Historical Jesus

Christ in the House of his Parents by John Everett Millais, 1850. A number of paintings of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood reflected the interest in the 19th century in the historical reality of the life of Jesus

The term Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the first-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.^[1] These reconstructions are based upon historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.^[2]

The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give a historical picture of the life of Jesus. The biblical description of Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Christ of Faith in this context. The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life, supplemented by materials uncovered more recently, such as fragments of the Gospels. Therefore the historical Jesus is constantly evolving as new evidence is being uncovered. Because so much has been lost an accurate historical picture may never be completed.^[3][4]

The purpose of research into the Historical Jesus is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order to create a composite picture of Jesus.^[5][6] Use of the term the Historical Jesus implies that the figure thus reconstructed will differ from that presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ"). It will also sometimes differ from representations of Jesus in other Christian traditions, or in Jewish, Muslim or Hindu beliefs.^[7]

History of Historical Jesus research

The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 18th century.^[8] The foundation for modern research was laid by David Strauss in 1835-6 and Ernest Renan in 1863, in their respective analytical works entitled The Life of Jesus. Over the past 150 years, historians and biblical scholars have made particular progress^[9] in the quest for the Historical Jesus; from Albert Schweitzer’s^[10] work in 1906, to the controversial Jesus Seminar,^[11] much has been learned.

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.^[12] Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments.^[7] D.F.Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course.^[7] Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented.^[13] Joseph Renan was the first to portray Jesus simply as a human person.^[7] Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America.^[7] Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis.^[7] William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark.^[7] Albert Schweitzer showed how histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.^[7] Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from c 1920 to c 1970.^[14] There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s.^[7] Today, historical efforts to construct a biography of Jesus are as strong as ever.^[7]

Summary of reconstructions of the life of Jesus

Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.^[15][16] Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three year prior to his death. He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer who raised the dead. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations that the gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.^[17] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.^[18] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.^[15] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.^[15] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.^[19] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).

A series of articles on
Jesus Christ and Christianity Chronology · Virgin birth Ministry · Miracles · Parables Death · Burial · Resurrection Ascension · Heavenly Session Second Coming Christology · Names and titles Relics · Active obedience
Cultural-historical background Language spoken · Race Genealogy
Perspectives on Jesus Biblical Christian · Lutheran Jewish · Islamic Ahmadi · Scientology
Jesus and history Historicity · In myth Historical Jesus
Jesus in culture Depiction · Music

Scholarly methods

The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus of history, but a modern reconstruction using the scientific methods of historical research.^[20] Historical research reconstructs Jesus in relation to his first-century contemporaries, while theological interpretations relate Jesus to those that gather in his name, thus the historian interprets the past while theology interprets tradition.^[21] Historians and Bible scholars analyze the Canonical Gospels, Talmud, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gnostic Gospels, Josephus, and other early documents attempting to find the Historical Jesus. A number of methods have been developed to critically analyze these sources:

Ancientness

Historians prefer the oldest sources about Jesus, and as a rule of thumb they tend to disregard sources written more than a century after Jesus' death.^[22]

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, if the crucifixion was a cause of embarrassment to early Christians, they would be unlikely to claim that Jesus had been crucified unless he actually had been.^[23]

Criterion of independent attestation

When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is at least nearly certain that the tradition pre-dates the sources. Multiple attestation is not the same as independent attestation, e.g. Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as a source, therefore a story present in all these three Gospels is in fact attested in only one independent source.^[22] See the Historicity of Jesus for a list of sources pertaining to this question.

Cultural congruency (contextual credibility)

A source is more credible if the account makes sense in the context of what is known about the culture in which the events unfold.^[24] E.g. some sayings from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas make sense in a second century gnostic beliefs context, but not in the context of first century Christians, since Gnosticism is assumed to have appeared in the second century.

Linguistic criteria

There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the Gospels. For example, if a dialogue makes sense only in Greek (the language of its written source), it is quite likely the author is reporting something different from the original historical facts, e.g. the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus from John ch. 3 makes sense in Greek, but not in Aramaic.^[24] In Bart Ehrman's opinion, this criterion is included in the contextual credibility, e.g. in their historical context Jesus and Nicodemus were discussing in Aramaic.^[24]

Author's agenda

This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When the presented material serves the supposed purpose of the author or redactor, it is suspect.^[25] 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.

Since the early 1980s scholars associated with the "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus"^[26] - including Géza Vermes, Ben Meyer, John Riches, Anthony Harvey, Marcus Borg, E.P. Sanders, and N.T. Wright - have argued that these authenticity criteria are far too stringent.^[27]

Theories of the historical Jesus

Scholars with these views see the historical Jesus as the founder and leader of a restoration movement within Judaism. They identify a continuity between the movement that Jesus started and the religion that would eventually define itself as the Christian Church.

Current scholarship is in the so-called "third quest" of the historical Jesus. Important representatives of the third quest are E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, and John Dominic Crossan. Scholarship has split into different trends, with the main point of contention over whether Jesus saw the Kingdom of God as an imminent apocalyptic, earthly victory undertaken by God or as something internal, enacted by believers. The latter, non-apocalyptic view is current primarily in North American scholarship.^[17]

Apocalyptic prophet

The gospels portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, described by himself and by others as the Son of Man - translated as the Son of Humanity - and hailing the restoration of Israel.^[17] Jesus himself, as the Son of God, a description also used by himself and others for him, was to rule this kingdom as lord of the Twelve Apostles, the judges of the twelve tribes.^[28]

Albert Schweitzer emphasized that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, preparing his fellow Jews for the imminent end of the world. In fact, Schweitzer saw Jesus as a failed, would-be Messiah whose ethic was suitable only for the short interim before the apocalypse.^[29] Some historians concur that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, most notably Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, and John P. Meier. E. P. Sanders portrays Jesus as expecting to assume the "viceroy" position in God's kingdom, above the Twelve Disciples, who would judge the twelve tribes, but below God.^[28] He concludes, however, that Jesus seems to have rejected the title Messiah, and he contends that the evidence is uncertain to whether Jesus meant himself when he referred to the Son of Man coming on the clouds as a divine judge (see also Daniel's Vision of Chapter 7), and further states that biblical references to the Son of Man as a suffering figure are not genuine.^[28]

Wisdom sage

A common view in North American scholarship is that Jesus did not prophesy an imminent apocalypse.^[17]

Historians associated with the Jesus Seminar, such as John Dominic Crossan, are often associated with this view. They reject the view that Jesus was apocalyptic, but that the kingdom was present and accessible for all Jews. Crossan emphasizes that Jesus' movement did not have a head, as John the Baptist's movement had taken John as their leader.^[18] For Crossan, Jesus called people to emulate him, and travel as itinerant preachers.^[18] Jesus' eschatology is one of personal action and social transformation, like Gandhi's, rather than apocalyptic.^[18] These scholars also explain Jesus' apocalyptic statements as later, Christian additions to the biblical narrative, likely introduced by followers of John the Baptist (who did prophesy an imminent apocalypse) who later joined Jesus' movement.^[30]

Marcus Borg maintains that three fifths to three quarters of North American scholars actively engaging in Jesus research no longer accept the apocalyptic viewpoint.^[31] Several other authors vindicate that consensus in current theological literature is that Jesus did not see the Kingdom of God as a future apocalyptic event, but as a movement toward an ethical eschatology that had not been fully completed.^[32][33]

Son of God

Some scholars, most notably N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson, defend the historicity of traditional views of Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins (see Atonement in Christianity). They demand that dissenting scholars be more cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period, and see no problem in accepting traditional accounts when miraculous events, such as the resurrection, are beyond the historical method to either prove or disprove.^[34]

Other views

There are many other interpretations of Jesus. Constantin Brunner presents him as the epitome of genius.^[35] Morton Smith argued that Jesus was best understood as a magician, a view based on the presentation of Jesus in later Jewish sources.^[36] In light of the Talmud representations of Jewish figures such as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer Geza Vermes views Jesus as a pious and charismatic holy man known as a hasid.^[37] Some Marxists, like Kautsky, see Jesus as a forerunner of communism, since according to Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32-5:12 the Apostles founded a communist society.^[38] Leo Tolstoy saw Jesus as championing Christian anarchism; although Tolstoy never actually used the term "Christian anarchism" in The Kingdom of God Is Within You, reviews of this book following its publication in 1894 coined the term.^[39]

Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Robert Eisenman controversially proposes that James the Just, who is traditionally believed to have been the brother of Jesus, was in fact the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the scrolls. This requires a later date for the scrolls than the current scholarly consensus. In Eisenman's theory Jesus and James were part of a movement to restore the sacred Jewish monarchy and a legitimate high priesthood. The image of Jesus portrayed in the gospels would then be the work of pro-Roman propaganda by Paul of Tarsus and Pauline Christianity.^[40] This viewpoint is supported by a popular book, originally a Master's thesis by history student Thijs Voskuilen, which basically says that Paul of Tarsus was a Roman secret agent and the Nemesis of Judaism.^[41]

Alvar Ellegård proposes a theory that is somewhat similar to that of Eisenman. He believes that the Jesus of the Pauline Epistles goes back to the Essene Teacher of Righteousness. Unlike Eisenman, Ellegård believes in the traditional dating of the scrolls to the first and second centuries BCE and explains the time difference between Jesus and James by assuming James was not in fact the brother of Jesus.^[42]

Jewish background

Jesus preached in Galilee and Judea (modern-day Israel) for one to three years in the first half of the first century.^[43]

Luke's "Sea of Galilee", which is actually a freshwater lake.

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 independent sovereignty. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but although the land was mostly peaceful (notably between 7 and 26^[44]), there were continued risks 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.

In the Judaic religion of Jesus' day, the Pharisees were a powerful party, espousing (like the first Christians) belief in the resurrection of the dead, retribution in the next world, angels, human freedom, and Divine Providence.^[45] The more conservative Sadducees held power in the Temple. The Essenes lived ascetically and looked for an imminent apocalypse. 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' repeated declarations that the kingdom of God was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views. 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).

Personal background

Birth

Prominent historians conclude that Jesus was born in the last years before Herod's reign ended in 4 BCE,^[46][47] in the Galilean village of Nazareth.^{[48][49][50][51]} Geza Vermes views the different accounts of Jesus' birth given in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "pious fictions".^[52] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".^[53] Raymond Brown notes that "it is unlikely that either account is completely historical",^[54] and suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses.^[55]

This first Herod, an Idumaean whom the Roman Senate elected King of the Jews^[56] over Idumea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria and neighboring lands, ruled from 37 to 4 BCE.^[57] Upon Herod's death, the Romans divided up his kingdom between his sons, and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee but not Judea (which became part of Iudaea province after Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE) when Jesus was a man.^[57]

Linguistic proficiency

Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic.^[58] 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, which was replacing Aramaic, Jesus might have known at least some Koine Greek.^[59]

Literacy

There are a number of passages from the Gospels which state or imply that Jesus could at least read.^[60] In Jesus' day, few people could read and fewer still could write.^[61] The question of Jesus's literacy has been much discussed in modern scholarship; the Jesus Seminar and others feel references in the Gospels to Jesus reading and writing may well be fictions.^[62][63] In the view of John Dominic Crossan, a peasant such as Jesus would not have been literate.^[64] James Dunn observes that, given the importance of reading the Torah in Jewish culture of the time, a Galilean villager such as Jesus might have learned to read.^[65] John P. Meier concludes that the literacy of Jesus probably extended to the ability to read and comment on sophisticated theological and literary works.^[66]

Work as a "carpenter"

View of Nazareth

Jesus is identified in Mark as a τεκτων (tekton)^[67] and in Matthew as the son of a tekton.^[68] Like most people at the time, he presumably was trained by his parent in the family trade. Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as "carpenter", but is a rather general word (from the same root that gives us "technical" and "technology") that at the time could cover makers of objects in various materials, and builders, from tent makers to stone masons.^[69] The specific association with woodworking is a constant in Early Christian tradition; Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs, and there are similar early references.^[70] Crossan puts tekton into a historical context more resembling an itinerant worker than an established artisan, emphasizing his marginality in a population in which a peasant who owns land could become quite prosperous.^[71]

Scholars, following S. J. Case, have noted that Nazareth is only about 6 kilometres from the city of Tzippori (ancient "Sepphoris"), which was destroyed by the Romans in 4BC, and thereafter was expensively rebuilt. It has been speculated that Joseph and Jesus might have traveled daily to work on the rebuilding. Specifically the large theatre in the city has been suggested, although this has aroused much controversy over dating and other issues.^[72] Other scholars see Joseph and Jesus as the general village craftsmen, working in wood, stone and metal on a wide variety of jobs.^[73]

Ethnicity

Jesus lived in Galilee, north of Judea on the other side of Samaria (which was hostile to Judeans). Judeans did not hold Galileans in high regard as they were often of mixed blood and open to foreign influence.^[62][74] The Galilean dialect was clearly distinguishable from the Judean dialect.^[75]

Family background and childhood

Joseph

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

Mary

Jesus' mother was named Mary (Hebrew: Maryām),^[46] a common name at the time. Beyond the accounts in the Gospels and a few other early Christian sources,^[76] there is no independent or verifiable information about any aspect of Mary's life.

Jesus' siblings

Jesus had brothers and sisters, as reported in Mark^[46] 6:3^[77] and Matthew 13:55-56.^[78] The Gospels name four brothers, but only James is known to history. After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother",^[79] was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem^[46] and Jesus' relatives seem to have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.^[80] The Christian doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has long obscured the recognition that Jesus had siblings.^[81]

Ministry of Jesus

Works and miracles

Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.

The gospels narrate various miracles that Jesus performed in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.

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 reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, 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

Some scholars interpret Jesus as a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.^[17] E.P. Sanders sees him as accepting a divine role as God's viceroy in the coming kingdom.^[9][28] It has been argued that Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.^[17][28] Jürgen Becker sees Jesus taking his authority directly from God, in contrast to the prophets who revealed the future or will of God.^[9] M. de Jonge argues that Jesus saw himself as God's final envoy.^[82]

Burton Mack on the other hand supports the hypothesis of the Messianic secret first proposed by William Wrede. This hypothesis holds that Jesus' instruction to his disciples not to reveal his identity as the Messiah was a later invention by the early Church to deal with the embarrassing fact that early traditions did not show Jesus as claiming to be the Messiah.^[83]

Messiah

In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.^[28] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.^[28] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology. 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.^[84] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").

Son of God

Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,^[28] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.^[85] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.^[28] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.^[28]

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.^[86][87]

Son of Man

The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.^[28] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.^[28] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.^[88]

Other depictions

The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.^[89]

Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God".^[90] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.^[91] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.

Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.

The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.^[17][23][46]

Jesus and John the Baptist

Judean hills of Israel

Jesus began 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.^[92] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.^[93] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.^[93] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,^[94] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.^[95]

John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.^[93] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,^[96] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.^[93] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.^[93] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.^[93]

John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.^[18]

Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report".^[97] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.^[93]

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' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' 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).

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.^[98] 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 at the request of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate. Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.

Ministry and teachings

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.^[99] 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 the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.

Length of ministry

Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.^[100] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,^[101] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.^[102][103] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.^[104]

Parables and paradoxes

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.^[18]

Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.^[46]

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.

Some 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.^[105]

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' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".^[106] 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."^[107]

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.^[18]

Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.^[108]

• In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."

• In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

• In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.

• Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.

The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.^[108]

Laconic sage

The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.^[14] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.^[14] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.^[14]

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.^[109] 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.^[18] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.^[18] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.^[46] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.^[46]

John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.^[18] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art^[18] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.^[46]

Disciples

Some scholars believe Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.^[110] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.^[111] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.^[112] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.^[110]

The Jesus Seminar on the other hand concluded that the number 'twelve' in connection with an inner circle of disciples is a fiction.^[46]

The disciples of Jesus play a large role in the search for the historical Jesus. However, the four Gospels, use different words to apply to Jesus' followers. The Greek word "ochloi" refers to the crowds who gathered around Jesus as he preached. The word "mathetes" refers to the followers who stuck around for more teaching. The word "apostolos" refers to the twelve disciples, or apostles, whom Jesus chose specifically to be his close followers. With these three categories of followers, Meier uses a model of concentric circles around Jesus in order to create a distinction among those who were closer to Jesus than others.

Ochloi

The outer most circle surrounding Jesus are known as Ochloi, or "the crowds." This outer circle of Jesus' followers would have been the largest and least stable of the groups following Jesus. The criterion of multiple attestation of Mark, John, Q, Matthew, and Luke, supports the historicity of Jesus attracting large crowds. This argument is bolstered by the fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, most probably on the charge of claiming to be "King of the Jews." How a Jewish preacher, teacher, and healer from Galilee would end up executed by Romans in Jerusalem could only be plausible if he did in fact attract large, enthusiastic crowds. We can see in the Gospels that Jesus' ability to attract large crowds through preaching and healing seemed to have lasted until his final days in Jerusalem. Meier notes that the success of his ministry probably led to his arrest and execution by the nervous authorities. Although the crowds were enthusiastic at times, the enthusiasm rarely translated in deep, enduring commitment from members of the crowds. Critical remarks by the evangelists, the unrepentant cities of Galilee (Matthew 11:20-24), and the relative failure of Jesus' followers to win over the majority of Palestinian Jews to "Christianity" is all evidence that most people in the crowds never crossed over from being just curious or sympathetic audiences to deeply committed disciples or supporters. Although, we will see as we move to the inner circles surrounding Jesus that some of his closest disciples came from the crowds that surrounded Jesus.

Mathetes

The second ring around Jesus consists of Mathetes, or "disciples." Meier simply uses the term "disciples". These are the people who stayed for Jesus' teaching. As Meier puts it, "Jesus' disciples are marked by obedience to his peremptory call, denial of self, and exposure to hostility and danger." However, since the members of this group were not individually called by Jesus to be his disciples like the Twelve were, Meier therefore refers to the followers and crowds as "pseudo-disciples." In other words, these groups simply were physical followers of Jesus but not necessarily committed followers who were with him all the time. In many cases, the term "disciples" is used to encompass both the "sympathetic audiences" and the Twelve. It is important that a distinction is made between the crowds and the disciples. On the other hand, some passages suggest that the Gospels use the terms "disciples" and "the Twelve" interchangeably. Jesus' ministry was primarily focused on his twelve disciples and not on the crowds and followers. It was the Twelve whom Jesus spent most of his time with and directed most of his teachings towards, as indicated by the accounts in the four Gospels.

Apostolos

Commonly referred to as "the Twelve" in both John and Mark, this group would have been the one group that was fairly fixed because of the set number of members. What set this group of followers apart from the other two groups was that they were a set group of committed disciples who had been individually called by Jesus. Although the Twelve appeared to be a set group, there is confusion about the actual names of all of the Twelve. For example, names like Nathanael and Judas son of James are not in the lists described in the Gospels. Out of "the Twelve" there seems to be an even closer group of "Four", or circle, that includes Simon Peter, James (son of Zebedee), John (brother of James), and Andrew (Simon Peter's brother). However, because the Gospels might mention these men more than the other apostles, does not necessarily mean that the other apostles were not just as close to Jesus. The Twelve holds the most significant standing among all of the groups following Jesus, as each member was individually called to follow him.

Women Disciples

Jesus controversially accepted women and sinners (those who violated purity laws) among his followers. Even though women were never directly called "disciples", certain passages in the Gospels seem to indicate that women followers of Jesus were equivalent to the disciples. It was possible for members of the "ochloi" to cross over into the "mathetes" category. However, Meier argues that some people from the "mathetes" category actually crossed into the "apostolos" category, namely Mary Magdalene. The narration of Jesus' death and the events that accompany it mention the presence of women. Meier states that the pivotal role of the women at the cross is revealed in the subsequent narrative, where at least some of the women, notably Mary Magdalene, witnessed both the burial of Jesus (Mark 15:47) and discovered the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8). Luke also mentions that as Jesus and the Twelve were travelling from city to city preaching the "good news", they were accompanied by women, who provided for them out of their own means. We can conclude that women did follow Jesus a considerable length of time during his Galilean ministry and his last journey to Jerusalem. Such a devoted, long-term following could not occur without the initiative or active acceptance of the women who followed him. However, most scholars would argue that it is unreasonable to say that Mary Magdalene's seemingly close relationship with Jesus suggests that she was a disciple of Jesus or one of the Twelve. In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.

Missionaries

The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice and may reflect Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.^[113]

According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God.^[18] 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.^[18] This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism.^[18] These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.^[18]

Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.^[18] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.^[30]

Asceticism

The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.^[114] 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.^[115] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.

A majority of the Fellows of the Jesus seminar regard it probable that Jesus was not celibate but instead had a special relationship with Mary Magdalene.^[116] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of the claims that Jesus and Mary were married, as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene."^[117]

John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.^[118] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.

Jerusalem

The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.

Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.^[119]

Entrance to Jerusalem

Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey 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.^[46]

Temple disturbance

Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the temple.^[46] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.^[46] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, but Funk suggests the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.^[46]

Crucifixion

Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd

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.^[46] 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,^{[120][121][122]} while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.^[123] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.^[23] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.^[124]

The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.^[46] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.^[125]

John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention 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. See also List of events in early Christianity.

Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence

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 ^[126], and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.^[127] 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 that 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.^[128]

However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to 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.

Burial and Empty Tomb

Scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."^[129] John Dominic 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, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.^[130] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,^[131] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",^[132] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".^[133] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,^[134] 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.^[135] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,^[136] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.^[137] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.^[138] 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.^[139]

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^[140]

Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."^[141]

Resurrection appearances

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.

The scholars of the Jesus Seminar concluded Mary, Paul, and possibly Peter apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.^[46] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The oldest extant versions of the Gospel of Mark report Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.

The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark 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) were added only later, and a hypothetical original ending may have been 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."^[142] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing 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.^[143]

Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.^[34]

Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus

Critics variously characterize the historical reconstruction of Jesus as either an unwarranted a priori rejection of all supernatural elements in Jesus' true identity, or as ascribing historical status to a fictional character. John P. Meier points out that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate christology than a true historical search, as an example he points out that one of the Jesus Seminar members motivation was to overthrow the "mistake called Christianity."^[20]

Alvar Ellegård argues that theologians have failed to question Jesus' existence because of a lack of communication between them and other scholars, causing some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate.^[42] According to historian Joseph Hoffman, there has never been "a methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence."^[144]

Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem: "My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."^[145]

Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. Rudolf Bultmann argued that historical research could reveal very little about the historical Jesus. More recently the short-lived Journal of Higher Criticism argued that modern biblical scholarship was "a toothless tiger or worse yet, covert apologetics wearing the Esau-mask of criticism" and advocated a return to the "golden era of bold hypotheses and daring reconstructions associated with the great names of Baur and Tübingen".^[146]

Christian criticism

In C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, the character Screwtape writes: "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".^[147] Professor C. Stephen Evans^[148] holds that the stories told by "scientific, critical historians" are based on faith convictions no less than is the account of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, an account that he maintains can be reasonably accepted as historically true.^[149]

Criticism as myth

Some writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells and Robert M. Price^[150] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the Gospels to reconstruct his life give the Gospels too much credit. This position, put forward in works such as the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Bible scholars.^{[151][152][153][154]} Richard Dawkins argues that it is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, although he believes Jesus probably existed.^[155] The philosopher Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus:^[156] and Peter Gandy argues that Jesus was derived from pagan gods like Dionysus.

See also

References

• Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1. 
• Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8. 
• Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
• Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0801024511.
• 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.
• Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0825478022, 9780825478024, Google Books
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1. 
• Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1593333137, 9781593333133, Google books
• 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: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. 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:

v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;

v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;

v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.

• 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

• "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry, is by E. P. Sanders, perhaps the most renowned expert on historical Jesus.
• The Historical Jesus at the New Testament Gateway
• PBS Frontline: From Jesus to Christ
• An Overview of The Quest for the Historical Jesus by ancient historian John Dickson
• 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