Historical Jesus

The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')". It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.

Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

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.

A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesusâ€"on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century which accepted all the gospels and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century which totally rejected them were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

§Historical elements

§Existence

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. We have 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 archeological evidence for Jesus, and all the sources we have are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are 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. 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 93â€"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 different grounds.

A fourth consideration out side Christendom are the Babylonian Talmud compilations. 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.

§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" concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived.

§Two widely accepted historical facts

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.'"

Nonetheless, despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now firmly established that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus â€" referring to the mentions in Josephus and Tacitus.

Most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable, as do Bart Ehrman, former priest John Dominic Crossan and theologian James Dunn. Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story. Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but believes this was due to Jesus’ challenging of Roman authority.

The existence of John the Baptist within the same time frame as Jesus, and his eventual execution by Herod Antipas is attested to by 1st-century historian Josephus and the overwhelming majority of modern scholars view Josephus' accounts of the activities of John the Baptist as authentic. One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the Baptism of Jesus by John is the criterion of embarrassment, i.e. that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent. Another argument used in favour of the historicity of the baptism is that multiple accounts refer to it, usually called the criterion of multiple attestation. Technically, multiple attestation does not guarantee authenticity, but only determines antiquity. However, for most scholars, together with the criterion of embarrassment it lends credibility to the baptism of Jesus by John being a historical event.

§Other possibly historical elements

In addition to the two historical elements of baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to various other aspects of the life of Jesus, although there is no universal agreement among scholars on these items. Amy-Jill Levine has stated that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE). But, to use the old cliché, the devil is in the details."

In addition various scholars have proposed that:

• Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30â€"36 AD.
• Jesus caused a controversy at the Temple.
• Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea, and never travelled or studied outside Galilee and Judea.
• Jesus spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. James D. G. Dunn states that there is "substantial consensus" that Jesus gave his teachings in Aramaic, although the Galilean dialect of Aramaic was clearly distinguishable from the Judean dialect.
• The approximate chronology of Jesus can be estimated from non-Christian sources, and confirmed by correlating them with New Testament accounts.
• The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist can be dated approximately from Josephus' references (Antiquities 18.5.2) to a date before AD 28-35.
• The date of the crucifixion of Jesus was earlier than 36 AD, based on the dates of the prefecture of Pontius Pilate who was governor of Roman Judea from 26 AD until 36 AD.
• Claims about the appearance or ethnicity of Jesus are mostly subjective, based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis.

§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.

§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

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.

§See also

• Historicity of Jesus
  • Sources for the historicity of Jesus
• Historicity of the Bible
• Historical reliability of the Gospels
• Historical background of the New Testament
• Biblical archaeology
• Biblical manuscript
• Census of Quirinius, the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7.
• Christ myth theory
• Criterion of dissimilarity
• Jesus Seminar

§Notes

§References

• Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8. 
• Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4. 
• Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1. 
• 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 978-0-8010-2451-1.
• Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
• Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
• Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, 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 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, 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 978-0-679-76746-6. 
• Gnilka, Joachim.; Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
• Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
• 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

v. 4, Law and Love, 2009, ISBN 978-0-300-14096-5

• O'Collins, G. Jesus: A Portrait. Darton, Longman and Todd: 2008. ISBN 978-0232527193
• O'Collins, G. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. OUP: 2009. ISBN 978-0199557875
• Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
• Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993.
• Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. SCM Classics:2001, ISBN 0-334-02839-6
• Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
• Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000, Eerdmans, google books
• 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 six volume series of which three 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.

§External links

• "Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry