Existence
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most
biblical scholars and
classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.
There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the
details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on
the meaning of his teachings.
Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,
and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims
about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.
Evidence of Jesus
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the
sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the
gospels and the purported
letters of the apostles.
The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned
by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are
universally accepted.
In conjunction with biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus in
non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the
existence of Jesus.
[40] These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian
Josephus, and one from the Roman historian
Tacitus.
Josephus'
Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books
18 and
20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the
Testimonium Flavianum,
is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon
that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then
subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar
Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in
Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.
Roman historian
Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by
Pontius Pilate in his
Annals (written
ca. AD 116),
book 15, chapter 44.
Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus'
comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been
forged by a Christian scribe
and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely
accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the
authenticity of the passage on various grounds.
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of
Jesus in the Talmud.
The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of
Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the
Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took
place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned
because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The
first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as
functioning is 57 B.C.E.
[58]
Portraits of the historical Jesus
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly
quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.
The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes
have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image
portrayed in the gospel accounts. These portraits include that of Jesus as an
apocalyptic prophet,
charismatic healer,
Cynic philosopher,
Jewish Messiah and
prophet of social change, but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits,
and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.
Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition.
Leading scholars in the "third quest" include
E. P. Sanders,
Geza Vermes,
Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and
John Dominic Crossan. Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of E. P. Sanders, a '"renewal movement within Judaism."
This scholarship suggests a continuity between Jesus' life as a
wandering charismatic and the same lifestyle carried forward by
followers after his death. The main criterion used to discern historical details in the "third
quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish
context and to his influence on Christianity.
The main disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic. Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and the apostle Paul. In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as
Burton Mack
and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one
who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.
Ministry of Jesus
Works and miracles
Jesus is said to have performed various
miracles 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).
[citation needed]
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.
[citation needed]
Jesus as divine
Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God. Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king. Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.
Messiah
In the
Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.
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. Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the
Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their
eschatology.
[citation needed]
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. 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, although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark. Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.
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.
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.
These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who
suffers and returns. Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.
Other depictions
The title
Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written
c. 90-100.
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God". New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God. 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.
[citation needed]
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.
[16][69][70]
Jesus and John the Baptist
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. John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.
[72] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.
[72] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in
Q,
[73] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.
[74]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.
[72] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,
[75][dubious – discuss] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.
[72] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.
[72]
Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered
early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.
[72]
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.
[17]
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".
[76] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by
Josephus.
[72]
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).
[citation needed]
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.
[77]
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.
[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by
Pontius Pilate.
[citation needed]
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.
[citation needed]
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.
[78] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.
[citation needed] 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.
[citation needed]
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. The Gospel of John mentions three
Passovers, Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long. Jesus' ministry apparently lasted one year, possibly two.
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.
[17]
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.
[70]
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.
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".
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."
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.
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.
- 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.
[87]
Laconic sage
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters. A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant. Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.
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.
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. His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society. He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium. His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program. The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.
Disciples
Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen. The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.
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. The twelve were expected to rule the
twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.
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, with
an inner circle of true disciples, a larger circle of followers, and an
even larger circle of those who gathered to listen to him.
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.
[citation needed]
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.
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 as well as Jesus' original instructions,
though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such
missionary commission.
According to John Dominic Crossan, 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.
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas. 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.
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. 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. Alternatively, he may have been promoting
celibacy.
Some
[who?] suggest that Jesus was married to
Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her, or that he was married to
Mary the sister of Lazarus.
[citation needed]
However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a
single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let
alone married to Mary Magdalene."
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a
Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the
Essenes. 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 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.
Entrance to Jerusalem
Main article:
Palm Sunday
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.
Temple disturbance
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple. In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.
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.
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. Jesus'
cleansing of the Temple may well have seriously offended his Jewish audience, leading to his death. while
Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans. The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested. Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.
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.
However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.
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.
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, and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.
[108]
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.[109]
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
Some 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."
[110] 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.
[111] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,
[112] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",
[113] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".
[114]
Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish
authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a
burial and empty tomb,
[115]
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.
[116] Other scholars consider the burial by
Joseph of Arimathea found in
Mark 15 to be historically probable,
[117] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.
[118] More positively, Mark Waterman maintains the Empty Tomb priority over the Appearances.
[119] 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.[120]
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[121]
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."
[122]
Resurrection appearances
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by
Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.
[70]
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)
were 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."
[123] 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.[124]
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.
[125]
Methods of research
In the
early church, there were already tendencies to portray Jesus as a verifiable demonstration of the extraordinary.
Since the 18th century, scholars have taken part in three separate
"quests" for the historical Jesus, attempting to reconstruct various
portraits of his life using
historical methods. While
textual criticism (or lower criticism) had been practiced for centuries, a number of approaches to
historical analysis
and a number of criteria for evaluating the historicity of events
emerged as of the 18th century, as a series of "Quests for the
historical Jesus" took place. At each stage of development, scholars
suggested specific forms and methodologies of analysis and specific
criteria to be used to determine historical validity.
The first Quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on
biblical criticism. This was supplemented with
form criticism in 1919 and
redaction criticism in 1948.
Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical
material before it was written down, and may thus be seen as starting
when textual criticism ends. Form criticism looks for patterns within units of biblical text and attempts to trace their origin based on the patterns. Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of text criticism and form criticism
.
This approach views an author as a "redactor" i.e. someone preparing a
report, and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has molded the
narrative to express their own perspectives.
At the end of the first Quest (c. 1906) the criterion for
multiple attestation was used and was the major additional element up to 1950s
.
The concept behind multiple attestation is simple: as the number of
independent sources that vouch for an event increases, confidence in the
historical authenticity of the event rises.
Other criteria were being developed at the same time, e.g. "double
dissimilarity" in 1913, "least distinctiveness" in 1919 and "coherence
and consistency" in 1921.
The criterion of double dissimilarity views a reported saying or action
of Jesus as possibly authentic, if it is dissimilar from both the
Judaism of his time and also from the traditions of the
early Christianity that immediately followed him.
The least distinctiveness criterion relies on the assumption that when
stories are passed from person to person, the peripheral, least distinct
elements may be distorted, but the central element remains unchanged.
The criterion of "coherence and consistency" states that material can
be used only when other material has been identified as authentic to
corroborate it.
The second Quest was launched in 1953, and along with it the
criterion of embarrassment was introduced. This criterion states that a group is unlikely to invent a story that would be embarrassing to themselves. The criterion of "historical plausibility" was introduced in 1997, after the start of the third Quest in 1988.
This principle analyzes the plausibility of an event in two separate
components: contextual plausibility and consequential plausibility, i.e.
the historical context needs to be suitable, as well as the
consequences
.
A new characteristic of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology and
James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in
Galilee and
Judea during the time of Jesus
. A further characteristic of the third quest has been its interdisciplinary and global nature of the scholarship.
While the first two quests was mostly by European Protestant
theologians, the third quest has seen a worldwide influx of scholars
from multiple disciplines.
More recently historicists have focussed their attention on the
historical writings associated with the period in which Jesus lived or on the evidence concerning his family.
The redaction of these documents through early Christian sources till
the 3rd or 4th centuries has also been a rich source of new information.
Criticism of Jesus research methods
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for
religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have
argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and
sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.
Theological bias
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at
University of Notre Dame,
has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that
people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de
facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed
historically informed ..."Meier also wrote 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.
The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh
has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of
various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that
historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often
interpreted to fit specific goals. Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus,
anti-ecclesiastical
agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that
aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social
change
.
The New Testament scholar
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.
Lack of methodological soundness
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned, and according to
James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."
W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the
composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information
and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct.
For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern
abstraction and construct.'"
Donald Akenson,
Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's
University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians
attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere
facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound
historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance
on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on
primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a
peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria
being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of
biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in
religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present
day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to
theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable
individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to
maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.
Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..
''
According to
James Dunn,
"...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and
twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic
tradition,
not Jesus back then and
not a figure in history." (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an
interpretation of the data.
Since
Albert Schweitzer's book
The Quest of the Historical Jesus, scholars have for long stated that many of the portraits of Jesus are "pale reflections of the researchers" themselves. Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias.
John Dominic Crossan
summarized the recent situation by stating that many authors writing
about the life of Jesus "... do autobiography and call it biography.
Scarcity of sources
Bart Ehrman and separately
Andreas Köstenberger
contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally
difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be
considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.On the other hand, scholars such as
N. T. Wright and
Luke Timothy Johnson
argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely
accurate, and that dissenting scholars are simply too cautious about
what we can claim to know about the ancient period.
Myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the proposition that
Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of
Christianity and the accounts in the
gospels. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the
New Testament
has no historical value, that there are no non-Christian references to
Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan
and/or mythical roots.
In
recent years, there have been a number of
books and documentaries
on this subject. Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real
person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely
fictional.
The scholarly consensus is that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus indeed existed as a historical figure.
