxianisation’ of the Foco, 1962-;
Following the ‘Escalante Affair’, Guevara gave a speech to the Department of State Security which identified an additional set of conditions to initiate the armed struggle.81 Guevara cited factors which show a pronounced Leninist shade such as the extent of imperialist penetration, the geographical distance from the Yankee metropolis, and the influence of Cuban revolutionary ideas. Hodges claims that ‘Che identified an entirely new set of factors for the viability of armed struggle’.82 Personally, I feel Hodges’s statement is too strong; nonetheless, there is an apparent shift in Guevara’s writings on guerrilla
79 Castro accused Escalante of not organising a party, but a ‘straight jacket’, a ‘yoke’, a ‘counterrevolutionary monstrosity’, for promoting ‘sectarianism’, and for attempting to make the ORI ‘a machine for personal aims’. Suarez, Castroism and Communism, p. I52. Guevara echoed Castro’s denunciation of Escalante in a speech the following month: ‘There had appeared throughout the country, as a baneful vice that it was necessary for us to eliminate completely, aloofness from the masses, dogmatism, sectarianism. Because of them, we were threatened by bureaucratism.’ Quoted in Lowy, Marxism of Che Guevara, p. 8, fn. 9.
80 Dominguez, Cuba: Order and Revolution, p. 21 I. 81 Guevara, ‘La Influencia de la Revoluci6n Cubana en la America Latina’, pp. 469-92. 82 Hodges, Legacy of Che Guevara, p. 23.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
614 Matt D. Childs
warfare in which it becomes increasingly cloaked in the Marxian lexicon. I will refer to this shift as ‘Marxianisation’ of the foco, I962-5. The ‘sierraisation’ of the foco still operated during this period and remained a strong and noticeable theme of the writings, but the tone of the works reflected a clear Marxian influence. My purpose is not to make an assessment of Guevara’s Marxism or Marxian revolutionary theory, but simply to distinguish Che’s later writings from his earlier ones by the increasing presence of Marx. The ‘Marxianisation’ of the foco coincided with two events which influenced this trend: first, the ‘Great Debate’; and second, the arrival of Regis Debray.
An article written by Guevara in October I962, during the Cuban missile crisis, reflects both the ‘Marxianisation’ and the ‘international- isation’ of thefoco.83 Any previous notion of cooperation with the national bourgeoisie in the revolutionary struggle was dropped:
The frightened bourgeoisie is faced with a terrible choice: submission to foreign capital or destruction by domestic popular forces. This dilemma has been accentuated by the Cuban revolution; through the polarization created by its example, the only alternative left is to sell out. When this takes place, when the pact is sanctioned, the domestic revolutionary forces ally themselves with the most powerful international reactionary forces, and the peaceful development of social revolution is prevented.84
Guevara claimed the very example of the Cuban Revolution changed the overall revolutionary strategy for Latin America, preventing an alliance with the national bourgeoisie. As a result, the revolution would now take on a more pronounced class structure. Guevara also declared that the Latin American revolution would be socialist and thereby alienated progressive, yet anti-communist, members of the opposition.
Guevara’s frequent criticisms of the national bourgeoisie and com- munist parties in Latin America, in addition to the restructuring of the Cuban government after the ‘Escalante Affair’, are reflected in Guevara’s prologue to El Partido Marxista-Leninista. The work takes considerable liberty in describing the differences between the sierra and the llano during the revolutionary war.85
There was within the revolutionary movement a series of contradictions which we call the sierra and llano which manifested themselves in diametrically different analyses of the elements considered fundamental to decide armed struggle… the
83 The article entitled ‘Tactics and Strategy of the Latin American Revolution’, according to the Cuban government, was written during the missile crisis of October I962, yet remained unpubished until after Guevara’s death. Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, pp. 77-88. 84 Ibid., p. 79.
85 Ernesto Che Guevara, ‘Prol6go’, El Partido Marxista-Leninista (Havana, 1963). Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘The Role of a Marxist-Leninist Party’, pp. I02-I I.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 61 5
sierra was ready to engage the army as often as necessary… llano favored generalized armed struggle culminating in a revolutionary general strike that would expel the Batista dictatorship and establish a government of ‘civilians’ converting the new army into an apolitical institution…. These differences were deeper than tactical discrepancies: the Rebel Army was already ideologically proletarian and thought as a dispossessed class; the urban leadership remained petty bourgeois with future traitors among its leaders.86
Clearly this was an exaggeration of the Cuban experience. The sierra/llano dichotomy, while existing during the revolutionary war, was not as decisive or as class based as Guevara implied. Indeed, to claim the ‘Rebel Army was already ideologically proletarian’ is a severe distortion of the Cuban reality. Biographical research on membership of both the July 26 Movement and the PSP detailing occupation and class standing, as well as parents, clearly demonstrates fidelista leadership to be overwhelmingly bourgeois, with the PSP more representative of the proletarian class.87
An implicit assumption of the ‘prologue’ to El Partido Marxista- Leninista, pointed out by Bonachea and Valdes, is that the countryside has a ‘proletarianising’ effect, whereas the city encourages the process of ’embourgeoisement’.88 Unfortunately, no dissenting opinion within Cuba contested this analysis, as occurred earlier concerning Guevara’s natural discovery of Marxism through revolutionary action. Apparently, the ‘Escalante Affair’ served to silence anyone who dissented.89 The national bourgeoisie were portrayed once again in a pejorative manner because ‘faced with the dilemma of choosing between the people and imperialism, the weak national bourgeoisie have chosen imperialism’.90
Beginning in 1962 and continuing until I965, a ‘Great Debate’ took place in Cuba over economic policy. In brief, the debate centred around how to construct socialism. Guevara and others advocated pursuing a policy of moral incentives to construct the ‘new man’ and develop the communist conciencia. Carlos Rafael Rodriguez and other members of the PSP advocated material incentives. The debate stretched over three years 86 Ibid., pp. o06-7. 87 David Crain, ‘The Course of the Cuban Heresy: The Rise and Decline of Castroism’s
Challenge to the Soviet Line in the Latin American Marxist Revolutionary Movement, I963-1970′, unpubl. PhD diss., Indiana University, 197I, p. 296; and Wickham- Crowley, ‘Sociological Analysis of Latin American Guerrilla Movements’, pp. 21-3. Universo Sanchez and Crescencio Perez are the notable members of the July 26 Movement who could be considered proletarian.
88 Bonachea and Valdes, ‘Introduction’, Che, p. 16. The editors refer to Guevara’s unorthodox Marxian formulation as ‘guerrilla communism’.
89 The lessons of the ‘Escalante Affair’ were reinforced in March 1964 when former PSP member Marcos Rodriguez was arrested and sentenced to death for having revealed to Batista’s police force the whereabouts of the surviving students from the Revolutionary Directorate who launched the attack on the Presidential Palace on 13 March I957. Gonzalez, Cuba under Castro, p. 103.
90 Guevara, ‘Role of Marxist-Leninist Party’, p. o05.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 6 Matt D. Childs
and reflected a case of limited pluralism. However, with Guevara making statements that the struggle in the llano resulted in the ’embourgeoisement’ of the revolution and describing the national bourgeoisie as ‘weak’, the position of moral incentives was strengthened. In the end, moral incentives triumphed in the ‘Great Debate’, with Castro advocating Guevara’s position in I966.91
In September 1963, Guevara wrote, ‘Guerrilla Warfare: A Method’, which can be considered a preface to the second edition of Guerrilla Warfare since it repeated and confirmed the three lessons of the earlier work.92 He made, however, two important changes. First, Che dropped the democratic corollary, previously discussed, which served to check the development of guerrilla insurgencies. He now argued: ‘We should not allow “democracy” to be utilised apologetically to represent the dictatorship of the exploiting classes.’93 Previously, in Guerrilla Warfare, Guevara claimed that democracy ‘fraudulent or not’ caused ‘the guerrilla outbreak’ to ‘not be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not been exhausted’.94 Once Cuban politics became Marxist, it was only natural for Guevara to dismiss democracy as an obviation for armed struggle. For if Che continued to regard democracy as the effective preventive measure to counter guerrilla warfare, he would be indirectly claiming the impossibility of revolutionary conditions in democratic political systems, and further, dismissing the role of objective capitalist exploitation and subjective commitment to revolutionary action which are paramount in all Marxist revolutionary theorists.
The second point, primary emphasis of the article, and a nuance in his writings, is the desired polarisation of society into well defined classes from which a socialist revolution would be waged:
The equilibrium between oligarchic dictatorship and the popular pressure must be changed. The dictatorship tries to function without resorting to force. Thus, we must try to oblige the dictatorship to resort to violence, thereby unmasking its true nature as the dictatorship of the reactionary social classes. This event will deepen the struggle to such an extent that there will be no retreat from it. The performance of the people’s forces depends on the task of forcing the dictatorship to a decision – to retreat or unleash the struggle.95
Once class antagonisms were fully developed, the guerrilla war would ensue and after victory society would already be ready for the construction
of socialism. The language, flavour, and frequent citations of Lenin, Marx and Engels all represent a distinct tone not present in Guerrilla Warfare. 91 For an examination of the ‘Great Debate’ and the various individuals involved see
Bertram Silverman (ed.), Man and Socialism in Cuba: The Great Debate (New York, I97I). 92 Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdis, Che, ‘Guerrilla Warfare: A Method’, pp. 89-103. 93 Ibid., p. 93. 94 Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, p. 48. 95 Guevara, ‘Guerrilla Warfare: A Method’, p. 95.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 617
The switch is a clear reflection of national and international politics. In 1960, when Guerrilla Warfare was published, the socialist nature of the Cuban Revolution had yet to be declared. By 1963, on the other hand, the Soviet Union had admitted Cuba to the socialist camp. Just as politics went through a process of ‘Marxianisation’, so did thefoco theory.96 Also, the foco theory was still criticised and not accepted by orthodox Communists. Guevara’s repeated citation of Lenin and Marx strengthened his defence against accusations of heresy.
An additional point which emerged during the period 1962-5, marking a clear break from Guerrilla Warfare, was the change from pragmatism, where Guevara emphasised that ‘new experiences can vary and improve these concepts [and] we offer an outline not a bible’, to strict adherence to the foco theory.97 Guevara’s increasing theoretical rigidity is clearly spelled out in the prologue he wrote to Vo Nguyen Giap’s, People’s War, People’s Army.98 Che completely neglects the absolute primacy Giap gave to the political struggle and selectively interprets the work to enable himself to draw remarkable similarities to his own writings. Guevara even went as far to claim that in Vietnam the liberation struggle began with a mobile guerrilla foco.99 Ramm bluntly criticises Che’s selective in- terpretation of Giap’s’ writing: ‘Here we have a perfect example of how Guevara deals with his fundamental differences with the Marxist-Leninist
tradition- he pretends they do not exist…. In short, Guevara’s propositions… are based on a highly dubious reading of Giap.’100
Added to this increasingly Marxist environment was the arrival of Regis Debray, a young French intellectual recently graduated from the Ecole Normale where he studied under the renowned Marxist scholar
Louis Althusser.101 Debray travelled to Cuba in 1959, and then returned in 1961 to fulfill the role of revolutionary ambassador: ‘At their [Cuban authorities’] invitation Debray became the only man to have personally witnessed the travail of the revolutionary movement in every major Latin American republic in a series of visits from 196 to I967.’1?2 Between I963 and 1964, Debray travelled to every country of South America except Paraguay, where he had intimate contact with numerous guerrilla
96 In a CBS interview in December I964 Guevara stated: ‘In America, the road to the liberation of the peoples, which will be the road to socialism, will be opened by armed struggle in nearly all countries.’ Quoted in Lowy, Marxism of Che Guevara, p. 86.
97 Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, p. 132. 98 Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘People’s War, People’s Army’, pp. I49-54. 99 According to Ramm, in ‘Vietnam the guerrillas were local tactical forces, not mobile
and strategic. Giap contrasted guerrilla warfare with mobile warfare; the later follows the former.’ Marxism of Regis Debray, p. 208, fn. 37. 100 Ibid., pp. 83-4.
101 Ibid., p. i. 102 Robin Blackburn, ‘Introduction’ to Regis Debray, Strategy for Revolution (New York,
1971), p. 7.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 8 Matt D. Childs
movements. Debray’s well-developed Leninist background served to complement and theorise Guevara’s anarchistic Marxism.103
After Debray’s guerrilla tour of 1963 and 1964, he wrote two essays which retold his experiences.104 Debray took Guevara’s notion of a vanguard foco, in place of the vanguard party, one step further.
The presence of a vanguard party is not… an indispensable pre-condition for the launching of an armed struggle… it is possible to do without a vanguard Marxist-Leninist party of the working class…. An anti-imperialist national liberation struggle in a colonial or semi-colonial territory cannot be conducted under the banner of Marxism-Leninism or the leadership of the working class for obvious reasons: defacto ‘aristocratization’ of the relatively small working class, the nationalist character of the anti-imperialist struggle. As for the party, that will be formed and its cadres will be selected through the natural process of the liberation struggle, as happened in Cuba.’05
Debray’s wholesale dismissal of the working class ‘[flrom the standpoint of traditional Marxism-Leninism, is a major, if not the greatest, heresy ‘.06 The main point Debray makes is that a vanguard party is unnecessary because the role of such a party is undermined by the guerrilla army which must be primary in the Latin American revolution.
Of all the countries Debray visited, he was most thoroughly informed on the events in Venezuela. In I963, the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) adopted the armed struggle and received praise from Castro for doing so. Nonetheless, throughout i964 a division emerged between the PCV and its armed wing, the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) over strategy. Douglas Bravo, the leader of the FALN, cited the writings of Havana to justify his claims for the necessity of the sierra to be independent of llano directives in pursuing the armed struggle. The PCV, however, desired to keep the FALN subordinate to their directions. The rift between the Venezuelan left over strategy served to weaken and divide it. Debray decided that a vanguard party would not be necessary during the initial stage of the struggle because it would, in fact, present more problems than advances. Thus, what Debray calls ‘Castroism’ (which is Guevara’s foco theory) is Leninism adapted to Latin American conditions. Debray’s ‘Castroism’ and Guevara’sfoco theory has the sierra
103 Ramm, perhaps, states this point too strongly: ‘Guevara’s acquaintance with Leninist thought was scanty, … the burden of the theoretical struggle passed to the brilliant, young, French intellectual, Regis Debray.’ Marxism of Regis Debray, p. viii. Ramm’s overall thesis is that Debray ‘Leninized Guevara’.
104 The first was a lengthy essay published in January I965, ‘Castroism: The Long March in Latin America’, and the second was published in March of the same year ‘Problems of Revolutionary Strategy in Latin America’. Both essays are reprinted in Regis Debray, Strategy for Revolution.
105 Debray, ‘Castroism: The Long March in Latin America’, p. 53. 106 Ramm, Marxism of Regis Debray, p. 29.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 619
serve as the surrogate for the Leninist vanguard party in the struggle, but they do not adequately address the necessity for politicising the masses in conjunction with the armed struggle; they regard the process as one and the same.
In 1966 Debray combined his earlier essays into a book, Revolution in the Revolution?, published in Havana in January I967.107 Debray takes the vanguard foco to the next logical step by eliminating the party altogether and infusing it into the foco:
under certain conditions, the political and military are not separate, but form one organic whole, consisting of the people’s army, whose nucleus is the guerrilla army. The vanguard party can exist in the form of the guerrilla foco itself. The guerrilla force is the party in embryo. [emphasis in original]108
He then goes on to comment on the numerous logistical problems an urban support network presents, such as unity of command and sectarianism. Further, Debray claims any ties to the city serve to weaken the armed struggle because the city is where the dictatorship is strongest and the insurgency most vulnerable. Debray quotes Castro: ‘The city is the cemetery of the Revolutionaries and resources’ and then goes on to add himself, ‘the police and their North American advisers wait on their home ground until the guerrilla leaders come to the city’.109 For Debray, the ‘weakest link’ of the foco lies in the llano, and conversely, the ‘weakest link’ of the dictatorship is found in the sierra. As a result, all political and military activity should be concentrated in the mountains. The most effective method to counter the inherent weaknesses of the llano is to
divorce it altogether from the armed struggle, postponing the formation of a party until later: ‘ The people’s army will be the nucleus of the party, not vice
versa. The guerrilla forces is the political vanguard in nuce and from its development a real party can arise’ [emphasis in original].1l0 Debray’s representation of thefoco is the most extreme example of the ‘sierraisation’
107 Regis Debray, Revolution in the Revolution ?: Armed Struggle and Political Struggle in Latin America (New York, 1967). Following Che’s death many blamed Debray for severely distorting the foco theory. These claims are unfounded for several reasons: first, ‘Debray had a number of long conversations with Castro and members of Castro’s inner circle who made available to him numerous unpublished documents, including military correspondence’; second, according to Roberto Fernandez Retamar, editor of Casa de la Americas, ‘no one else had access to such a wealth of materials for historical research’; and third, the very fact that it was published by Casa de las Americas and the first printing entailed more than 200,000 copies for a mass audience indicates Debray’s work had the backing of the Cuban government. Ramm, Marxism of Regis Debray, p. 6 ; and the introduction by Huberman and Sweezy to Revolution in the Revolution, p. 7. 108 Debray, Revolution in the Revolution?, p. io6.
109 Ibid., p. 69. 110 Ibid., p. I16.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
620 Matt D. Childs
of the foco where the llano plays no role at all. The theoretical conclusions of Debray are so far removed from the Cuban Revolution that they no longer fundamentally resemble the Cuban experience.
‘Internationalisation’ of the Foco, i96/-7
The last categorisation of the foco, clearly evident before I965, is its ‘internationalisation’. The years I965-7 distinguish the ‘international- isation’ of the foco from previous years as the foco theory becomes institutionalised in several Cuban foreign policy organisations of international revolutionary support. Also, it coincides with Guevara’s personal efforts at internationalising the foco with his trips to the former Belgian Congo, and his death in Bolivia. No fundamental changes occur in the foco theory, it simply takes on a worldwide audience as Guevara attempted to turn the Andean Cordillera into the Sierra Maestra of Cuba.
In February I965, Guevara spoke at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian solidarity in Algiers, where his ideas took on a truly international perspective.ll ‘There are no frontiers in this struggle to the death. We cannot remain indifferent in the face of what occurs in any part
of the world.’12 Geographical borders no longer represent any barriers in the armed struggle nor should individuals be limited solely to the struggle in their own country.
The theme of the speech was not confined to international revolutionary solidarity, but also represented Third World nationalism. Cuba criticised the Soviet Union for inadequately supporting Vietnam and pursuing economic policies in underdeveloped countries that did not represent authentic communist ethics.ll3 Guevara called for the advanced socialist
nations to invest their capital in underdeveloped countries committed to building socialism: ‘The development of the underdeveloped countries must be underwritten by the socialist countries.’ll4 Che echoed his earlier speech delivered in 1964 to the United Nations General Assembly where he criticised the Soviet Union for pursuing imperialistic policies and detente.15 Basically, he called on the Soviet Union as the vanguard of the socialist world to fulfil its role as leader. Without the appropriate assistance of the Soviet Union in the Third World, Cuba would fill the
leadership void by becoming the representative of Third World interests and revolution. Guevara hinted at the need for forming an organisation,
The speech is reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Revolution and Under- development’, pp. 350-9. 112 Ibid., p. 350.
113 See Guevara’s speech given in 1963 on ‘Solidarity with Vietnam’ for earlier remarks on the same topic. Reprinted in Gerassi, Venceremos!, pp. 286-91.
114 Guevara, ‘Revolution and Underdevelopment’, p. 353. 5 See his UN speech reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Colonialism is Doomed’,
PP. 334-49.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 621
similar to Afro-Asian solidarity, which would include the countries of all three underdeveloped areas: Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
In January 1966, Guevara’s proposal was adopted at the Tricontinental Conference in Havana where the Organisation for Solidarity with the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (OSPAAL) was founded.116 The I2-member secretariat of OSPAAL included representatives from Syria, Guinea, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan, the Congo and other countries and colonies. The Latin American delegates to the conference, in addition, founded the Organisation for Latin American Solidarity (OLAS) to deal specifically with issues pertaining to the western hemisphere. OLAS, however, had a short life. Its only conference was held in August 1967, and after Guevara’s death it became absorbed by OSPAAL.117
From I965 to Guevara’s death, no fundamental change occurred in the foco theory since, in fact, there was little written by him or even about him other than speculations concerning his whereabouts. In June I965, Guevara left his post as Minister of Industries and disappeared. On 3 October i 965 Castro read Che’s farewell letter which declared: ‘Anywhere I am, I will feel the responsibility of being a Cuban revolutionary and as such I will act.’118 What happened between his departure from Cuba and the first entry on 7 November 966 of his Bolivian Diary remains a mystery. Most biographers of Guevara comment on his trip to the former Belgian Congo and his participation in guerrilla activities, but the details are scarce.119
The only document on guerrilla warfare authored by Guevara after his disappearance in I965 was his ‘Message to the Tricontinental’ read in his absence at the OLAS meeting in August of I967.120 The ‘message’ is clear; Che advocated creating numerous focos to divide the imperialist forces of the United States through a protracted struggle as occurred in Vietnam:
The Cuban Revolution has before it a task of much greater relevance: to create a second or a third Vietnam…. What a luminous, near future would be visible to us if two, three or many Vietnams appeared throughout the world with their
116 Dominguez, To Make A World Safe for Revolution, p. 270. 117 Che ‘was the absent inspiration of the conference. He was elected the honorary
president of the organization. OLAS in fact was so closely identified with him, that it was difficult for it to survive his death.’ Gott, Guerrilla Movements in Latin America, P. 35.
118 Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Letter to Fidel Castro’, p. 423. 19 Future detailed investigations of Guevara’s trip to the Congo could more concretely
illuminate why Che left Cuba, his return to Latin America and selection of Bolivia, his mistrust of allies he did not know well in advance, and the strategy he employed in Bolivia.
120 Reprinted in Bonachea and Valdes, Che, ‘Message to the Tricontinental’, pp. 170-82.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
622 Matt D. Childs
share of death and immense tragedies, their every day heroism and repeated blows against imperialism, obliging it to disperse its forces under the attack and increasing hatred of all peoples of the earth.121
Guevara called for the formation of manyfocos because neither the Soviet Union nor China adequately assisted Vietnam which was left ‘tragically alone… by the representatives of the two greatest powers of the socialist camp’. 22 According to Guevara, support included more than s simple ‘wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or victory’.123 Guevara’s personal attempt to create another Vietnam resulted in the former.
With the internationalisation of thefoco, the motives for armed struggle become increasingly less indigenous and directed against the entire imperialistic system led by the United States. By minimising national causes for revolution, and emphasising the universality of revolutionary conditions, armed struggle becomes increasingly favourable in every country integrated into the world capitalist system. Che selected Bolivia more for its geographical suitability in launching ‘two, three, or many Vietnams’, and less for indigenous reasons which are essential for a guerrilla movement to survive. Che’s Bolivian Diary is a sad testament to this fact.
Conclusion
Guevara’s death was a devastating blow to Cuba’s foreign policy and brought about its rapid reorientation. In less than two years, Cuba reestablished state to state relations with Venezuela and Peru, whose
guerrilla groups had received open support from Havana prior to Guevara’s death.124 In I970, Salvador Allende of Popular Unity was elected president of Chile and embarked on the socialist path by the ballot, not the bullet. The death of Guevara, and the apparent feasibility of the peaceful road to socialism, resulted in an almost wholesale abandonment of the foco theory for the pursuit of other tactics and strategies.
The theoretical distance travelled by the foco theory from the Cuban Revolution to Guevara’s death in Bolivia reflects a considerable distortion
of the Cuban experience. In 1960, when Guerrilla Warfare was published, the important role of the llano was not accounted for. From 1960 to 1962, the sierra’s importance in the revolution took on an elevated, ahistorical proportion. From 1963 to I965, as thefoco theory became ‘Marxianised’,
121 Ibid., p. 182. 122 Ibid., pp. I72-3. 123 Ibid. 124 According to Dominguez’s Bargaining Rule: ‘Support for revolution could be used
for bargaining. Cuba would suspend its ongoing support for revolutionary movements … in return for a suspension of hostilities against Cuba and other benefits.’ Dominguez, To Make a World Safe for Revolution, p. I20. Once Cuba gave up ‘exporting revolution’ they rapidly became integrated into hemispheric politics.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ernesto Che Guevara’s foco theory 623
it excluded reformist bourgeois members of the population. By declaring the socialist nature of the armed struggle, it also attracted the close attention of both the highly anti-communist national armies and the United States. The ‘internationalisation’ of the foco resulted in in- ternational reasons for revolution superseding indigenous causes. The entire period from 1960 to 1967 witnessed a fundamental shift away from the Cuban experience, and, as a result, the Cuban experience became unrepeatable.
After Debray’s release from prison and a trip to Allende’s Chile, he began a major revision of his writings on guerrilla warfare. In an essay entitled ‘Time and Politics’, Debray disavowed Guevara’s second lesson of the Cuban Revolution that the conditions for a revolutionary situation can be created by thefoco. ‘It is impossible to provoke or improvise crisis situations artificially; every country, every locality, has its own special historical time, its own pace, its speed of development.’125 Also, Debray emphasised the need for a ‘thorough nation-by-nation class analysis’ to take account of the ‘historical, social, and economic’ peculiarities of each country to determine the appropriate strategy. Debray commended the Chilean Revolution and advocated pursuing socialism through the political struggle if possible.126 Debray’s writing after 1967 accurately point out that the Cuban Revolution had been misinterpreted in the literature on guerrilla warfare, which, in part, accounts for the failure of every armed group that adopted the foco theory.
Nicaragua appears to be the only country where the foco theory was proved valid. FSLN strategy, however, underwent several fundamental changes which brought the Nicaraguan strategy closer to the actual Cuban Revolution – in contrast to the foco theory. In I963, an FSLN foco was found operating on the Honduran border ready to invade Nicaragua, and, thus, begin the revolution. But thefoco did not have popular support and was quickly defeated. In 1967, anotherfoco had formed around Matagalpa, but it too was rapidly defeated. The defeat of the secondfoco and the death of Che Guevara in the same year began a process whereby the FSLN changed its strategy. Over the next 12 years the FSLN adopted a protracted war strategy, created a strong llano wing of the FSLN to politicise the masses, and even formed an alliance with the national bourgeoisie. This broad base of support, as in the Cuban Revolution, integrated the armed struggle of the countryside into the political struggle of the cities. Loveman and Davies succinctly summarise the changes made by the FSLN to Guevara’s foco theory:
If the Sandinistas inherited Che Guevara’s most important legacy – the inspiration
125 Regis Debray, Prison Writings, ‘Time and Politics’ (New York, 1973), p. 130. 126 Regis Debray, The Chilean Revolution: Conversations with Allende (New York, I97I).
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
624 Matt D. Childs
to challenge the dictatorship through armed struggle – they were also forced to modify profoundly the tactical, strategic, and political implications offoquisimo in order to prevail.
First, only armed struggle proved sufficient to overthrow Somoza, … but only protracted warfare combined with years of political organization and mobilization brought thefoco’s aspirations to fruition. Second, this mobilization required the incorporation of significant numbers of entrepreneurs, clerics, workers, and traditional political elites to oust the dictator. Third, even this political-military alliance would likely have failed without extensive assistance from foreign nations…. Finally, as in Cuba, the withdrawal of U.S. support from the Nicaraguan dictatorship allowed domestic civil opposition to coalesce around the less numerous FSLN cadres and defeat Somoza.127
Thus, moving beyond a foquista analysis, the Nicaraguan Revolution demonstrates remarkable similarities with the actual Cuban Revolution. It
was not until the FSLN challenged the foco theory that they had any success in the revolutionary struggle. When they finally developed a strategy resembling the actual Cuban Revolution, Somoza seemed to fall as rapidly and mysteriously as Batista. In the end, then, the triumph of the Nicaraguan Revolution through its changes in the foco theory points out the fundamental error’s of Guevara’s strategy.
In summary, a close examination of the emergence and evolution of the foco theory juxtaposed to Cuban politics demonstrates it was not formulated in a theoretical vacuum. Rather, there existed an apparent discourse between Cuban politics and the evolution of the foco theory. Changes made to the theory served to strengthen the veterans of the sierra vis-a-vis the llano, i.e. ‘old Communists’, during the first years of the revolutionary government. Since thefoco theory gave considerable weight to subjective conditions and the sierra in the armed struggle, it served to legitimise the fidelista centrality in the Cuban political apparatus. The broad changes made to the foco theory, which I have categorised as ‘sierraisation 960-2’, ‘Marxianisation 962-5 ‘, and ‘internationalisation I965-7’, reflect the main thrust of Cuban politics and its leaders during these years. Indeed, the above labels could easily be applied to the economic, social and political policies of the i96os as well. After all, policy, theory and the like are constructed at a specific time for a specific reason – illuminating current political realities and the partiality of the authors. Examining the emergence of ideas, programmes and actions in a discourse manner, unearths a wealth of historical information buried just below the surface.
127 Loveman and Davies, ‘Nicaragua’, pp. 383-4.
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.40 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:47:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Contents
image 1
image 2
image 3
image 4
image 5
image 6
image 7
image 8
image 9
image 10
image 11
image 12
image 13
image 14
image 15
image 16
image 17
image 18
image 19
image 20
image 21
image 22
image 23
image 24
image 25
image 26
image 27
image 28
image 29
image 30
image 31
image 32
Issue Table of Contents
Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, Oct., 1995
Volume Information
Front Matter
The Lawyers and New Granada’s Late Colonial State [pp.517-549]
Physicians, the State and Public Health in Chile, 1881-1891 [pp.551-567]
Bringing the Countryside Back in: A Case Study of Military Intervention as State Building in the Brazilian Old Republic [pp.569-592]
An Historical Critique of the Emergence and Evolution of Ernesto Che Guevara’s Foco Theory [pp.593-624]
Explaining Bureaucratic Independence in Brazil: The Experience of the National Economic Development Bank [pp.625-661]
Central-Bank ‘Distress’ and Hyperinflation in Argentina, 1989-90 [pp.663-682]
Commentary
Policy-Induced Disincentives to Financial Sector Development: Selected Examples from Latin America in the 1980s [pp.683-706]
Timely Delivery– primewritersbay.com believes in beating the deadlines that our customers have imposed because we understand how important it is.
Customer satisfaction- Customer satisfaction. We have an outstanding customer care team that is always ready and willing to listen to you, collect your instructions and make sure that your custom writing needs are satisfied
Writing services provided by experts- Looking for expert essay writers, thesis and dissertation writers, personal statement writers, or writers to provide any other kind of custom writing service?
Enjoy Please Note-You have come to the most reliable academic writing site that will sort all assignments that that you could be having. We write essays, research papers, term papers, research proposals. Historical Critique of the Emergence and Evolution of Ernesto Che Guevara’s Foco Theory Author