Historical Jesus
| Part of a series on |
 |
Scholars arguing in favor of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure attempt a reconstruction of his life using the historical method. This is to be distinguished from the Biblical Jesus, which derives from a theological reading of the Gospel texts which historians agree were written several decades after his death. A minority [1] of scholars dispute the historicity of Jesus.
The Names of Jesus and his Family
All sources agree that this man's name was indeed "Jesus", or in Greek, ᾿Ιησοῦς. Given that this was an extremely common name in the first century Jewish world, this is quite credible. Josephus alone mentions some twenty or so men called "Jesus" in his writings, four of whom were high priests, and no fewer than ten belonging to the first century.
This name is usually assumed to be derived from the Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע). This name was a shortened form of Yehoshua, which originally meant "Yahweh helps" or "May Yahweh help." By the time of the first century, many were interpreting this as "Yahweh saves" or "May Yahweh save." This understanding is attested in the work of the philosopher Philo: "Joshua [᾿Ιησοῦς] means 'the salvation [σωτηρία] of the Lord'" (De Mutatione Nominum, §21). This popular etymology is also implied in Matthew 1:21.
The name is derived from the three-letter root yod-shin-`ayin (י-ש-ע) which has the meaning of "to save", but the name is not identical to the word "salvation" (y'shu`ah) or to any verb form such as "he will save" (yoshia`). It does not contain part of the name of God YHWH as the name Yehoshua` (Joshua) appears to do, although this name (yod-he-vav-shin-`ayin, י-ש-ה-ו-ע) could be considered a third person imperfect hiph`il verbal form of the same yod-shin-`ayin root.
The name Yeshua was pronounced with the hebrew vowel, tsere, a long e (IPA /e/) as in "neighbor" (but not diphthongized) not with a shva (IPA /ə/) (as Y'shua) or segol (IPA /ɛ/)(Yesh-shua). The final consonant of the name was the voiced pharyngeal fricative consonant `ayin (IPA /ʕ/), sometimes transcribed by "`" (Yeshua`) The "a" represents the patach genuvah ("furtive" patach) indicating the diphthongization of the "u" vowel due to the effect of the final `ayin - in simple terms the "a" is not an additional syllable but indicates a modification of the "u" vowel which due to the `ayin was pronounced somewhat like the oo of English moor as opposed to that of food.
Both infancy narratives, in Matthew and in Luke, agree that his putative father was "Joseph" and his mother was "Mary," which is also attested by references elsewhere in the Gospel tradition. For Joseph, see Luke 3:23, 4:22; John 1:45, 6:42; Ignatius to the Trallains §9; for Mary, see Mark 6:3; Acts 1:14; Ignatius to the Ephesians §7, §18; to the Trallains §9.
Although Jesus' best-known brother is referred to in English as "James" out of tradition, in ancient Greek documents this brother of Jesus is always identified as ᾿Ιάκωβος, or Jacob (Antiquities 20.9.1, Galatians 1:19), which was also a fairly common name, after the Hebrew patriarch. According to Mark 6:3, the other brothers of Jesus are named Joses (=Joseph), Judas (=Judah), and Simon (=Simeon); these are three of the twelve tribes or sons of Israel. A scholar can only guess that Mary and Joseph shared a common sentiment of their day: May God deliver us from our oppressors and restore Israel. (In Hebrew, the names of the brothers are Yaakob, Yosef, Yehudah, and Shimeon.)
When was Jesus born?
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz write, "There is no certain indication of the precise year of his birth. Certainly Matthew and Luke agree in attesting that Jesus was born in the lifetime of Herod the Great (Matt. 2.1ff.; Luke 1.5), i.e. according to Josephus (Antt. 17, 167, 213; BJ 2, 10) before the spring of 4 BC. This is certainly probable, but there is some dispute over it, as doubts about the reliability of the chronological information in both the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives is "justified" (The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998: page 153).
Luke 2:1 connects the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius, which took place in AD 6 according to Josephus (Wars of the Jews 2.117f., 7.253; Antiquities 17.355, 18.1ff.). Emil Schürer regards this as a chronological error in Luke.
Some have attempted to make a more precise determination of Jesus' birthdate by correlating the magi's star (Matthew 2:2) with astronomical phenomena; however, Matthew 2 describes a miraculous travelling star, which does not fit into known astronomical categories, and such theories have commanded no wide assent.
Where was Jesus Born?
In John 7:41-42, the Jews make the following objection to considering Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah:
- "The Messiah isn't going to come from Galilee, is he? Doesn't the Scripture say that the Messiah will be descended from David and will come from Bethlehem, the town David came from?"
Some would say that this is "Johannine irony," and that the author and his audience knew that Jesus really came from Bethlehem. However, the evangelist also mentions Jesus' home town as Nazareth (1:45), to which Nathaneal replied: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" This tradition also shows up later (18:5-7), and the evangelist never clues in his reader on the "true" hometown of Jesus. The irony in John's story is probably not that Jesus actually came from Bethlehem, but rather that his birthplace according to the flesh is not important because Jesus is the pre-existent Logos that comes from above (8:23).
Matthew 2 and Luke 2 are the only two chapters of the New Testament (NT) that clearly make the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Elsewhere, in Matthew and Luke as well the rest of the NT, Jesus is simply Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus the Nazorean. Even in these infancy narratives, the writers employ elaborate techniques to clarify that Jesus was born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth: Luke says that Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the entire Empire, which required Joseph to register in his ancestral town. Matthew says that Herod ordered the massacre of innocent children, so that they fled to Egypt and later returned to Nazareth. This massacre is not mentioned by Josephus. The story of Jesus coming out of Egypt does fit Matthew's presentation of him as the New Moses.
The setting of Luke's census is doubtful as well: During Herod's life time, Judaea was not under direct Roman rule and hence not subject to a Roman census. Also, the practice of enrolling in one's ancestral home is unknown from Roman practices.
The universal census Luke refers to did take place under Quirinius, when he became legate of Syria c. 6 AD. Judaea had come under direct Roman rule in that year, as part of Iudaea Province, and the census, angering many Jewish people, features prominently in Josephus' works. This date cannot be reconciled with the Matthean date. In light of such considerations, Michael Grant concludes (Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels, p. 9): "the familiar story that Jesus was born at Bethlehem—which was in Judaea and not in Galilee—is very doubtful. More probably his birthplace was Nazareth in Galilee, or possibly some other small town in the same region." However, it has also been argued that a different reading Luke's text actually indicates an earlier census during Herod's lifetime.
The fact that Jesus came from Galilee is the object of some embarrassment, as the quotes from John above show. And this is not just because the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem. In John 7:52, a group of Pharisees object that no prophet can come from Galilee. As also reflected in the Talmud, the higher classes in Jerusalem and elsewhere looked upon those from the rural backwater of Galilee as uneducated, uncouth, and even barbaric. Among other things, this was reflected in their speech, which was considered to be slurred in a distinctive dialect (Matthew 26:73; in the Talmud, cf. b. Ber. 32a, b. Erub. 53a, b. Meg. 24b).
Because the town is not mentioned by Josephus or other early non-Christian writers, some believe that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, instead interpreting the Greek to refer to Jesus as being a Nazarite (a particular type of ascetic), which however is contradicted by Jesus' consumption of wine.
Also, it is also possible that Nazareth was just a small village; archaeological findings suggest that it was occupied since the 7th c. BC and may have had a "refounding" in the 2d c. BC (Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, page 300). If Jesus was not actually born in Nazareth, he may have been associated with the town by the Hebrew word netzer, a shoot or branch, a term related to the Davidic house in a passage of Isaiah regarded as prophetic of the Messiah to come (Is 11:1, cf. Jer 23:5). It has also been proposed that 'Nazareth' was used as a synechdoche for all Galilee, which is why Jesus was also known often as 'the Galilean'.
The Synagogue of Nazareth
The Gospel of Luke records Jesus "as was his custom," entering the synagogue of Nazareth. In this event Jesus "...stood up to read." Some argue that archaeological excavations have found no public buildings and therefore there could not have been a synagogue. However these arguments are inconclusive in that only a very small portion of the ancient Nazareth has ever been excavated. Modern Nazareth sits on the ancient site. While conventional thinking in archaeological circles suggests that Nazareth was a small community in the time of Jesus, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
In Jewish tradition, scriptures are precious and handled with extreme care. The statement that Jesus is handed the scroll of Isaiah suggests Nazarenes had at least that scroll, and likely others, and that they had a place to store and care for the scrolls. The synagogue would have been the likely place for this.
Archaeologists have found synagogues from the time of Jesus at Gamala, Jerusalem, the Herodium, and Masada. The New Testament mentions synagogues at Capernaum and Nazareth, but archaeologists have not been able to confirm this. Neither have they been able to find remains of the synagogues mentioned by Josephus as existing in Tiberias, Dora, or the wealthy city of Caesarea Maritima. The last one is particularly puzzling. Unlike Nazareth, Caesarea is uninhabited today, so archaeologists have been able to excavate more extensively and intensively. The question is far more complex than appears prima facie. It is a major challenge to investigators. (See the Macmillan Bible Atlas, ISBN 0025006053)
What language did Jesus speak?
Since Jesus became an itinerant preacher throughout his home area and surroundings, a relevant question here is: What was the language spoken by ordinary Jews during their daily lives in first century Judea? Jesus must have been fluent in this language, and possibly in others as well.
From the writings and inscriptions of the time, there are four languages attested: Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Latin may quickly be eliminated from consideration. Latin was used almost exclusively by Roman officials, who had only recently introduced the tongue. The Romans would have written inscriptions on public buildings without regard for the ability of most Jews to read them. Notably, almost all of the known Latin inscriptions were situated in and around Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem—the seats of imperial power, not Galilean villages.
Whether Jesus knew any Hebrew would hinge on whether he was literate. Hebrew suffered a great decline in popular use after the Babylonian exile and the return of Jews to Judah. Increasingly Aramaic, the lingua franca of the ancient Near East from the neo-Assyrian and Persian periods onward, made inroads among ordinary Jews resettled in Israel. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran have many Hebrew writings, these works are theological and literary compositions of an esoteric group. The rise of the Aramaic targums (translations of Hebrew Scriptures), witnessed already in a Qumran community that was devoted to compositions in Hebrew, is a strong objection to seeing Hebrew as the language of the common people. It would seem that Hebrew was only preserved in first century Judea among those Jews dedicated to the study of the Scriptures, much as Latin was mainly for the clergy in the Middle Ages.
Concerning Greek, the testimony of Josephus should be noted (Antiquities 20.21.2): "I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue [Aramaic], that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations..."
As Biblical scholar John P. Meier observes (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, page 261):
- "Admittedly, all this sheds at most a very indirect light on our main question, the language that Jesus knew and used best. But if even the gifted Jerusalemite intellectual Josephus was not totally at home in Greek after years of writing in it while living in Rome, and if in AD 70 he had found it necessary or at least advisable to address his fellow Jews in Jerusalem in Aramaic rather than Greek, the chances of a Galilean peasant knowing enough Greek to become a successful teacher and preacher who regularly delivered his discourses in Greek seem slim."
Inscriptions of the time evince that the commonly spoken Aramaic was mostly free of Greek influence on its vocabulary, unlike in later centuries (Meier, page 265). Although they are all written in Greek, the only foreign words that the Gospels put on the lips of Jesus are in Aramaic, such as in Mark 5:41, 7:34, and 15:34. The Greek Gospel of John says that Jesus named Simon as Kephas (Jn 1:42), and Paul used the Aramaic address to God, abba, even when writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles in Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:16.
Meier concludes his discussion with these words: "Jesus regularly and perhaps exclusively taught in Aramaic, his Greek being of a practical, business type, and perhaps rudimentary to boot." (page 268)
Was Jesus Literate?
To refute the idea that Jesus was illiterate, evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III simply says that, "the only concrete evidence we have suggests the contrary (cf. Lk 4 to Lk 24)" (The Jesus Quest, p. 88). Luke 4 tells of Jesus reading from a scroll in a Nazareth synagogue. However, Meier notes that "the sources and historicity of the narrative in this pericope are disputed. . . . The clear presence of Luke's redactional hand makes one wary." (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, page 270).
Other scholars, such as Jewish Historian Shmuel Safrai, have argued that the majority of Jewish children in first century Judea received education at schools, a program instituted by Simeon ben Shetah (c. 103-76 BC) and later Joshua ben Gamala (c. 63-65 AD). However, our accounts of this in the Talmud were written down about 200 years after Jesus' boyhood. The references from Philo and Josephus probably only refer to the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue. Any school system would have to be reinstituted after disruption during the two Jewish revolutions around 70 and 130. Many scholars consider the educational program of Simeon to be a later legend: "What elementary education did exist was carried out within the family, and most often it simply involved instruction in a given craft by the father." (page 273, see also Craffert-Botha, below). Meier writes:
- "Hence, despite inflated claims from some modern authors, we are not to imagine that every Jewish male in Palestine learned to read - and women were rarely given the opportunity. Literacy, while greatly desirable, was not an absolute necessity for the ordinary life of the ordinary Jew. . . . Taken by themselves, therefore, such influences as reverence for the Torah and respect for literacy do not prove that Jesus was counted among those Jews who could read and study the Scriptures; they simply show what might have been." (pages 275, 276)
Still, Meier argues that the debates of Jesus over the Scripture in the synagogues and other details suggest that Jesus had the ability to read the sacred Hebrew texts.
- "To sum up: individual texts from the Gospels prove very little about the literacy of Jesus. Instead, it is an indirect argument from converging lines of probability that inclines us to think that Jesus was in fact literate. . . . [S]ometime during his childhood or early adulthood, Jesus was taught how to read and expound the Hebrew Scriptures." (page 277, 278)
However, his "indirect argument" can be doubted, not least because the scriptural background "could have been conveyed by word-of-mouth catechesis and memorization" (see Lucretia Yaghjian, 'Ancient Reading', in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation, pages 206ff). In 'Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write' (Neotestamenica 39.1, 2005), Pieter F. Craffert and Pieter J. J. Botha argue that "reading" was very likely a social exercise with religious significance, and did not necessarily imply actual literacy. According to their theory, Jesus might have been going through the motions of "reading," as a sort of religious rite, and giving his own teachings under the auspecies of the document being "read." They cite an ancient practice of orators holding a blank document and "reading" from it in this way when giving oracles.
Ancient Historian William V. Harris in Ancient Literacy estimates less than 10% of the Roman Empire under the principate to be literate, with that number falling as low as 3% in Roman Judaea (see also M. Bar-Ilan, 'Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries CE', in S. Fishbane and S. Schoenfeld, Essays in the Sociel Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society, pages 46-61). James P. Holding argues that statistical analysis of literacy rates is unhelpful with regard to the question of which percentage Jesus would fall under, i.e., they are only helpful in answering the general question 'Were most people literate?', not the specific question 'Was Jesus literate?'.
Since a clear, reliable tradition in the Gospels does not exist, and other sources of evidence and lines of argument are equally inconclusive, there has been no scholarly consensus on the matter.
What was Jesus' Socioeconomic Status?
Although Jesus is traditionally identified as a carpenter, this rests on a single phrase in Mark 6:3, "Is this fellow not the carpenter [τεκτον]?" Nowhere else in the entire NT is the occupation of Jesus specified. Perhaps out of reverence for Jesus, the author of Matthew changes the question to (Matthew 13:55), "Is this fellow not the son of the carpenter?" Luke, apparently also finding the jibe offensive, changes it to (Luke 4:22), "Is this fellow the son of Joseph?" One might apply the criterion of embarrassment here, because the evangelists drop the reference to Jesus as a woodworker, as well as the fact that the trade was not very prominent and has no theological significance. Despite the lack of multiple attestation, this universally known "fact" that Jesus was a woodworker is most likely historical.
Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan writes (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pp. 24-26):
- Ramsay MacMullen has noted that one's social pedigree would easily be known in the Greco-Roman world and that a description such as "carpenter" indicated lower-class status. At the back of his book he gives a "Lexicon of Snobbery" filled with terms used by literate and therefore upper-class Greco-Roman authors to indicate their prejudice against illiterate and therefore lower-class individuals. Among those terms is tekton, or "carpenter," the same term used for Jesus in Mark 6:3 and for Joseph in Matthew 13:55. One should not, of course, presume that upper-class sneers dictated how the lower classes actually felt about themselves. But, in general, the great divide in the Greco-Roman world was between those who had to work with their hands and those who did not.
On the other hand, Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, pp. 281-282):
- Many people fell into a vague middle group (*not* our American "middle class"), including business people and craftsmen in cities, towns, and villages, as well as freehold farmers with fair-sized plots of land. In speaking of this middle group, we must not be deluded into thinking that belonging to this group meant economic security known to middle-class Americans today. Small farmers in particular led a precarious existence, sometimes at subsistence level, subject as they were to the vagaries of weather, market prices, inflation, grasping rulers, wars, and heavy taxes (both civil and religious). Further down the ladder were day laborers, hired servants, traveling craftsmen, and dispossessed farmers forced into banditry - what Sean Freyne, former Chair of Theology at Trinity College Dublin, calls the "rural proletariat." At the bottom of the ladder stood the slaves, the worst lot falling to slaves engaged in agricultural labor on large estates - although this was not the most common pattern for Galilean agriculture.
- On this rough scale, Jesus the woodworker in Nazareth would have ranked somewhere at the lower end of the vague middle, perhaps equivalent - if we may use a hazy analogy - to a blue-collar worker in lower-middle-class America. He was indeed in one sense poor, and a comfortable, middle-class urban American would find living conditions in ancient Nazareth apalling. But Jesus was probably no poorer or less respectable than almost anyone else in Nazareth, or for that matter in most of Galilee. His was not the grinding, degrading poverty of the day laborer or the rural slave.
In any case, the historical Jesus who grew up in a small Galilean village did not become very wealthy or influential through his meager trade there.
Family background and childhood
Joseph (Yosef) — his father?
The main Christian sources about Joseph come from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Joseph was betrothed to Mary at the time that she conceived Jesus; and therefore they were already legally husband and wife then, although they were not yet permitted to live together.
In the Christian Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Joseph is referred to as Jesus' foster father. Joseph is not featured in any of the four canonical gospels, except in these childhood narratives; moreover, he is not mentioned in the Book of Acts, unlike Jesus' other relatives; these facts are generally taken to mean that he was dead by the time of his ministry. Since the focus of each of the Christian Gospel accounts is primarily found in "Jesus'" later life with special emphasis on the three year period of ministry prior to the Crucifixion, it is considered likely that the childhood narratives are non-historical.
Matthew tries to convince the Jews that Jesus was indeed the royal son of David. The statement "son of David" is used seven times in the Matthew (1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9, 22:42). Only in Matthew does Jesus speak of "The throne of his glory" (19:28, 25:31). And only in Matthew is Jerusalem referred to as "the holy city" (4:5). Therefore, Matthew spends a great deal of time trying to convince the Jewish people that Jesus was indeed the "King of the Jews" (27:29, 27:37). It is therefore important to note that Jesus is treated within biblical genealogies as the descendant of King David, and this could only occur if Joseph was his actual father. However, there is some discrepancy between the genealogy of Jesus given by Matthew and that given by Luke.
Mary (Miryam) - his mother?
The majority of information on Jesus' mother Mary comes from her mention in three of the four canonical Gospels, and the Book of Acts; the Gospel of John does not mention her by name.
Beyond the accounts given in the Gospels and a few other early Christian sources, there is no independent or verifiable information about any aspect of Mary's life. An account of the childhood of Mary is given in the mid-second century non-canonical Gospel of James. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions built around the figure of Mary, and the centuries of Marian cult derived from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian churches, are based on faith, and their traditions and interpretations of the Scriptures and especially on the writings of the Church Fathers
Mark 6:3 (and analogous passages in Matthew and Luke) reports that Jesus was "Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon," and also states that Jesus had sisters. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Christian historian Eusebius (who wrote in the 4th century but quoted much earlier sources now unavailable to us) refer to James the Just as Jesus' brother (See Desposyni).
Mary (Miryam), mother of Jesus, is also directly named in the Qur'an, in numerous verses.
James (Yacov) - his brother?
Jesus is also described in the Gospel of Mark as having brothers: (Yacov) James, Joses, (Judas) Jude, and Simon, and several sisters (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55). The Christian tradition at least as early as the second century, still adopted by Eastern Orthodoxy, explains that these "brothers and sisters" were from Joseph's marriage to an unnamed woman, before Joseph married Mary and so making them step-brothers and step-sisters. This version of events is related in the apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter. In contradistinction to the eastern opinion the Roman Catholic Church has largely held that these brothers were in fact cousins or other relatives. The term brother was in fact used periodically to speak of more distant relations.
Thus Early Christian debate on the topic of "Jesus'" brothers can be divided into three points of view, each named for the respective theologian who put forth the idea.
- The Helvidius view, which accepts that Jesus did have brothers
- The Epiphanius view, accepted in Eastern Orthodoxy, which suggests that Jesus' brothers were in fact Joseph's from another marriage
- The Jerome view, accepted in Roman Catholicism, that the term that meant "brother" could also mean "cousin"
Works and miracles
According to the Gospels, Jesus began his public ministry of preaching, teaching, and healing soon after he was baptized by John the Baptist. Luke's gospel records that Jesus' mother, Mary, was the cousin of John's mother, Elizabeth, making the two men cousins. Though Matthew portrays John humbly attempting to decline baptizing Jesus, the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Luke do not mention this reluctance; this would tend to indicate a difference in the writers' theological and historical perspectives. Disciples of John are contrasted with the followers of Jesus, even as late as the Book of Acts. The Mandaeans look to John as their founder to this day.
The Gospel of John mentions three separate Passovers during Jesus' ministry, so most scholars have traditionally concluded that it spanned a period of approximately three years. However, the other Gospels only mention one Passover, and a few scholars suggest that a ministry of more than three years is possible.
Jesus used a variety of methods in his teaching. He made extensive use of illustrations in his teaching. (For example, consider Matthew 13:34, 35.) The detailed nature of Jesus' spiritual teaching cannot be fully agreed upon because the Gospel accounts are fragmentary, and their objectivity is suspect. Furthermore, he made extensive use of paradox, metaphor and parable, leaving it unclear how literally he wished to be taken and precisely what he meant.
Jesus, like most holy men throughout history, is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of cures and exorcisms; but some of the alleged miracles show a dominion over nature. Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions debate whether these miracles should be construed as claims of supernatural power (which would be rejected by naturalistic historians, while possibly accepted by others), or explained without recourse to supernatural occurrences. Naturalistic historians generally choose either to see the texts as allegory or to attribute the healings and exorcisms to the placebo effect.
Jesus also seems to have preached the imminent end of the current era of history; in this sense he was an apocalyptic preacher.
The Gospels present Jesus as engaging in frequent question and answer debates with other religious figures; these debates were common between religious teachers of the period. For example, the gospels report that Jesus made use of a quote from the Law of Moses to answer a question posed by the Sadducees regarding the resurrection of the dead, in which they did not believe. The Gospels agree that Jesus generally opposed stringent interpretations of Jewish law, and preached a more flexible understanding of the law. They present an inclination to following a teleological approach, in which the spirit of the law is more important than the letter, and record him as having many disagreements with the Pharisees and Sadducees. But in some places, Jesus suggests that the Pharisees were not strict enough in their observance of the law. It should be noted that the Evangelists would presumably favor accounts of Jesus which would tend to support their own theology and interpretations of the law.
A few modern scholars believe that Jesus may have been a liberal Pharisee, or an Essene (a sect with whom he shared many views). In this view Jesus was later cast as an enemy of the Pharisees because by the time Christians transcribed the Gospels, the Pharisees had become the dominant sect of Judaism, and hence the most responsible for preventing conversions of Jews. This view receives some support in the Acts of the Apostles, where the apostles were generally attacked by Sadducees but sometimes protected by Pharisees with more liberal interpretations of Jewish law (for example, see Acts 23:6-9). Evidence against this view is found in the understanding that some of the gospel materials were compiled before the destruction of the temple in 70. It was around this time in which the Pharisees came to power.
According to the Bible, the theme of Jesus' preaching (and also that of John the Baptist) was: "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." (e.g. Matthew 4:17) Jesus trained his disciples to do the same work: "As you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.'" (Matthew 10:7) These disciples were not just to preach in public places but were also to contact people at their homes. Jesus instructed them: "Wherever you enter into a house say first, 'May this house have peace.'" (Luke 10:1-7) After Jesus' demise, these apostles preached his teachings and performed healing to both Jews and Gentiles. The gospel of Mark does not indicate whether Jesus intended his disciples to teach Gentiles, though Luke, and Matthew especially, make statements which could be taken to indicate that he did. The gospel of John records an instance of Greeks coming to meet Jesus, which Jesus apparently approved of (John 12:20-32).
Jesus is reported to have praised the value of celibacy, saying that some have made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This was not uncommon at the time; although most Jews married (including those who were Pharisees), others, like the Essenes, promoted celibacy. However, he is also presented as having spoken out against divorce, which would imply at least a tacit approval of marriage. He is also reported to have condoned the Genesis description of marriage (Mark 10:6-9).
In his role as a social reformer Jesus would have threatened the status quo. He was unpopular with many Jewish religious authorities, although the book of Acts and some of the Epistles say that numerous members of the priests and the Pharisees became followers of his teachings. According to the Gospels, his unpopularity among the leadership of the area was because he criticised it, and, moreover, because Jesus' followers held the controversial and inflammatory view that he was not only the Messiah but God Himself. Even the former claim would disturb the local leaders, who feared that a claimed Messiah would incite a revolt against Roman rule. (This view is also presented in the Gospels.)
Was the Entrance to Jerusalem during Passover or Tabernacles?
The Entrance to Jerusalem is traditionally associated with Passover, but the waving of palm fronds and the Hosanna shout are not part of Passover. Rather, they are part of Sukkoth or Tabernacles. It is very probable that either an accidental error happened, or a deliberate change was made due to doctrinal constraints.
Was Jesus the same as Barabbas?
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus sometimes prayed to God as ABBA, father. For this reason, some scholars have argued that he was identical with Barabbas, or, in some manuscripts, Jesus Barabbas, who the Gospels report was a criminal released by Pontius Pilate instead of Jesus. This view is not, however, commonly accepted.
Final days
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
According to the Bible, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem to fulfill his Messianic mission. He was involved in a public disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers there. At some later point, he was betrayed to the Jewish religious authorities of the city — either the full council (Sanhedrin) or perhaps just the High Priest — by one of his apostles, Judas Iscariot. The High Priest of the city was appointed by the government in Rome and the current holder of the post was Joseph Caiphas. The Romans ruled the city through the High Priest and Sanhedrin, so often the Jewish authorities of the city had to arrest people in order to obey Roman orders to maintain the peace. Jesus' disciples went into hiding after he was arrested.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans on the orders of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect of Judea in Jerusalem. The Gospels state that he did this at the behest of the Jewish religious leaders, but it may have been simply that Pilate considered Jesus' ability to incite public disturbance as a potential Messiah to be a threat to Roman order. Pilate was known as a harsh ruler who ordered many executions for lesser reasons during his reign; he had also been in trouble twice with his Roman superiors for being too harsh in his rule. Furthermore, the plaque placed on Jesus' cross to detail his crime is quoted as IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM (INRI) — meaning either "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" or "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Judeans", indicating that Jesus was crucified for the crime of rebelling against the authority of Rome by being declared the "King of the Jews". (In the Aramaic it would have been Yeshua HaNotsri Malka diYehudin - in Hebrew, Yeshua HaNazarei v Melech HaYehudim: Jesus the Nazarei, King of the Jews.)
All the Gospel accounts agree that Joseph of Arimathea, variously a secret disciple or sympathiser to Jesus, and possible member of the Sanhedrin, arranged with Pilate for the body to be taken down and entombed.
The Resurrection
| The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
According to the Christian Gospels and the book of Acts, Jesus' disciples encountered him again on the third day after his death, raised to life. No one was a witness of the actual resurrection event, though all four Gospels report that women who went to anoint the body found the tomb empty. After the resurrection, the Gospels give various accounts of Jesus meeting various people in various places over a period of forty days before "ascending into heaven". Some notable historians have affirmed the resurrection of Jesus such as A. N. Sherwin-White, Thomas Arnold, and Michael Grant. Conservative Bible scholars who affirm and defend the resurrection of Jesus include: Dr. Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, John Warwick Montgomery, Norman Geisler and N. T. Wright.
The belief in the Resurrection is the basis of Christianity, and so has been frequently challenged. The varying accounts of the Gospel writers have led some critics to consider that the resurrection event itself was a later insertion into the story. For example, the resurrection narrative in Mark (thought to be the oldest Gospel - see Markan priority) is taken by some to be a late addition (see Mark 16). Also, various details in the resurrection narratives are difficult, though not impossible, to reconcile from Gospel to Gospel. On the other hand, Bible commentators John Wenham, Dr. Gleason Archer and others have offered exegesis of the Biblical text in respect to the gospels arguing among other things that omissions are not contradictions and that alleged contradictions are often due to poor Bible exegesis/cultural differences. [2][3][4] Finally, the Gospels indicate that the disciples were unable to recognize Jesus at first after the resurrection. Some Christians consider this a validation of authenticity because they say a manufactured report would have the disciples recognise him immediately. In addition, Christians say that Christ may have supernaturally hid himself much like he did when the angry crowd wanted to throw him off a cliff (Luke 4: 20-30). There have been a number of theories disputing the historicity of the resurrection as well as affirming it, which are discussed in the article Resurrection of Jesus.
See also
|
|
External links
- Jesus: A Historical Reconstruction
- Many writings, articles and spoken lectures can be found at N.T. Wright´s Unnoficial Webpage. Wright is one of the premier scholars worldwide on the historical Jesus and on early Christianity.
Footnotes
^ Bruno Bauer, Michael Martin, John Mackinnon Robertson, G.A. Wells. The Jesus Legend, Chicago: Open Court, 1996, p xii.
References
- Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected 6 volume series of which 3 have been published under: The New Testament and the People of God (Vol.1); Jesus and the Victory of God (Vol.2); The Resurrection of the Son of God (Vol.3). Fortess Press.
- Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996