Historical Jesus

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility.

Though the reconstructions vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher^[1] who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.^[2]

The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations. He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, Jesus began his own ministry in Galilee. He preached the Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery and was renowned as a teacher and a healer. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations that the gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his followers out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. At the end of his ministry, he traveled through Samaria to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem. Apparently the Sadducees arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and developed into Christianity.

The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.^[3]

A series of articles on
Jesus Christ and Christianity Chronology • Virgin Birth Ministry • Miracles • Parables Death • Resurrection Second Coming • Christology Names and titles • Relics • Active obedience
Cultural and historical background Language spoken • Race Genealogy
Perspectives on Jesus Biblical Jesus • Religious Christian • Jewish • Islamic Ahmadi • Scientology Historicity • In myth Research: historical
Jesus in culture Depiction • Sexuality

Scholarly methods

Scholars of the historical Jesus analyze the four canonical Gospels and other early documents, sorting elements that seem more historical from those that seem more likely to have been invented. Historians have developed a number of methods to critically analyze historical sources:

• Criterion of dissimilarity

More narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment, statements contrary or dissimilar to the author's agenda are likely to be more reliable. For example, a Christian source would be unlikely to claim that Jesus was from Nazareth (rather than from Bethlehem), unless his family was actually from Nazareth, as this was a cause of embarrassment.

• Criterion of multiple attestation

When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is at least certain that the tradition pre-dates the sources. See the Historicity of Jesus for a list of sources pertaining to this question.

• Contextual and linguistic criteria

A source is more credible when the tradition makes sense in the context of what historians know about the cultural background. There are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the gospels. For example, if a dialogue works only in Greek (the language of its written source), it is quite likely the author is reporting something at least slightly different from the original.

• Author's Agenda

This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When material serves the perceived purposes of the author or redactor, it is suspect.^[4] For example, various sections of the gospels, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, portray Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in the view of many scholars, reflect the agenda of the gospel authors rather than historical events.

However, N.T. Wright, following Ben Meyer, rejects a criteria-based approach to authenticity.

Jesus' Jewish background

See also: Cultural and historical background of Jesus

According to the Gospels and other early sources,^[5] Jesus was active in Galilee and Judea (modern-day Israel, Palestinian territories, and Jordan) during the first half of the first century. Following the fall of earlier Jewish kingdoms, the partially-Hellenized territory was under Roman imperial rule, but there were ongoing hopes of a revival of sovereignty. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but although the land was mostly peaceful, there was a continued risk of rebellion, riots, banditry, and violent resistance (see also Zealotry). Four decades after Jesus’ death, the tensions caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration of the kingdom of David culminated in the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Given the historical context in which the Gospels took their final form and during which Christianity first emerged, historians have struggled to understand Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known about first-century Judaism. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus does not seem to have belonged to any particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in combining elements of many of these different—and for most Jews, opposing—positions. Most critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, while preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea.

Jesus reflects the cultural milieu of his time. Many of his teachings echo the beliefs of the Qumran community (which was probably a branch of the Essenes) and of some of the Pharisees. In Jesus' day, the two main schools of thought among the Pharisees were the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai; the accusations of hypocrisy which Jesus is reported as levelling at Pharisees in general may have been directed against the stricter members of the House of Shammai, although he also agreed with their teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). In general, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is stricter than the teachings of the House of Hillel.^[6]

Finally, Jesus' repeated declarations that the kingdom of God was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views and the political views of the Zealots. Following the failure of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire almost two centuries previously, most Jews of Jesus' time believed that the restoration of the kingdom would be accomplished by God, not by any Jewish movement. However, he did believe that this restoration was imminent. Jesus was enigmatic at best about his claim to actually be the presumptive monarch. That he speaks of twelve disciples is probably symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus a metaphor for "all Israel". The Seventy Disciples, found only in the Gospel of Luke, may be related to the 70 nations of all humanity found in Genesis 11.^[7] According to Geza Vermes and others, the use of the terms "messiah" and "son of God" by Jesus' followers indicate that they believed he would assume the monarchy upon the restoration of the kingdom (see Names and titles of Jesus).

Birth

Most historians consider that Jesus was born around 4 BC or slightly earlier,^[8] and probably in Nazareth.^{[9][10][11][12]} Many modern scholars view the different accounts of Jesus's birth given in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "pious fictions".^[13] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".^[14]

Linguistic proficiency

Jesus spoke Aramaic. The gospels record him using metaphors unknown in Hebrew or Greek but common in Aramaic. Some scholars speculate that because the lingua franca under Roman occupation was Greek, Jesus might have known at least some Koine Greek.^[15]

Literacy

It is unclear whether Jesus was able to read or write. In the view of John Dominic Crossan, as a Galilean peasant he would not have been literate.^[16] James Dunn, on the other hand, observes that given the emphasis of the importance of reading the Torah in Jewish culture of the time, it was possible that a Galilean villager such as Jesus might have learnt to read.^[17]

Socioeconomic status

Jesus is identified in Mark as a tekton, or carpenter, (Mark 6:3) and in Matthew as the son of a carpenter (Matthew 13:55). John Dominic Crossan puts tekton into a historical context more resembling an itinerant Irish "tinker" than a Union-card holding artisan, emphasizing his marginality in a population in which a peasant, seised with land, could become quite prosperous.

Family background and childhood

See also: Names of Jesus and his family and Nativity of Jesus#Paternity

Joseph

Jesus' father might have been named Yosef. Jesus' reputed descent from King David would be consistent with an attempt by the authors of Matthew and Luke to bolster his identity as the Messiah and King of the Jews.

Mary

Jesus' mother was named Mary.^[18] Beyond the accounts in the Gospels and a few other early Christian sources,^[19] there is no independent or verifiable information about any aspect of Mary's life.

Jesus's siblings

Main article: Desposyni

Jesus had brothers and sisters, as reported in Mark.^[18] After Jesus' death, his brother James was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem.^[18] Jesus' relatives seem to have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.^[20]

Ministry of Jesus

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and then led a ministry of healing and preaching in Galilee, proclaiming the Kingdom of God. He and his followers traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple and was executed.

Works and miracles

Early Christian image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.

Jesus, like many holy men throughout history, is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of cures and exorcisms, but some show a dominion over nature.

As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were rationalized (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).

Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the miracles reports about Jesus should be construed. The Christian gospels claim that Jesus wielded supernatural power, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.

Jesus as divine

Historians are divided over Jesus' claims about himself. New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.^[21] Some see him as a humble holy man who made no messianic claims, while others portray him as claiming a divine role in God's imminent apocalypse.

The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.^[22] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").

Some scholars, such as James Tabor, hold that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and took an apocalyptic role. Others, such as those of the Jesus Seminar, discount the apocalyptic message of Jesus and consider him not to have made any such claims for himself.

In the synoptic gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.^[23][24] Identification of Jesus with the divine Logos is of a later date.

Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus God.^[25] Similarly, Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.

The Jesus Seminar, in their Acts of Jesus, claim that Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified in Jerusalem as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

Priestly and kingly messiahs

The Jewish term Messiah ("anointed") traditionally referred both to the King of Israel, epitomized in David, and to the High Priest, beginning with Aaron. The two meanings are made explicit in the Hebrew Bible, where King and High Priest are both anointed, and are also symbolized in the twin pillars of the temple and their bridging arch which unified them.

Though Messianic expectations in general centred on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology. Some have speculated that Jesus and his brother James were seen by some as the kingly, and the priestly Messiahs, respectively. This interpretation has not found support in academia, owing to a lack of supporting evidence.

Jesus and John the Baptist

Main article: John the Baptist

Jesus began his ministry of preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.

Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.^[26] John was a major religious figure,^[27] whose ministry was probably larger than Jesus' own. Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power. In a saying originally recorded in Q,^[28] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.^[29]

John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.^[27] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,^[30] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.^[27] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.^[27] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's ministry, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.^[27]

John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' actions rather than from God's intervention.^[31]

Scholars consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical. Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus. Early Christians wouldn't invent such a detail, as it appears to make Jesus subordinate to John.

John the Baptist's prominence in both the gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus's mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus's death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).

Many scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.^[32] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice. All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and this fact is consistent with Jewish accounts of Roman cruelty in general and Pilate's cruelty in particular. Crucifixion was the penalty for political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority; those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.

Ministry and teachings

Main article: Ministry of Jesus

The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7:24-30). Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns. The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.

Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of Judea, Jerusalem, and began preaching in the wildernesses of the Negev and Jordan, including occasional forays into Samaria. He ended his ministry in Jerusalem (the synoptic Gospels suggest that his ministry lasted around one year and was spent mostly in the Galilee; John suggests that his ministry lasted more than two years and was spent mostly in Judea).

Length of ministry

Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic gospels suggest a ministry of one year.^[33] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers during Jesus' ministry,^[34] so Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.^[35][36] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.^[37]

Parables and paradoxes

Main article: Parables of Jesus

Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies."

Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.^[31]

Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for a years before they were written down and later incorporated into the gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.^[18]

Eschatology

Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.

A great many -- if not a majority -- of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.^[38]

The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:

• In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."

• In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."

• In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

• The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.

According to Geza Vermes, Jesus's announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church." ^[39] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish," as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."^[40]

Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.^[31]

Laconic sage

The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.^[41] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.^[41] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.^[41]

The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.^[42] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.

Table fellowship

Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.^[31] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.^[31] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.^[18] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.^[18]

John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.^[31] The importance of table fellowship to Jesus' ministry is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art^[31] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.^[18]

Commission of disciples

See also: Disciple (Christianity)

Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.^[43]

First-century missionaries of the counter-cultural Cynic movement were urban and individualistic. They carried staves to symbolize their homelessness and knapsacks to indicate self-sufficiency. Jesus' missionaries, on the other hand, were rural and communal. They carried neither a staff nor a purse, emphasizing their dependence on those to whom they preached.^[44]

Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.^[45] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.^[46]

Asceticism

The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and didn't fast.^[47] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.

Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.^[48] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.

Some suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,^[49] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.

John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, so he promoted celibacy like the Essenes.^[50]Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.

Jerusalem

Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria, as reported in Luke and John, or around Samaria, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans.

Entrance to Jerusalem

Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on an ass as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.^[18]

Temple disturbance

Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers

Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.^[18] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.^[18] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, or the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.^[18]

Crucifixion

Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.^[18] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,^[51][52][53] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.^[54] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.^[55] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.^[56]

Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, commonly used for criminals during the time of Jesus. Crucifixion was a miserable, shameful death. Historians credit early Christian accounts of Jesus' crucifixion because Christian scribes would have little reason to invent such a detail.

The assertions made in the Bible that Pilate held a trial for an alleged troublemaker and ended up crucifying Jesus because the local population insisted upon it is considered historically dubious.^[57] Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.^[18] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.^[58]

John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have put Jesus on the radar of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted.

Aside from the fact that the gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood ^[59], and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.^[60] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.^[61]

However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront on the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.

Empty tomb

Scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried, and if so, whether or not the tomb was found empty. After crucifixion, bodies would have normally been exhibited for some time as a warning to the myriad other antagonists in Jerusalem, and eventually left in a shallow mass grave, exposed to wild dogs and other scavengers. Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contend that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.^[62] His position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,^[63] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",^[64] to Koester critique of it as "seriously flawed".^[65] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,^[66] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.^[67] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be for the most part historically probable,^[68] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty;^[69] Michael Grant wrote:

[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.

—^[70]

However, Marcus Borg notes:

the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known

—^[71]

Resurrection appearances

Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.^[18] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.

The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) was added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."^[72] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty to accuse the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:

It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.

—^[73]

Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question.^[74] What is agreed upon is that Jesus' followers at the very least claimed they saw the risen Jesus.

Quest for the historical Jesus

Main article: Quest for the historical Jesus

Traditionally, Western scholars considered the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be authoritative and inspired by God, but starting in the late 1700s scholars began to submit the Gospels to historical scrutiny. From 1744 to 1767, Hermann Samuel Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but did not publish his findings.^[75] Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments.^[76] Levi Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course.^[76] Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented.^[77] Joseph Renan was the first of many to portray Jesus simply as a human person.^[76] Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America.^[76] Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis.^[76] William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark.^[76] Albert Schweitzer showed how histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.^[76] Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from c 1920 to c 1970.^[41] There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s.^[76] Today, historical efforts to construct a biography of Jesus are as strong as ever.^[76]

Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus

Critics variously attack the historical reconstruction of Jesus as either a monumental distortion of Jesus' true identity and ministry or as ascribing historical status to a fictional character.

Christian criticism

In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis had a demon explain: "The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true".^[78] Professor C. Stephen Evans^[79] writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".^[80]

Criticism as myth

Main article: Jesus myth hypothesis

Some writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells, and Robert M. Price^[81] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the gospels to reconstruct his life give the gospels too much credit. This position, popularised by popular works such as the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Bible scholars.^{[82][83][84][85]} In later years, especially with the arrival of the Internet, Bible scholars were put to doubt and accused of intellectual dishonesty by critics.^[86][87][88]

See also

• The Quest for the Historical Jesus
• Cultural and historical background of Jesus
• Historicity of Jesus
• Depiction of Jesus in art
• Jesus Seminar
• New Testament view on Jesus' life
• Religious perspectives on Jesus
• Jesus
• Christ
• Tacitus on Jesus
• Jesus Myth
• Christian-Jewish reconciliation

References

• Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1. 
• Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
• Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1. 
• Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679767466. 
• Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
• Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9. 
• Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
• Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,

v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9

v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6

v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4

• Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
• Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
• Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
• Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected 6 volume series of which 3 have been published under: The New Testament and the People of God (Vol.1); Jesus and the Victory of God (Vol.2); The Resurrection of the Son of God (Vol.3). Fortress Press.
• Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
• Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.

Notes

External links

• The Historical Jesus at the New Testament Gateway
• PBS Frontline: From Jesus to Christ
• Articles about the historical Jesus by William Lane Craig
• Unofficial page of N. T. Wright, including articles about the historical Jesus
• Faculty page of Paula Fredriksen, including articles about the historical Jesus
• Links to external articles on Historical Reliability at Apollos.ws