Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – A.D. 100), also called Joseph ben Matityahu (Biblical Hebrew: יוסף בן מתתיהו, ''Yosef ben Matityahu''), was a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian and hagiographer of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War which resulted in the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels, this being an item of contention among historians.

Josephus was a law-observant Jew who believed in the compatibility of Judaism and Graeco-Roman thought, commonly referred to as Hellenistic Judaism. His most important works were ''The Jewish War'' (c. 75 AD) and ''Antiquities of the Jews'' (c. 94 AD). ''The Jewish War'' recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation (66–70). ''Antiquities of the Jews'' recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for a Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into 1st century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity.

Biography

Josephus introduces himself in Greek as "Iosepos (Ιώσηπος), son of Matthias, an ethnic Jew, a priest from Jerusalem". He was the second born son of Matthias and his wife, who was an unnamed Jewish noblewoman. His older brother who was his full blooded sibling was also called Matthias. The mother of Josephus was an aristocratic woman who descended from royalty and of the former ruling Hasmonean Dynasty. Josephus’ paternal grandparents were Josephus and his wife, an unnamed Jewish noblewoman. His paternal grandparents were distant relatives as they were both direct descendants of Simon Psellus. Josephus came from a wealthy, aristocratic family and through his father he descended from the priestly order of the Jehoiarib, which was the first of the twenty four-orders of Priests in the Temple in Jerusalem. Through his father, Josephus was a descendant of the High Priest Jonathon. Jonathon may have been Alexander Jannaeus, the High Priest and Hasmonean ruler who governed Judea from 103 BC-76 BC. He was born and raised in Jerusalem. Josephus was educated alongside his brother.

He fought the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War of 66–73 as a Jewish military leader in Galilee. Prior to this, however, he was sent as a young man in his early twenties for negotiations with Emperor Nero for the release of several Jewish priests. He later returned to Jerusalem and was drafted as a commander of the Galilean forces. After the Jewish garrison of Yodfat fell under siege, the Romans invaded, killing thousands; the survivors committed suicide. According to Josephus, however, in circumstances that are somewhat unclear, Josephus found himself trapped in a cave with forty of his companions in July 67. The Romans (commanded by Flavius Vespasian and his son Titus, both subsequently Roman emperors) asked him to surrender once they discovered where he was, but his companions refused to allow this. He therefore suggested a method of collective suicide: they drew lots and killed each other, one by one, counting to every third person. The sole survivor of this process was Josephus (this method as a mathematical problem is referred to as the Josephus problem, or ''Roman Roulette'') who then surrendered to the Roman forces and became a prisoner. In 69 Josephus was released, and according to Josephus's own account, he appears to have played a role as a negotiator with the defenders during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70.

In 71, he arrived in Rome in the entourage of Titus, becoming a Roman citizen and client of the ruling Flavian dynasty (hence he is often referred to as Flavius Josephus — see below). In addition to Roman citizenship he was granted accommodation in conquered Judaea, and a decent, if not extravagant, pension. While in Rome and under Flavian patronage Josephus wrote all of his known works. Although he only ever calls himself "Josephus", he appears to have taken the Roman praenomen Titus and nomen Flavius from his patrons. This was standard practice for "new" Roman citizens.

In 70 during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem, the first wife of Josephus perished together with his parents. Sometime after, Vespasian arranged for him to marry a captured Jewish woman and ultimately she left him. About 71, Josephus married an Alexandrian Jewish woman as his third wife. By his Alexandrian wife, Josephus had three sons of whom only Flavius Hyrcanus, survived childhood. Josephus had an unhappy marriage with her and later divorced his third wife. At around 75, he married as his fourth wife a Greek Jewish woman from Crete who was a member of a distinguished family. With his Cretan wife he had a happy married life. His last wife bore him two sons Flavius Justus and Flavius Simonides Agrippa.

Josephus's life story remains ambiguous. For his critics, he never satisfactorily explained his actions during the Jewish war — why he failed to commit suicide in Galilee, and why, after his capture, he accepted the patronage of Romans.

Historian E. Mary Smallwood wrote:

(Josephus) was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefitted for the rest of his days from his change of side.

Significance to scholarship

The works of Josephus provide crucial information about the First Jewish-Roman War and are also important literary source material for understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and late Temple Judaism.

Josephan scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century became focused on Josephus' relationship to the sect of the Pharisees . He was consistently portrayed as a member of the sect, but nevertheless viewed as a villainous traitor to his own nation — a view which became known as the classical concept of Josephus. In the mid 20th century, this view was challenged by a new generation of scholars who formulated the modern concept of Josephus, still considering him a Pharisee but restoring his reputation in part as patriot and a historian of some standing. Some later authors argued that Josephus was not a Pharisee but an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest who became part of the Temple Establishment as a matter of deference, and not willing association (cf. Steve Mason 1991).

Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings.

Manuscripts, textual criticism and editions

For many years, the works of Josephus were printed only in an imperfect Latin translation from the original Greek. It was only in 1544 that a version of the standard Greek text was made available, edited by the Dutch humanist Arnoldus Arlenius. The first English translation, by Thomas Lodge, appeared in 1602, with subsequent editions appearing throughout the 17th century. However, the 1544 Greek edition formed the basis of the 1732 English translation by William Whiston which achieved enormous popularity in the English speaking world (and which is currently available online for free download by Project Gutenberg). Later editions of the Greek text include that of Benedikt Niese, who made a detailed examination of all the available manuscripts, mainly from France and Spain. This was the version used by H. St J. Thackeray for the Loeb Classical Library edition widely used today.

William Whiston, who created perhaps the most famous of the English translations of Josephus, claimed that certain works by Josephus had a similar style to the Epistles of St Paul (Saul).

The standard ''editio maior'' of the various Greek manuscripts is that of Benedictus Niese, published 1885-95. The text of ''Antiquities'' is damaged in some places. In the ''Life'' Niese follows mainly manuscript P, but refers also to AMW and R. Henry St. John Thackery for the Loeb Classical Library has a Greek text also mainly dependent on P. André Pelletier edited a new Greek text for his translation of ''Life''. The ongoing Münsteraner Josephus-Ausgabe of Münster University will provide a new critical apparatus. There also exist late Old Slavonic translations of the Greek, but these contain a large number of Christian interpolations.

Works

(c. 75) ''War of the Jews'', or ''The Jewish War'', or ''Jewish Wars'', or ''History of the Jewish War'' (commonly abbreviated ''JW'', ''BJ'' or ''War'')

(date unknown) ''Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades'' (spurious; adaptation of "Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe" by Hippolytus of Rome)

(c. 94) ''Antiquities of the Jews'', or ''Jewish Antiquities'', or ''Antiquities of the Jews/Jewish Archeology'' (frequently abbreviated ''AJ'', ''AotJ'' or ''Ant.'' or ''Antiq.'')

(c. 97) ''Flavius Josephus Against Apion'', or ''Against Apion'', or ''Contra Apionem'', or ''Against the Greeks, on the antiquity of the Jewish people'' (usually abbreviated ''CA'')

(c. 99) ''The Life of Flavius Josephus'', or ''Autobiography of Flavius Josephus'' (abbreviated ''Life'' or ''Vita'')

The Jewish War

His first work in Rome was an account of the Jewish War, addressed to certain "upper barbarians" – usually thought to be the Jewish community in Mesopotamia—in his "paternal tongue" (''War'' I.3), arguably the Western Aramaic language. He then wrote a seven-volume account in Greek known to us as the ''Jewish War'' (Latin ''Bellum Judaicum''). It starts with the period of the Maccabees and concludes with accounts of the fall of Jerusalem, the Roman victory celebrations in Rome, the mopping-up operations, Roman military operations elsewhere in the Empire and the uprising in Cyrene. Together with the account in his ''Life'' of some of the same events, it also provides the reader with an overview of Josephus' own part in the events since his return to Jerusalem from a brief visit to Rome in the early 60s (''Life'' 13–17).

In the wake of the suppression of the Jewish revolt, Josephus would have witnessed the marches of Titus's triumphant legions leading their Jewish captives, and carrying treasures from the despoiled Temple in Jerusalem. He would have experienced the popular presentation of the Jews as a bellicose and xenophobic people.

It was against this background that Josephus wrote his ''War'', and although this work has often been dismissed as pro-Roman propaganda (hardly a surprising view, given the source of his patronage), he claims to be writing to counter anti-Judean accounts. He disputes the claim that the Jews served a defeated God, and were naturally hostile to Roman civilization. Rather, he blames the Jewish War on what he calls "unrepresentative and over-zealous fanatics" among the Jews, who led the masses away from their traditional aristocratic leaders (like himself), with disastrous results. Josephus also blames some of the Roman governors of Judea, but these he represents as atypical: corrupt and incompetent administrators. Thus, according to Josephus, the traditional Jew was, should be, and can be, a loyal and peace-loving citizen. Jews can, and historically have, accepted Rome's hegemony precisely because their faith declares that God himself gives empires their power.

Jewish Antiquities

The next work by Josephus is his twenty-one volume ''Antiquities of the Jews'', completed during the last year of the reign of the Emperor Flavius Domitian (between 1.9.93 and 14.3.94, cf. AJ X.267). He claims that interested persons have pressed him to give a fuller account of the Jewish culture and constitution. Here, in expounding Jewish history, law and custom, he is entering into many philosophical debates current in Rome at that time. Again he offers an ''apologia'' for the antiquity and universal significance of the Jewish people.

He outlines Jewish history beginning with the creation as passed down through Jewish historical tradition. Abraham taught science to the Egyptians, who in turn taught the Greeks. Moses set up a senatorial priestly aristocracy, which, like that of Rome, resisted monarchy. The great figures of the Bible are presented as ideal philosopher-leaders. There is again an autobiographical Appendix defending Josephus's own conduct at the end of the war when he cooperated with the Roman forces.

Against Apion

Josephus's ''Against Apion'' is a two-volume defence of Judaism as classical religion and philosophy, stressing its antiquity, as opposed to what Josephus claimed was the relatively more recent tradition of the Greeks. Some anti-Judean allegations ascribed by Josephus to the Greek writer Apion, and myths accredited to Manetho are also addressed.

Literature about Josephus

''The Josephus Trilogy'', a novel by Lion Feuchtwanger

*''Der jüdische Krieg'' (''Josephus''), 1932

*''Die Söhne'' (''The Jews of Rome''), 1935

*''Der Tag wird kommen'' (''The day will come'', ''Josephus and the Emperor''), 1942

'' Flavius Josephus Eyewitness to Rome's first-century conquest of Judea'', Mireille Hadas-lebel, Macmillan 1993, Simon and Schuster 2001

"The 2000 Year Old Middle East Policy Expert", a chapter from ''Give War A Chance'' by P. J. O'Rourke

''Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus'', by Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, 2005

See also

Josephus on Jesus

Josippon

Josephus problem — a mathematical problem named after Josephus.

Footnotes

References

Josephus’ Lineage

M. Fergus, S. Emil & V. Geza, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), Continuum International Publishing Group, 1973

É. Nodet, A search for the origins of Judaism: from Joshua to the Mishnah, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1997

F. Josephus & S. Mason, Flavius Josephus: translation and commentary, BRILL, 2001

''The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged New Updated Edition'' Translated by William Whiston, A.M., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987. ISBN 0-913573-86-8 (Hardcover). ISBN 1-56563-167-6 (Paperback).

''Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary''; edited by Steve Mason, 10 vols. in 12 Leiden: Brill, 2000–2007).

Per Bilde. ''Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: his life, his works and their importance''. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988.

Shaye J. D. Cohen. ''Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his vita and development as a historian''. (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition; 8). Leiden: Brill, 1979

Louis Feldman. "Flavius Josephus revisited: the man, his writings, and his significance." In: ''Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt'' 21.2 (1984).

Steve Mason, ''Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a composition-critical study''. Leiden: Brill, 1991

Tessa Rajak, ''Josephus: the Historian and His Society''; 2nd ed. London: 2002 (Oxford D.Phil. thesis, 2 vols. 1974)

External links

Resources > Second Temple and Talmudic Era > Flavius Josephus The Jewish History Resource Center — Project of the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Works of Flavius Josephus Translated by William Whiston

Flavius Josephus, Judaea and Rome: A Question of Context

PACE Josephus: text and resources in the Project on Ancient Cultural Engagement at York University

Flavius Josephus at livius.org

Josephus Flavius at Jewish Virtual Library

Category:37 births Category:100 deaths Category:1st-century historians Category:1st-century Romans Category:1st-century writers Category:1st-century clergy Category:Flavii Category:Greco-Roman military writers Category:Hellenistic Jewish writers Category:Jewish historians Category:Roman era Greek historians Category:Ancient Roman antiquarians Category:Roman era Jews Category:Judean people Category:Jewish clergy Category:Jews and Judaism in the Roman Empire Category:Jewish history in Rome Category:Hasmoneans

ar:يوسيفوس فلافيوس be:Іосіф Флавій br:Flavius Josephus bg:Йосиф Флавий ca:Flavi Josep cs:Flavius Iosephus cy:Josephus da:Josefus de:Flavius Josephus el:Ιώσηπος Φλάβιος es:Flavio Josefo eo:Jozefo Flavio eu:Flavio Josefo fr:Flavius Josèphe gl:Flavio Xosefo ko:플라비우스 요세푸스 hy:Հովսեփոս Փլավիոս hr:Josip Flavije id:Flavius Yosefus is:Jósefos Flavíos it:Flavio Giuseppe he:יוסף בן מתתיהו la:Flavius Iosephus jbo:iosef.ben.matitia'uv hu:Iosephus Flavius ml:ജോസെഫസ് nl:Flavius Josephus ja:フラウィウス・ヨセフス no:Josefus nn:Josefus oc:Flavi Josèp pms:Flavi Giusep pl:Józef Flawiusz pt:Flávio Josefo ro:Iosephus Flavius ru:Иосиф Флавий sq:Flavius Josephus simple:Josephus sk:Flavius Iosephus sl:Jožef Flavij sr:Јосиф Флавије sh:Josip Flavije fi:Josephus sv:Josefus th:โจซีฟัส tr:Josephus uk:Йосип Флавій yi:יוסיפון zh-yue:約瑟夫 zh:弗拉維奧·約瑟夫斯

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

Historical Jesus is believed to be a Galilean Jew who undertook at least one pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then part of Roman Judaea, during a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations in late Second Temple Judaism. He was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he may have followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for only about two to three years prior to his death. He was an eschatological prophet and an autonomous ethical teacher. He told surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. Later, he traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem. The Gospels say that the ''temple guards'' (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. After splitting with Rabbinic Judaism, it developed into Early Christianity.

The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus. The biblical description of Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Christ of Faith in this context. The ''Historical Jesus'' is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life such as fragments of the Gospels. Therefore the historical Jesus is constantly evolving as new evidence is being uncovered. The purpose of research into the Historical Jesus is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order to create a composite picture of Jesus. Use of the term the ''Historical Jesus'' implies that the figure thus reconstructed will differ from that presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ").

Scholarly methods

The historical Jesus is believed to be a historical figure, to be understood in the context of his own lifetime in 1st-century Roman Judaea, not of Christian doctrine of later centuries. Historical research reconstructs Jesus in relation to his 1st-century contemporaries, while theological interpretations relate Jesus to those that gather in his name, thus the historian interprets the past while the theologian interprets tradition. Historians and Bible scholars analyze the Canonical Gospels, Talmud, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gnostic Gospels, Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls and other early documents attempting to find the Historical Jesus. A number of methods have been developed to critically analyze these sources:

Older sources. Many historians prefer the oldest sources about Jesus; and as a rule of thumb they tend to disregard sources written more than a century after Jesus' death.

Criterion of embarrassment. Statements contrary or dissimilar to the author's agenda, but still included by the author, are likely to be reliable. For example, if the crucifixion was a cause of embarrassment to early Christians, they would be unlikely to claim that Jesus had been crucified unless he actually had been.

Multiple attestation. When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is often the case that oral accounts pre-date written sources. Multiple attestation is not the same as independent attestation. If one account used another account as a source, then a story present in all of these is in fact attested in only one independent source. Some scholars think that Mark's account was used as a source for one or more of the other accounts. See the Historicity of Jesus for a list of sources pertaining to this question.

Historical context. A source is more credible if the account makes sense in the context of what is known about the culture in which the events unfold. E.g., some sayings from the Coptic-language "Gospel of Thomas" make sense in a 2nd century Gnostic-beliefs context, but not in the context of 1st century Christians, since Gnosticism is assumed to have appeared in the 2nd century.

Linguistic analysis. There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the Gospels. For example, if a dialogue makes sense only in Greek, it is possible that it is worded in that text in a way that is different from original Aramaic. E.g., the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus from John ch. 3 is believed by some to make sense in Greek, but not in Aramaic. According to Bart Ehrman, this criterion is included in the analysis of contextual credibility, because he believes that Jesus and Nicodemus were speaking in Aramaic.

Author's agenda. This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When the presented material serves the supposed purpose of the author or redactor, it is suspect. For example, various sections of the Gospel accounts, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, portray Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy; and in the view of some scholars, this could reflect the agenda of the account authors rather than historical events.

Currents within contemporary research typically take the historical criterion of plausibility as their foundation rather than the criterion of dissimilarity. Accounts, therefore, that fit the Jewish context and make sense of Christianity's rise may be historical.

Origin and early life

Birth

Jesus was probably born in the last years before Herod's reign ended in 4 BCE, in the Galilean village of Nazareth. Geza Vermes views the different accounts of Jesus' birth given in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "pious fictions". E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels". Raymond Brown notes that "it is unlikely that either account is completely historical", and suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses. While the infancy narratives are considered problematic by critical scholars, particularly because they are laced with theology and are indebted to precursor texts, it has been suggested that they do contain some historical information about Jesus, such as when he was born and the names of his parents.

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

Jewish background

Jesus mostly preached in Galilee (perhaps also Judea) (modern-day Israel and Palestine) for one to three years in the first half of the 1st century.

Following the fall of earlier Jewish kingdoms, the partially Hellenized territory was under Roman imperial rule, but there were ongoing hopes of a revival of independent sovereignty, just as the Hasmoneans had overthrown the earlier Seleucid Empire. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but although the land was mostly peaceful (notably between 7 and 26), there were continued risks of rebellion, riots, banditry, and violent resistance (see also Zealotry). Four decades after Jesus’ death, the tensions caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration of the kingdom of David culminated in the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

In the Judaic religion of Jesus' day, the Pharisees were a significant party, espousing belief in the resurrection of the dead, divine retribution in the next world, angels, human freedom, and divine providence. The more conservative Sadducees held power in the Temple. The Essenes lived ascetically and looked for an imminent apocalypse. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus does not seem to have belonged to any particular party or movement.

Linguistic proficiency

Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic. The Gospels record him using metaphors unknown in Hebrew or Greek but common in Aramaic. Some scholars speculate that because the lingua franca under Roman occupation was Greek, which was replacing Aramaic, Jesus might have known at least some Koine Greek.

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

Work as a "carpenter"

Jesus is identified in Mark as a τεκτων (''tekton'') and in Matthew as the son of a ''tekton.'' Like most people at the time, he presumably was trained by his parent in the family trade. ''Tekton'' has been traditionally translated into English as "carpenter", but is a rather general word (from the same root that gives us "technical" and "technology") that at the time could cover makers of objects in various materials, and builders, from tent makers to stonemasons. The specific association with woodworking is a constant in Early Christian tradition; Justin Martyr (d. c. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs, and there are similar early references.

Crossan puts ''tekton'' into a historical context more resembling an itinerant worker than an established artisan, emphasizing his marginality in a population in which a peasant who owns land could become quite prosperous. Some scholars, following S. J. Case, have noted that Nazareth is only about 6 kilometres from the city of Tzippori (ancient "Sepphoris"), which was destroyed by the Romans in 4BC, and thereafter was expensively rebuilt. It has been speculated that Joseph and Jesus might have traveled daily to work on the rebuilding. Specifically the large theatre in the city has been suggested, although this has aroused much controversy over dating and other issues. Other scholars see Joseph and Jesus as the general village craftsmen, working in wood, stone and metal on a wide variety of jobs.

Ethnicity

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

Family background and childhood

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

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

Jesus had "brothers and sisters", as reported in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. However, whether the verse literally meant brother or another close family member is still debated to this day. Prior to the 4th century, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ "brothers" who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl." Today, the most commonly accepted view among Catholics is that they were Jesus’ cousins. According to Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar, the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has long obscured the recognition that Jesus had siblings. After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother", was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem and Jesus' relatives seem to have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.

Ministry

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 Luke's "Sea of Galilee" (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (such as, Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), the Gentile mission was, at most, peripheral to Jesus' ministry. He made no statements about gentiles (non-Jews). 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), and performed a public reading of scripture, but met with rejection.

Jesus gathered a following and achieved a measure of fame around Galilee. Then for Passover, he and his followers traveled to the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem. However, Jesus left no instructions about founding a church.

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. In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.

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. Herod Antipas had John executed. In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q, the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.

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

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.

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". Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.

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 (), by referring to the baptism in passing (), or by asserting Jesus's superiority ().

Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. 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. 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 and Sanders, the apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice. All four Gospels claim that Jesus was crucified at the request of a Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate, but Christians still debate who was responsible. 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.

Works and miracles

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

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

Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God's authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect , or considered a metaphorical\allegorical reference to the restoration of a culture of compassion, respect, understanding and reintegration of diseased people to the society .

Jesus' identity

Jesus as divine

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

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

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. 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". The bible 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. The bible's 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. This phrase is used in the bible in the book of Daniel, where the writer claims a sight of revelation when the 'son of man' will return to earth to judge the people according to their acts and is a representative of divine authority and power. Therefore, the pharisees and religious teachers despised Jesus for using the term of such prophetic and divine importance. The Bible does not mention anyone other than Jesus to use the term to refer to himself.

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.

Other depictions

The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written .

The earliest Christians did not call Jesus, "God". New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any explicit 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.

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.

Teaching

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.

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.

Eschatology

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

Some critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

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."

Many scholars argue that since the Bible does not account for the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been a critical and overwhelming event in Israelite and Christian history, that this event may have instead been the 'end of history' the church was looking for but did not recognize. This would be contrary to verses which state that all nations would know what was happening, and who was responsible for it. Yet a writer such as the Apostle John, responsible for Revelation, and who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, would likely have documented the attack. Being that he did not, some presume he concluded that Jesus' words were thus fulfilled. The subsequent councils and churches which grew from this era then would have taken this outlook of 'end of world' and extended it for their own followers to look forward to.

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 will not 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.

Jesus' repeated declarations that the kingdom of God was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views. According to Geza Vermes and others, the use of the terms "messiah" and "son of God" by Jesus' followers indicate that they believed he would assume the monarchy upon the restoration of the kingdom (see Names and titles of Jesus).

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 (). 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.

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

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.

Followers and audience

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

Some scholars believe 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 Jesus Seminar on the other hand believes that the number 'twelve' in connection with an inner circle of disciples is a fiction.

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

''Ochloi''

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

''Mathetes''

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

''Apostolos''

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

''Women Disciples''

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

Missionaries

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

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.

Temple incident and execution

Travel to 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.

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. This act seems to have been symbolic, related to Jesus' prediction that the Temple would be destroyed when the apocalypse came. Since Jesus was not arrested immediately, Bart Ehrman suggests that the event was not dramatic, but that it drew the authorities' attention to Jesus. The authorities arrested him later, Ehrman suggests, once they'd seen that he was popular with the people and that he was stirring up apocalyptic fervor in the restive Passover crowds.

Betrayal

Jesus' betrayal by Judas Iscariot, one of his own disciples, is attested in early documents, but it does not appear in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Q Gospel, nor in the Gospel of Thomas, nor in the Gospel of Peter. In the gospel of Mark, Judas only appears in chapter 14, in connection with the betrayal of Jesus. By the criterion of embarrassment, it would be unlikely that early Christians would fabricate such a story and as such is assumed to be historically accurate. It's not clear what information the traitor would have provided that the authorities would need. Bart Ehrman holds that Judas revealed that Jesus was secretly teaching the disciples that he would be the king of the coming kingdom. Theologian Aaron Saari, however, contends in his work ''The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot'' that Judas Iscariot was the literary invention of the Markan community. Tassos Kioulachoglou points to the multiple references to the number of twelve apostles after Christ's death, suggesting that Judas was still included in that number, in contradiction of the story of his suicide.

Trial and execution

Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities. E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death, 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. Since none of Jesus' followers witnessed the trial, there is no way to know historically what took place. 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 and Catchpole argue that many elements of the gospel accounts could not 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. 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.

Burial and empty tomb

Scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom." 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. Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support, from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible", to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed". Other scholars write that at least one member of the Sanhedrin obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate and arranged for a dishonorable burial. In particular, Byron R. McCane writes that a new tomb as described in the gospel "would be the only culturally acceptable alternative to a criminal's burial place, for it would be the only other way to preserve the boundry of shame that separated Jesus from his people".

Bart Ehrman points out that historians try to determine which events most probably occurred. Even if Jesus' followers did find his tomb empty, any improbable explanation for its being empty is historically superior to the explanation that Jesus rose from the dead, which would be a virtual impossibility. Some scholars think that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that Mark's account of the women telling no one explains why the story had not been widely or previously known. However, 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". Still, 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."

Disciples abandon Jesus

When Jesus was arrested, the disciples fled (Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56) and did not witness his crucifixion. The cowardly and disoriented behavior of the disciples suggests that Jesus had not foretold his own death and resurrection, as the gospels say he did. The gospels disagree on whether the disciples fled to Galilee (Matthew) or stayed in Jerusalem (Luke). In the opinion of E. P. Sanders, they fled to Galilee and later returned to Jerusalem.

Resurrection appearances

Since supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, the resurrection of Jesus qualifies as a point of Christian dogma unamenable to the historical method. What can be debated in scholarship is whether the accounts of the resurrection appearances have been present in the original gospel or whether they are later insertions. The point of view that the accounts reflect historical visions by the followers of Jesus is known as the vision hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis assumes that the resurrection appearances are legendary and were inserted during the decades following Jesus' death.

Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. He does not describe any of the appearances, and he makes no distinction between his and the others. Acts reports that Paul's vision did not involve seeing Jesus in the flesh. The oldest extant versions of the Gospel of Mark report Jesus' empty tomb, but Matthew, Luke, and John all include significant resurrection appearances. In general, the appearance stories from the last three gospels do not match each other.

The inconsistent resurrection stories probably arose from competition over who was first among the witnesses rather than from deliberate fraud. The Jesus Seminar favors the vision hypothesis, that the appearance stories are based on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."

Theories of the historical Jesus

Current North American scholarship is dominated by the scholars of the so-called "third quest" for the historical Jesus. Important representatives of this group are E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, and John Dominic Crossan. They see the historical Jesus as the founder and leader of a restoration movement within Judaism. They identify a continuity between the movement that Jesus started and the religion that would eventually define itself as the Christian Church. Scholarship has split into different trends, with the main point of contention over whether Jesus saw the Kingdom of God as an imminent apocalyptic, earthly victory undertaken by God or as something internal, enacted by believers. The latter, non-apocalyptic view is current primarily in North American scholarship.

Apocalyptic prophet

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

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

Wisdom sage

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

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

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

Other views

There are many other interpretations of Jesus.

Scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson, take the minority view that the exact image of Jesus presented in the gospels is the real Jesus. They hold that dissenting scholars be more cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period, and see no problem in accepting traditional accounts when miraculous events, such as the resurrection, are beyond the historical method to either prove or disprove. Scholars have considered other alternative possibilities on the issue that are in nature historical rather than theological, some of which do and some of which do not assume Jesus to also have been the Son of God.

Morton Smith argued that Jesus was best understood as a magician, a view based on the presentation of Jesus in later Jewish sources. In light of the Talmud representations of Jewish figures such as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer Geza Vermes views Jesus as a pious and charismatic holy man known as a hasid. Some Marxists, like Kautsky, see Jesus as a forerunner of communism, since according to and the Apostles founded a communist society. Leo Tolstoy saw Jesus as championing Christian anarchism; although Tolstoy never actually used the term "Christian anarchism" in ''The Kingdom of God Is Within You'', reviews of this book following its publication in 1894 coined the term.

Hyam Maccoby proposed the theory that Jesus was a Pharisee, arguing that the positions ascribed to the Pharisees in the Gospels are very different from what we know of them. In fact their opinions were very similar to those ascribed to Jesus. According to Maccoby the gospel stories were edited in an anti-Jewish direction by Pauline Christianity. He believed that Jesus did not see himself as divine, but as a human Messiah who would trigger a prophesied divine intervention that would restore the Jewish monarchy in Israel and would lead to the Kingdom of God. In Maccoby's view Pauline Christianity was a completely distorted version of the teachings of Jesus which would have appalled Jesus himself had he known of it.

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

Alvar Ellegård proposes a theory that is somewhat similar to that of Eisenman. He believes that the Jesus of the Pauline Epistles goes back to the Essene Teacher of Righteousness. Unlike Eisenman, Ellegård believes in the traditional dating of the scrolls to the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE and explains the time difference between Jesus and James by assuming James was not in fact the brother of Jesus.

History of Historical Jesus research

Quest for the historical Jesus

Traditionally, Western scholars considered the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be authoritative and inspired by God, but, starting in the late 18th century, scholars began to submit the Gospels to historical scrutiny. From 1744 to 1767, Hermann Samuel Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but did not publish his findings. Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments. D.F.Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course. Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented. Joseph Renan was the first to portray Jesus simply as a human person. Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America. Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis. William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark. Albert Schweitzer showed how modern histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias. Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from ''c'' 1920 to ''c'' 1970. There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s. The 80s saw the founding of the controversial Jesus Seminar. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states that historical efforts to construct a biography of Jesus are as strong as ever, thanks to better knowledge of 1st-century Judaism, a rebirth of Roman Catholic scholarship, the acceptance of historical methods across denominations, literary analysis of Jesus' sayings, and sociological insights. However, Scot McKnight has said that the latest quest for the historical Jesus is dead.

Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus

''See also Confirmation bias''

Critics variously characterize the historical reconstruction of Jesus as either an unwarranted ''a priori'' rejection of all supernatural elements in Jesus' true identity, or as ascribing historical status to a fictional character. John P. Meier points out that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate christology than a true historical search; as an example, he points out that the stated motivation of one of the Jesus Seminar members was to overthrow the "mistake called Christianity." The quest is also said to be too western, too white, too bourgeois, and too male.

The linguist Alvar Ellegård argued that theologians have failed to question Jesus' existence because of a lack of communication between them and other scholars, causing some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate. According to the historian of religion Joseph Hoffman, there has never been "a methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence." Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies, in the department of history at Queen's University, has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua 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. John Meier, Professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has also said "...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..." Dale Allison, Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, too says, "...We wield our criteria to get what we want..." Biblical scholars have also been accused of having a strong disinclination towards communicating to the lay public things they know, but which would be unsettling to mainstream Christians. However, the Old Testament scholar Albrektson, while identifying some possible problems, says that a great many biblical scholars do practise their profession as an ordinary philological and historical subject, avoiding dogmatic assumptions and beliefs.

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.

Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. Rudolf Bultmann argued that historical research could reveal very little about the historical Jesus. Some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.

Christian criticism

Professor C. Stephen Evans holds that the stories told by "scientific, critical historians" are based on faith convictions no less than is the account of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, an account that he maintains can be reasonably accepted as historically true.

Criticism as myth

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

See also

Biblical archaeology (excavations and artifacts)

Biblical manuscript

Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Depiction of Jesus in art

Higher Criticism

Jefferson Bible

Jesus bloodline

Jesus in India

Jesus Seminar

Jesusism

List of artifacts significant to the Bible

New Testament view on Jesus' life

Religious perspectives on Jesus

Tacitus on Jesus

The Bible and history

Notes

References

Brown, Raymond E. ''et al.'' ''The New Jerome Biblical Commentary'' Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0

Bock, Darrell L., ''Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.''. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0801024511.

Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". ''Neotestamenica''. 39.1, 2005.

Crossan, John Dominic. ''Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography''. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.

Dickson, John. ''Jesus: A Short Life'', Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0825478022, 9780825478024, Google Books

Fiensy, David A.; ''Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life'', Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1593333137, 9781593333133, Google books

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.

Harris, by William V. ''Ancient Literacy''. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.

Meier, John P., ''A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus'', Doubleday,

:v. 1, ''The Roots of the Problem and the Person'', 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9 :v. 2, ''Mentor, Message, and Miracles'', 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6 :v. 3, ''Companions and Competitors'', 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4

Sanders, E.P. ''Jesus and Judaism''. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.

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.

Witherington III, Ben. ''The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth''. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.

Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected 6 volume series of which 3 have been published under:

:v. 1, ''The New Testament and the People of God.'' Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.; :v. 2, ''Jesus and the Victory of God.'' Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.; :v. 3, ''The Resurrection of the Son of God.'' Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.

Wright, N.T. ''The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is''. IVP 1996

Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., ''The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation''. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.

External links

Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry, is by E. P. Sanders, perhaps the most renowned expert on historical Jesus.

The Historical Jesus at the New Testament Gateway

PBS Frontline: From Jesus to Christ

An Overview of ''The Quest for the Historical Jesus'' by ancient historian John Dickson

Articles about the historical Jesus by William Lane Craig

Unofficial page of N. T. Wright, including articles about the historical Jesus

Faculty page of Paula Fredriksen, including articles about the historical Jesus

Category:1st-century people Category:Jews and Judaism in the Roman Empire Category:Historicity of religious figures Category:People whose existence is disputed Historical

ar:عيسى التاريخي cs:Historický Ježíš es:Jesús de Nazaret fr:Jésus selon l'exégèse contemporaine ko:역사적 예수 ia:Jesus historic it:Gesù storico nl:Jezus (historisch-kritisch) ja:ナザレのイエス nds:Jesus vun Nazareth pt:Jesus histórico sr:Istorijski Isus sh:Istorijski Isus fi:Historiallinen Jeesus

A Kohen (or ''Kohain'', Hebrew כֹּהֵן, 'priest', pl. כוהנים, ''Kohanim'') is the Hebrew word for priest. Jewish Kohens are traditionally believed and halachically required to be of direct patrilineal descent from the Biblical Aaron.

The name Kohen is used in the Torah to refer to priests, both Jewish and non-Jewish, such as the priests (Hebrew ''kohenim'') of Baal, as well as the Jewish nation as a whole. During the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem, Kohanim performed specific duties vis-à-vis the daily and festival sacrificial offerings.

Today Kohanim retain a lesser though somewhat distinct status within Judaism, and are bound by additional restrictions according to Orthodox Judaism.

Etymology

The term Kohen is most often translated as "Priest", but different translations have been offered depending on the textual content; Targumic translations include "Friend", "Master" and "Minister". As a starkly different translation the title "Worker" and "Server/Servant" have been offered as a translation as well. Some have attempted to resolve this translation contradiction by suggesting that although the Kohen does enjoy specific privileges, a primary component of Kehuna in Judaism is ''servitude''.

Biblical origins

The status of Kohen was conferred on Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his sons as an everlasting covenant During the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and until the Holy Temple was built in Jerusalem, Kohanim performed their priestly service in the portable Tabernacle. Their duties involved offering the daily and Jewish holiday sacrifices, collectively known as the Korbanot in Hebrew, and blessing the people in a ceremony known as ''Nesiat Kapayim'' ("Raising of the hands"), the ceremony of the Priestly Blessing.

When the First and Second Temples were built, the Kohanim assumed these same roles in these permanent structures on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They were divided into 24 groups, each group consisting of six priestly families. Each of the 24 served for one complete week, with each of the six serving one day per week, on the Shabbat all six worked in tandem. These 24 groups changed every Shabbat at the completion of the Mussaf service. On the biblical festivals all 24 were present in the Temple for duty.

In a broader sense, since Aaron was a descendant of the Tribe of Levi, Kohanim are sometimes titled Levites, by direct patrilineal descent. However, not all Levites are Kohanim.

When the Temple existed, most services (i.e. the ''Korbanot'') could only be conducted by Kohanim. Non-Kohen Levites (i.e. all those who descended from Levi, the son of Jacob, but not from Aaron) performed a variety of other Temple roles, including Shechita, song service by use of voice and Musical instruments, and various tasks in assisting the Kohanim in performing their service.

Lineage of priests in the Torah

King Melchizedek of Salem, identified by Rashi as being Shem the son of Noah by another name, is the first person in the Torah to be called a kohen.

When Esau sold the birthright of the first born to Jacob, Rashi explains that the priesthood was sold along with it, because by right the priesthood belongs to the first-born. Only when the first-born (along with the rest of Israel) sinned at the Golden calf, the priesthood was given to the Tribe of Levi, which had not been tainted by this incident.

Moses was supposed to receive the priesthood along with the leadership of the Jewish people, but when he argued with God that he should not be the leader, it was given to Aaron.

Aaron received the priesthood along with his children and any descendants that would be born subsequently. However, his grandson Phinehas had already been born, and did not receive the priesthood until he killed the prince of the Tribe of Simeon and the princess of the Midianites. Thereafter, the priesthood has remained with the descendants of Aaron. However, when the Messiah comes, there is a tradition that it will revert back to the first born.

King David assigned each of the 24 Kohanic clans to a weekly watch (משמרת) during which its members were responsible for maintaining the schedule of offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. This instated a cycle of 'priestly courses' or 'priestly divisions' which repeated itself roughly twice each year. Following the Temple's destruction at the end of the First Jewish Revolt and the displacement to the Galilee of the bulk of the remaining Jewish population in Judea at the end of the Bar Kochva Revolt, Jewish tradition in the Talmud and poems from the period records that the descendants of each priestly watch established a separate residential seat in towns and villages of the Galilee, and maintained this residential pattern for at least several centuries in anticipation of the reconstruction of the Temple and reinstitution of the cycle of priestly courses. Specifically, this kohanic settlement region stretched from the Beit Netofa Valley, through the Nazareth region to Arbel and the vicinity of Tiberias.

The twenty-four divisions

King David, along with Samuel divided the then existing Kohanic groups into 24 priestly divisions (Mishmarot, משמרות). Each group's members were responsible for maintaining the schedule of offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. When the First and Second Temples were built, the Kohanim assumed these roles in the permanent temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Each of the 24 groups consisted of six priestly families, with each of the six serving one day of the week. On the Shabbat all six worked in tandem. These 24 groups changed every Shabbat at the completion of the Mussaf service. However, On the biblical festivals all 24 were present in the Temple for duty. The cycle of the 24 priestly courses repeated itself roughly twice each year.

Qualifications and disqualifications

Although Kohanim may assume their duties once they reached physical maturity, the fraternity of Kohanim generally would not allow young Kohanim to begin service until they reached the age of twenty, some opinions state that this age was thirty. There was no mandatory retirement age. Only when a Kohen became physically infirm could he no longer serve. A Kohen may become disqualified from performing his service for a host of reasons, including -but not limited to- Tumah, Marital defilements, and Physical blemishes. Of importance is that the Kohen is never permanently disqualified from service but is permitted to return to his normal duties once the disqualification ceases.

The twenty-four Kohanic gifts

The Kohanim were compensated for their service to the nation and in the Temple through 24 priestly gifts. Of these 24 gifts, 10 are listed as to be given even outside the land of Israel. An example of the gifts given to the Kohen in the Diaspora are most notably the five coins of the Pidyon HaBen ceremony, and the Giving of the foreleg, cheeks and abomasum from each Kosher-slaughtered animal.

The Kohen and Torah instruction

Torah verses and Rabbinical commentary to the Tanach imply that the Kohen has a unique leadership role amongst the nation of Israel -in addition to the common knowledge that the Kohen is to officiate the sacrificial activity in the Temple (the Korbanot), the Kohen is assumed responsibility of being knowleadgable in the laws and nuances of the Torah and accurately instructing those laws to the Jewish people.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains this responsibility as not being the exclusive Torah instructors, but working in tandem with the Rabbinic leaders of the era.

The Kohen Gadol

In every generation when the Temple was standing, one Kohen would be singled out to perform the functions of Kohen Gadol (High Priest). His primary task was the Yom Kippur service. Other Kohen Gadol unique acts included the offering of a daily meal sacrifice, and the prerogative to supersede any Kohen and offer any offering he chose.

Although the Torah retains a procedure to select a Kohen Gadol when needed, in the absence of the Temple in Jerusalem, there is no Kohen Gadol today.

Modern application

After the destruction of the Second Temple and the suspension of sacrificial offerings, the formal role of priests in sacrificial services came to an end, whether temporary or permanent. However, Kohanim retain a formal and public ceremonial role in synagogue prayer services, which were established as a substitute for or reminder of the sacrifices themselves ("Take with you words, and return unto the LORD; say unto Him: "Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips..." ()). Kohanim also have a limited number of other special duties/privileges in Jewish religious practice. These special roles have been maintained in Orthodox Judaism, and sometimes in Conservative Judaism. Reform Judaism does not afford any special status or recognition to Kohanim.

Synagogue ''aliyah''

Every Monday, Thursday and Shabbat in Orthodox synagogues (and many Conservative ones as well), a portion from the Torah is read aloud in the original Hebrew in front of the congregation. On weekdays, this reading is divided into three; it is customary to call a Kohen for the first reading (''aliyah''), a Levite for the second reading, and a member of any other Tribe of Israel to the third reading. On Shabbat, the reading is divided into seven portions; a Kohen is called for the first ''aliyah'' and a Levite to the second, and a member of another tribe for the rest.

If a kohen is not present, it is customary in many communities for a levite to take the first ''aliyah'' "''bimkom Kohen''" (in the place of a Kohen) and an Israelite the second and succeeding ones. This custom is not required by Halakha (Jewish religious law), however, and Israelites may be called up for all aliyot.

The late 12th and early 13th century Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg ruled that in a community consisting entirely of Kohanim, the prohibition on calling Kohanim for anything but the first two and ''maftir'' ''aliyot'' creates a deadlock situation which should be resolved by calling women to the Torah for all the intermediate ''aliyot.'' Dr. Joel B. Wolowelsky, an author on the topic of the role of women in Judaism, has recently endorsed relying on this authority to permit the deliberate creation of ''minyanim'' composed entirely of Kohanim for the express purpose of giving women an opportunity to have an ''aliyah'' to the Torah in an Orthodox setting.

The Conservative Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), consistent with the Conservative movement's general view of the role of Kohanim, has ruled that the practice of calling a Kohen to the first aliyah represents a custom rather than a law, and that accordingly, a Conservative rabbi is not obligated to follow it. As such, in some Conservative synagogues, this practice is not followed.

Priestly blessing

The Kohanim participating in an Orthodox prayer service also deliver the Priestly Blessing, during the repetition of the ''Shemoneh Esrei''. They perform this service by standing and facing the crowd in the front of the congregation, with their arms held outwards and their hands and fingers in a specific formation. Kohanim living in Israel and many Sephardic Jews living in areas outside of Israel deliver the Priestly Blessing daily; Ashkenazi Jews living outside of Israel deliver it only on Jewish holidays.

Pidyon Haben

Outside the synagogue, the Kohen leads the ''Pidyon Haben'' ceremony. This symbolic Redemption of the first-born son is based on the Torah commandment, "and you shall redeem all the firstborn of man among your sons."

Effects on marital status

Orthodox Judaism recognizes the rules as being in full force, but in practice seeks leniency with respect to some of the rules' strictures, and tends to resolve at least some doubts in favor of permitting a questionable marriage. Areas where Orthodox approaches may create different results include situations where a woman has been raped, kidnapped or held hostage, descendants of converts whose Judaism status turned out to be subject to doubt, ambiguous prior dating histories, and other potentially ambiguous or difficult situations.

Rape poses an especially poignant problem. The pain experienced by the families of Kohanim who were required to divorce their wives as the result of the rapes accompanying the capture of Jerusalem is alluded to in this Mishnah:

If a woman were imprisoned by non-Jews concerning money affairs, she is permitted to her husband, but if for some capital offense, she is forbidden to her husband. If a town were overcome by besieging troops, all women of priestly stock found in it are ineligible [to be married to priests or to remain married to priests], but if they had witnesses, even a slave, or even a bondswoman, these may be believed. But no man may be believed for himself. Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatsab said, "By this Temple, her hand did not stir from my hand from the time the non-Jews entered Jerusalem until they went out." They said to him: No man may give evidence of himself.

In Israel

The Israeli rabbinate will not perform a marriage Halachically forbidden to a Kohen. For example, a Kohen cannot legally marry a divorced or converted woman in the State of Israel, although a foreign marriage would be recognized.

Conservative Jewish view

Conservative Judaism has issued an emergency ''takanah'' (rabbinical edict) temporarily suspending the application of the rules in their entirety, on the grounds that the high intermarriage rate in its community threatens the survival of Judaism, and hence that any marriage between Jews is welcomed. The ''takanah'' declares that the offspring of such marriages are to be regarded as Kohanim. The movement allows a kohen to marry a convert or divorcee for these reasons:

Since the Temple in Jerusalem is no longer extant and ''korbanot'' should not be restored, Kohanim are no longer able to perform Temple services in a state of ritual purity.

Because the intermarriage crisis among American Jewry is an extreme situation, the Conservative movement feels it must support the decision of two Jews to marry.

The Bat-Kohen

Kohen was a status that traditionally referred to men, passed from father to son, although there were situations where a ''Bat-Kohen,'' daughter of a kohen, enjoyed some special status. For example, the first-born son of a Bat-Kohen or the first-born son of a Bat-Levi, the daughter of any Levi did not require the ritual of ''Pidyon HaBen.''

In addition, females, although they did not serve in the Tabernacle or the Temple, were permitted to eat or benefit from some of the 24 kohanic gifts. However, if a kohen's daughter married a man from outside the kohanic line, she was no longer permitted to benefit from the kohanic gifts. Conversely, the daughter of a non-kohen who married a kohen took on the same rights as an unmarried daughter of a kohen.

In modern times

Today, Orthodox and many Conservative rabbis maintain the position that only men can act as a kohen, and that a daughter of a kohen is recognized as a ''Bat-kohen'' only in those very limited ways that have been identified in the past. Other Conservative rabbis, along with some Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis, are prepared to give equal kohen status to the daughter of a kohen.

Orthodox Judaism maintains that the privileges and status of kohanim stem primarily from their offerings and activities in the Temple. Accordingly, in Orthodox Judaism only men can perform the Priestly Blessing and receive the first ''aliyah'' during the public Torah reading, and women are generally not permitted to officiate in a ''Pidyon HaBen'' ceremony. However, the question of what acts (if any) a ''bat-kohen'' can perform in an Orthodox context is a subject of current discussion and debate in some Orthodox circles.

Some women's prayer groups which practice under the halakhic guidance of Modern Orthodox Rabbis, and which conduct Torah readings for women only, have adapted a custom of calling a ''bat-kohen'' for the first aliyah and a ''bat levi'' for the second.

Conservative Judaism, consistent with its view that sacrifices in the Temple will not be restored and in light of many congregations' commitment to gender (but not tribal) egalitarianism, interprets the Talmudic relevant passages to permit elimination of most distinctions between male and female kohanim in congregations that retain traditional tribal roles while modifying traditional gender roles. The Conservative movement bases this leniency on the view that the privileges of the kohen come not from offering Temple offerings but solely from lineal sanctity, and that ceremonies like the Priestly Blessing should evolve from their Temple-based origins. (The argument for women's involvement in the Priestly Blessing acknowledges that only male kohanim could perform this ritual in the days of the Temple, but that the ceremony is no longer rooted in Temple practice; its association with the Temple was by rabbinic decree; and rabbis therefore have the authority to permit the practice to evolve from its Temple-based roots). As a result, some Conservative synagogues permit a ''bat kohen'' to perform the Priestly Blessing and the Pidyon HaBen ceremony, and to receive the first ''aliyah'' during the Torah reading.

The Halakha committee of the Masorti movement (the equivalent of Conservative Judaism) in Israel has ruled that women do not receive such ''aliyot'' and cannot perform such functions as a valid position (Rabbi Robert Harris, 5748). Therefore, not all Conservative congregations or rabbis permit these roles for ''bnot Kohanim'' (daughters of priests). Moreover, many egalitarian-oriented Conservative synagogues have abolished traditional tribal roles and do not perform ceremonies involving kohanim (such as the Priestly Blessing or calling a Kohen to the first ''aliyah''), and many traditionalist-oriented Conservative synagogues have retained traditional gender roles and do not permit women to perform these roles at all.

Because most Reform and Reconstructionist temples have abolished traditional tribal distinctions, roles, and identities on grounds of egalitarianism, a special status for a ''bat Kohen'' has very little significance in these movements.

Kohen genetic testing

Recently the tradition that many Kohanim are descended from a common ancestor has gained some support as well as rejection from genetic testing. Since all direct male lineages share a common haplotype, testing was done across sectors of the Jewish population to see if there was any commonality among their Y chromosomes. There were proven to be certain distinctions among the Y chromosomes of Kohanim, although these distinctions were found in slightly over half of the Kohanim tested; implying that slightly over half of Kohanim share some common male ancestry. Results from this study of Kohanim were used to establish that many male members of the Lemba people (a sub-Saharan tribe) could be descendants of Kohanim. Note: The Y-chromosome cannot be passed to or through a female. Since the religious status of a kohen is contingent upon being the male biological descendant of Aaron in conjunction with numerous other variables that are not subject to genetic testing (the wife of a kohen cannot have had relations with a non-Jew, be a divorcee etc...) the possession of a common haplotype does not provide sufficient evidence to confer or maintain the status of a kohen.

Cohen as a surname

The status of kohen in Judaism has no necessary relationship to a person's surname. Though it is true that descendants of Kohanim often bear surnames that reflect their genealogy, there are many families with the surname Cohen (or any number of variations) who are not Kohanim nor even Jewish. Conversely, there are many Kohanim who do not have Cohen as a surname.

There are numerous variations to the spelling of the surname Cohen. These are often corrupted by translation or transliteration into or from other languages, as exemplified below (not a complete list).

Basque: Apeztegui "priestly house", in basque "apaiz" (priestly) and "tegi"(house). Also Apéstegui, Apesteguia, Apaestegui and Aphesteguy.

Ancient/Modern Hebrew: Kohen, HaKohen, ben-Kohen, bar-Kohen

Others: Maze/Mazo (acronym of ''mi zerat Aharon,'' i.e. "from the seed of Aaron"), Azoulai (acronym from ''ishah zonah ve'challelah lo yikachu,'' meaning "a foreign or divorced woman he shall not take;" prohibition binding on Kohanim), Rappaport, Kahane.

However, by no means are all Jews with these surnames Kohanim. Additionally, some "Cohen"-type surnames are considered stronger indications of the status than others. "Cohen" is one of the hardest to substantiate due to its sheer commonality.

In contemporary Israel, "Moshe Cohen" is the equivalent of "John Smith" in English-speaking countries - i.e., proverbially the most common of names.

Seder

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, one common interpretation of the practice of having three pieces of matzah on a Seder plate is that they represent "Kohen, Levi and Yisrael" (i.e., the priests, the tribe of Levi, and all other Jewish people).

Outside Judaism

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, only "literal descendants of Aaron" have the legal right to constitute the Presiding Bishopric under the authority of the First Presidency (). When and where no Latter-day Saint descendants of Aaron are available, Melchizedek Priesthood holders are permitted to substitute. To date, all men who have served on the Presiding Bishopric have been Melchizedek Priesthood holders, and none have been publicly identified as descendants of Aaron. See also Mormonism and Judaism.

References in popular culture

The positioning of the kohen's hands during the Priestly Blessing was Leonard Nimoy's inspiration for Mr. Spock's Vulcan salute in the original Star Trek television series. Nimoy, raised an Orthodox Jew (but not a kohen), used the salute when saying "Live long and prosper."

The Priestly Blessing is used by Leonard Cohen in his farewell blessing during "Whither Thou Goest", the closing song on his concerts. Leonard Cohen himself is from a kohen family. He also uses the drawing of the Priestly Blessing as one of his logos.

The Kohen and the Holocaust

In 1938, with the outbreak of violence that would come to be known as Kristallnacht, American Orthodox rabbi Mnachem HaKohen Risikoff wrote about the central role he saw for Priests and Levites in terms of Jewish and world responses, in worship, liturgy, and ''teshuva'', repentance. In הכהנים והלוים HaKohanim vHaLeviim(1940), ''The Priests and the Levites'', he stressed that members of these groups exist in the realm between history (below) and redemption (above), and must act in a unique way to help move others to prayer and action, and help bring an end to suffering. He wrote, "Today, we also are living through a time of flood, Not of water, but of a bright fire, which burns and turns Jewish life into ruin. We are now drowning in a flood of blood...Through the Kohanim and Levi'im help will come to all Israel."

See also

The status quo Kohen

The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen

The Torah instruction of the Kohanim

Giving of the Foreleg, Cheeks, and Abomasum (as an outside-of-Israel Kohanic gift)

Wicked Priest

Israelites

Jewish view of marriage

Family history

Footnotes

Bibliography

Isaac Klein ''A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice'', p. 387-388. (Conservative view prior to ''takkanah'' on Kohen marriages.)

Isaac Klein ''Responsa and Halakhic Studies'', p. 22-26. (Conservative view prior to ''takkanah'' on Kohen marriages.)

K. Skorecki, S. Selig, S. Blazer, R. Bradman, N. Bradman, P. J. Waburton, M. Ismajlowicz, M. F. Hammer (1997). Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests. ''Nature'' 385, 32. (Available online: DOI | Full text (HTML) | Full text (PDF))

''Proceedings of the CJLS: 1927-1970'', volume III, United Synagogue Book Service. (Conservative)

''Mishnayoth:Seder Nashim.'' Translated and Annotated by Philip Blackman. Judaica Press Ltd., 2000. pp. 134–135

External links

Genetic Genealogy: Aaron and the Cohen Model Haplotype

The Laws of Birchat Kohanim - the Priestly Blessing Chabad.org

Holy Matrimony? All about the Kohen or Jewish priest's prohibitions in marriage.

The Cohen-Levi Family Heritage

High priest's official apparel depicted

Category:Jewish religious occupations Category:Jewish sacrificial law Category:Tabernacle and Jerusalem Temples Category:Torah people Category:Hebrew Bible topics Category:Hebrew words and phrases

cs:Kohen da:Kohen de:Kohanim es:Cohen fr:Cohen (judaïsme) id:Kohen it:Sacerdote (Ebraismo) he:כהן hu:Kohaniták nl:Cohen no:Kohen pl:Kohen pt:Cohen ru:Коэны sv:Kohen tr:Kohen uk:Коген yi:כהן

Rodney Leon Brasfield (August 22, 1910–September 12, 1958) was an American comedian who was prominently featured on the Grand Ole Opry from 1947 until his death in 1958. In 1987, he was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.

Biography

Brasfield was born in Smithville, Mississippi. He began his career in the late 1920s with Bisbee’s Dramatic Shows, a touring tent repertory troupe, serving as a straight man for his older brother, actor and comedian Boob Brasfield. In 1931 he married a Hohenwald, Tennessee school teacher, Eleanor Humphrey.

In 1944, Brasfield was recruited by George D. Hay for the Grand Ole Opry. With his trademark baggy suit, battered hat and rubbery face, he could make audiences laugh before he spoke a word. He soon became the primary comic on ''The Prince Albert Show'', the Opry’s NBC Radio broadcast, playing off the show’s host, Red Foley. Assuming the role of a hapless hayseed, he often poked fun at country life—always with good humor.

In 1948, he began teaming with Minnie Pearl, playing what she referred to as “double comedy” in which each of them delivered alternating punch lines and neither played the straight man. Some of these routines were broadcast on the Opry's live ABC television network show from 1955–56. He lived in Hohenwald, called himself the Hoenwald Flash, and often mentioned the local restaurant (which he once owned) the Snip-Snap-and-Bite, in his routines. Brasfield sometimes did ventriloquist routines with a dummy named Bocephus, after whom Hank Williams nicknamed his then-infant son Hank Williams, Jr.; and also did comedy with June Carter.

In March 1956 he appeared with Elvis Presley at Atlanta's Fox Theatre. In 1957, he played Andy Griffith’s sidekick in ''A Face in the Crowd''; and appeared in ''Country Music Holiday'' the same year. Heart failure combined with an ongoing problem with alcohol led to his death at age 48 in 1958 in Martin, Tennessee. He is buried in Smithville.

External links

At the Country Music Hall of Fame

Category:1910 births Category:1958 deaths Category:American comedians Category:American radio personalities Category:Country Music Hall of Fame inductees Category:Grand Ole Opry members Category:People from Monroe County, Mississippi

name	Cowboy Copas
background	solo_singer
birth name	Lloyd Estel Copas
alias	Cowboy Copas
birth date	July 15, 1913
death date	March 05, 1963
origin	Adams County, Ohio, USA
instrument	guitar
genre	country music, honky tonk
occupation	singer, songwriter
years active	1925–1963
label	King RecordsDot RecordsStarday Records
associated acts	Pee Wee King
notable instruments	}}

Lloyd Estel Copas (July 15, 1913 – March 5, 1963), known by his stage name Cowboy Copas, was an American country music singer popular from the 1940s until his death in the 1963 plane crash that also killed country stars Patsy Cline and Hawkshaw Hawkins. He was a member of the Grand Ole Opry.

Biography

Copas was born in 1913 in Jefferson Township in Adams County, Ohio. He began performing locally at age 14, and appeared on WLW-AM and WKRC-AM in Cincinnati during the 1930s. In 1940 he moved to Knoxville, Tennessee, where he performed on WNOX-AM with his band, the Gold Star Rangers.

In 1943, Copas achieved national fame when he replaced Eddy Arnold as a vocalist in the Pee Wee King band and began performing on the ''Grand Ole Opry''. His first solo single, "Filipino Baby", released by King Records in 1946, hit No. 4 on the ''Billboard'' country chart and sparked the most successful period of his career.

While continuing to appear on the Opry, Copas recorded several other hits during the late 1940s and early 1950s, including "Signed, Sealed and Delivered", "The Tennessee Waltz", "Tennessee Moon", "Breeze", "I'm Waltzing with Tears in My Eyes", "Candy Kisses", "Hangman's Boogie", and "The Strange Little Girl". Copas' 1952 single, "'Tis Sweet to Be Remembered", reached No. 8 on the ''Billboard'' country chart, but it was his final top 40 hit for eight years.

Although Copas didn't maintain his stellar popularity of the late 1940s through the next decade, he continued to perform regularly at the Grand Ole Opry and appeared on ABC-TV's ''Ozark Jubilee''. After a lackluster partnership with Dot Records, Copas surged to the top of the charts again in 1960 with the biggest hit of his career, "Alabam", which remained number one for three months. Other major hits during his successful period with Starday Records in the early 1960s, including "Flat Top" and a remake of "Signed, Sealed And Delivered", held promising implications for the future of his career, but fate intervened.

Aircraft accident

On March 3, 1963, Copas, Patsy Cline, Hawkshaw Hawkins and others performed at a benefit concert at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall in Kansas City, Kansas for the family of disc jockey Cactus Jack Call, who had died the previous December in an automobile accident.

On March 5, they left for Nashville in a Piper Comanche piloted by Copas' son-in-law (and Cline's manager), Randy Hughes. After stopping to refuel in Dyersburg, Tennessee, the craft took off at 6:07 p.m. CT. The plane flew into severe weather and crashed at 6:20 p.m. in a forest near Camden, Tennessee, 90 miles from the destination. There were no survivors. A stone marker, dedicated on July 6, 1996, marks the location of the crash.

Copas was buried at Forest Lawn Memorial Gardens in Goodlettsville, Tennessee in "Music Row" with Hawkins and other country music stars.

Discography

Singles

Year	Single	Chart Positions
		! width="50"	! width="50"
1946	"Filipino Baby"
	"Signed Sealed and Delivered"
"Tennessee Waltz"
"Tennessee Moon"
"Breeze"
	"I'm Waltzing with Tears in My Eyes"
"Candy Kisses"
"Hangman's Boogie"
1951	"The Strange Little Girl"
1952	"'Tis Sweet to Be Remembered"
1960
	"Flat Top"
"Sunny Tennessee"
"Signed Sealed and Delivered" (recording)
1963	"Goodbye Kisses"

References

Bush, John (2003). Edited by Vladimir Bogdanov, Chris Woodstra, & Stephen Erlewine. "Cowboy Copas (Lloyd Estel Copas)." ''All Music Guide to Country'', 2nd ed. San Francisco: Backbeat Books, 2003. ISBN 0-87930-760-9

Smith, Jonathan Guyot (1998). "Cowboy Copas." In ''The Encyclopedia of Country Music''. Paul Kingsbury, Editor. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 111.

Simon, John Roger (2008) ''Cowboy Copas and the Golden Age of Country Music''. Jesse Stuart Foundation, publisher. 416 pages w/ illustrations.

External links

Cowboy Copas tribute page at patsycline.com

Cowboy Copas biography at hillbilly-music.com

Category:American country singers Category:Grand Ole Opry members Category:American male singers Category:King Records artists Category:Starday Records artists Category:People from Adams County, Ohio Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States Category:1913 births Category:1963 deaths Category:Accidental deaths in Tennessee

de:Cowboy Copas