Supper at Emmaus, 1601, by Caravaggio. Oil on canvas, 139 x 195 cm. National Gallery, London.

Christian art is sacred art produced in an attempt to illustrate, supplement and portray in tangible form the principles of Christianity, though other definitions are possible. Most Christian groups use or have used art to some extent, although some have had strong objections to some forms of religious image, and there have been major periods of iconoclasm within Christianity. Images of Jesus and narrative scenes from the Life of Christ are the most common subjects, and scenes from the Old Testament play a part in the art of most denominations. Images of the Virgin Mary and saints are much rarer in Protestant art than that of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Of the three related religions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, Christianity makes far wider use of images, which are forbidden or discouraged by Islam and Judaism. However there is also a considerable history of aniconism in Christianity from various periods.

History[link]

Beginnings[link]

Virgin and Child. Wall painting from the early catacombs, Rome, 4th century.

Early Christian art survives from dates near the origins of Christianity. The oldest surviving Christian paintings are from the site at Megiddo, dated to around the year 70, and the oldest Christian sculptures are from sarcophagi, dating to the beginning of the 2nd century. The largest groups of Early Christian paintings come from the tombs in the Catacombs of Rome, and show the evolution of the depiction of Jesus, a process not complete until the 6th century, since when the conventional appearance of Jesus in art has remained remarkably consistent. Until the adoption of Christianity by Constantine Christian art derived its style and much of its iconography from popular Roman art, but from this point grand Christian buildings built under imperial patronage brought a need for Christian versions of Roman elite and official art, of which mosaics in churches in Rome are the most prominent surviving examples. Christian art was caught up in, but did not originate, the shift in style away from the classical tradition inherited from Ancient Greek art to a less realist and otherworldly hieratic style, the start of medieval art.

Middle Ages[link]

Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper (1498)

Much of the art surviving from Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire is Christian art, although this in large part because the continuity of church ownership has preserved church art better than secular works. While the Western Roman Empire's political structure essentially collapsed after the fall of Rome, its religious hierarchy, what is today the modern-day Roman Catholic Church commissioned and funded production of religious art imagery . The Orthodox Church of Constantinople, which enjoyed greater stability within the surviving Eastern Empire was key in commissioning imagery there and glorifying Christianity. As a stable Western European society emerged during the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church led the way in terms of art, using its resources to commission paintings and sculptures.

During the development of Christian art in the Byzantine empire (see Byzantine art), a more abstract aesthetic replaced the naturalism previously established in Hellenistic art. This new style was hieratic, meaning its primary purpose was to convey religious meaning rather than accurately render objects and people. Realistic perspective, proportions, light and color were ignored in favor of geometric simplification of forms, reverse perspective and standardized conventions to portray individuals and events. The controversy over the use of graven images, the interpretation of the Second Commandment, and the crisis of Byzantine Iconoclasm led to a standardization of religious imagery within the Eastern Orthodoxy.

Renaissance and Early Modern period[link]

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 brought an end to the highest quality Byzantine art, produced in the Imperial workshops there. Orthodox art, known as icons regardless of the medium, has otherwise continued with relatively little change in subject and style up to the present day, with Russia gradually becoming the leading centre of production.

In the West, the Renaissance saw an increase in monumental secular works, but until the Protestant Reformation Christian art continued to be commissioned in great quantities by churches, clergy and by the aristocracy. The Reformation had a huge effect on Christian art, rapidly bringing the production of public Christian art to a virtual halt in Protestant countries, and causing the destruction of most of the art that already existed. Artists were commissioned more secular genres like portraits, landscape paintings and because of the revival of Neoplatonism, subjects from classical mythology. In Catholic countries, production continued, and increased during the Counter-Reformation, but Catholic art was brought under much tighter control by the church hierarchy than had been the case before. From the 18th century the number of religious works produced by leading artists declined sharply, though important commissions were still placed, and some artists continued to produce large bodies of religious art on their own initiative.

Modern period[link]

As a secular, non-sectarian, universal notion of art arose in 19th century Western Europe, ancient and Medieval Christian art began to be collected for art appreciation rather than worship, while contemporary Christian art was considered marginal. Occasionally, secular artists treated Christian themes (Bouguereau, Manet) — but only rarely was a Christian artist included in the historical canon (such as Rouault or Stanley Spencer). However many modern artists such as Eric Gill, Marc Chagall, Henri Matisse, Jacob Epstein, Elizabeth Frink and Graham Sutherland have produced well-known works of art for churches.^[1]

Popular devotional art[link]

Since the advent of printing, the sale of reproductions of pious works has been a major element of popular Christian culture. In the nineteenth century, this included genre painters such as Mihály Munkácsy. The invention of color lithography led to broad circulation of holy cards. In the modern era, companies specializing in modern commercial Christian artists such as Thomas Blackshear and Thomas Kinkade, although widely regarded in the fine art world as kitsch,^[2] have been very successful.

The re-birth of Christian fine art[link]

The last part of the 20th and the first part of the 21st century have seen a focused effort by artists who claim faith in Christ to re-establish art with themes that revolve around faith, Christ, God, the Church, the Bible and other classic Christian themes as worthy of respect by the secular art world. Some writers, such as Gregory Wolfe, view this resurgence as part of a larger rebirth of Christian humanism.^[3] Artists such as Makoto Fujimura have had significant influence both in sacred and secular arts. Other notable artists include Larry D. Alexander, Gary P. Bergel, Carlos Cazares, Bruce Herman, Deborah Sokolove, and John August Swanson.

Subjects[link]

Part of a series on
Christianity
Christians hold Jesus to be Christ
Jesus Â· Christ Virgin birth Crucifixion Resurrection Easter Jesus in Christianity
Bible / Foundations Old Testament New Testament Gospel Books Canon (Christian canons) Apocrypha Apostles Church Creeds Kingdom New Covenant
Theology Apologetics Baptism Christology Father Son Holy Spirit History of theology Salvation Trinity Ten Commandments
History and traditions Timeline Mary Peter Paul Fathers Early Constantine the Great Ecumenical councils Missions East–West Schism Crusades Protestant Reformation
General topics Art Criticism Ecumenism Liturgical year Liturgy Music Other religions Prayer Sermon Symbolism
Denominations Western Christianity Adventist Anabaptist Anglican Baptist Calvinism Evangelicalism Holiness Independent Catholic Lutheran Methodist Old Catholic Protestant Pentecostal Roman Catholic Eastern Christianity Eastern Orthodox Eastern Catholic Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) Assyrian Nontrinitarianism Jehovah's Witness Latter Day Saint Unitarian Christadelphian Oneness Pentecostal
Christianity portal
v t e

Subjects often seen in Christian art include the following. See Life of Christ and Life of the Virgin for fuller lists of narrative scenes included in cycles:

See also[link]

A rare sample of medieval Orthodox sculpture from Russia.

• Andachtsbilder
• Archangel Michael in Christian art
• Art in Roman Catholicism
• Buddhist art
• Christian icons
• Christian music
• Christian poetry
• Christian symbolism
  • Saint symbolism
• Crucifixion in the arts
• God the Father in Western art
• Holy Spirit in Christian art
• Iconography
• Illuminated manuscript
• Islamic art
• Islamic influences on Christian art
• Resurrection of Jesus in Christian art
• Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy
• Theological aesthetics

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Grabar, André (1968). Christian iconography, a study of its origins. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01830-8. 

External links[link]

• Princeton's Index of Christian Art
• Essays on Iconography
• Society for the Arts in Religious and Theological Studies
• Christians in the Visual Arts
• Biblical Art on the WWW - a database of biblical images

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

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

The 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.^[3][4] 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.^[5] He told surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.^[6] 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.^[7] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.^[8] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.^[3] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.^[3] 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.^[9] 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 in fragments of early Gospels, and as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period, such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus^[10] (see Josephus on Jesus and the Testimonium Flavianum) and various Roman documents, such as the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by imperial biographer Suetonius, and the correspondence of Pliny to Emperor Trajan.^[11]

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.^[12][13] 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").^[14]

Part of a series on

Jesus Christ and Christianity Gospel harmony Virgin birth Nativity Baptism Ministry Miracles Parables Humiliation Death Burial Resurrection Ascension Heavenly Session Intercession Second Coming Christology Names and titles Relics Active obedience

Jesus in Islam Islamic views of Mary Disciples of Jesus in Islam Islamic view of Jesus' death The Second coming The Mahdi Jesus in the end of time The fight with the Anti-Christ

Cultural-historical background Language spoken Race Genealogy Background of the NT

Jesus and history Historicity Chronology Historical reliability of the Gospels Historical Jesus Comparative mythology Christ myth theory Jesus and the Torah Jesus in the Talmud Josephus on Jesus Tacitus on Christ Census of Quirinius

Perspectives on Jesus Biblical Christian Lutheran Jewish Islamic Ahmadi Scientology

Jesus in culture Depiction Jesuism Music

Christianity portal

v t e

Scholarly methods[link]

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.^[15] 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.^[16] Historians^[17] and Bible scholars analyze the Canonical Gospels,^[18] Talmud, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gnostic Gospels, Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls^[19] 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.^[20]

• 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.^[21]

• 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. The mainstream viewpoint is that Mark's account was used as a source for Matthew and Luke.^[20][22] 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.^[23] 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.^[24][25]

• 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.^[23] 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.^[23]

• 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.^[26] 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.^[27][28][29]

Currents within contemporary research typically take the historical criterion of plausibility as their foundation rather than the criterion of dissimilarity.^[30] Accounts, therefore, that fit the Jewish context and make sense of Christianity's rise may be historical.^[30]

Origin and early life[link]

Birth[link]

Jesus was probably born in the last years before Herod's reign ended in 4 BCE,^[31][32] in the Galilean village of Nazareth.^{[33][34][35][36]} Geza Vermes views the different and contradictory accounts of Jesus' birth given in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "pious fictions".^[37] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".^[38] Raymond Brown notes that "it is unlikely that either account is completely historical",^[39] and suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses.^[40] 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.^[41][42]

This first Herod, an Idumaean whom the Roman Senate elected King of the Jews^[43] over Idumea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria and neighboring lands, ruled from 37 to 4 BCE.^[44] 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.^[44]

Jewish background[link]

Jesus mostly preached in synagogues in Galilee (perhaps also Judea) (modern-day Israel) for one to three years in the first half of the 1st century.^[45]

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

Following the fall of earlier Jewish kingdoms, the partially Hellenized territory was under Roman imperial rule, but there were ongoing hopes of a revival of independent sovereignty, 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^[46]), 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.^[47] 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[link]

Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic.^[48] 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.^[49]

There are a number of passages from the Gospels which state or imply that Jesus could at least read.^[50] In Jesus' day, few people could read and fewer still could write.^[51] The question of Jesus' 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.^[52][53] In the view of John Dominic Crossan, a peasant such as Jesus would not have been literate.^[54] 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.^[55] John P. Meier concludes that the literacy of Jesus probably extended to the ability to read and comment on sophisticated theological and literary works.^[56]

Work as a "carpenter"[link]

View of Nazareth

Jesus is described in Mark as a τεκτων (tekton)^[57] and in Matthew as the son of a tekton.^[58] 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 as "technical" and "technology", derived from Greek) that at the time could cover makers of objects in various materials, and builders, from tent makers to stonemasons.^[59] 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.^[60]

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.^[61] 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.^[62] Other scholars see Joseph and Jesus as the general village craftsmen, working in wood, stone and metal on a wide variety of jobs.^[63]

Ethnicity[link]

Jesus lived in Galilee, which was incorporated in Roman Judaea in his lifetime. The Galilean Jews had a different social, economic, and political matrix than people living in Judea. There was a difference in their calendar and measurement system, although their halakhic principles were substantially the same.^[64] The Galilean dialect was clearly distinguishable from the Judean dialect.^[65] The evidence from material culture appears to be almost identical. There was, however, a difference in social status, with Judeans looking down on Galileans, who were settled in the region predominantly during the Hasmonean period according to archaeological evidence, as poorer and lower status - this is also supported by archaeological evidence. Archaeologist, Jonathan L. Reed summarises: "In terms of ethnicity, they shared the same socialised patterns of behaviour, and they were conscious of mutual descent in Judea, dating to the Maccabean Revolt, the occupation of the Diadochoi, the rebuilding of the Temple, Babylonian exile, and beyond. To speak of Galilean Judaism and Galilean Jews is to add an important qualifier, a point Meyer's work on Galilean regionalism stressed, but to juxtapose Galileans with Judeans, and to stress geographical differences at the expense of their common ethnicity, skews their common heritage and obscures their historical connections."^[66]

Family background and childhood[link]

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: MaryÄ?m),^[31] a common name at the time. Beyond the accounts in the Gospels and a few other early Christian sources,^[67] there is no independent or verifiable information about any aspect of Mary's life.

Jesus had "brothers and sisters", as reported in Mark^[31] 6:3^[68] and Matthew 13:55-56.^[69] 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.^[70] 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.^[71] After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother",^[72] was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem^[31] and Jesus' relatives seem to have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.^[73]

Ministry[link]

The beach of the Sea of Galilee

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.^[74][75] He made no statements about gentiles (non-Jews).^[76] 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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[77]

Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.^[78] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,^[79] Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.^[80][81] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.^[82]

Jesus and John the Baptist[link]

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.^[83] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.^[84] Herod Antipas had John executed.^[84] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,^[85] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.^[86]

John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.^[84] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,^[87] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.^[84] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.^[84] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.^[84]

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.^[8]

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".^[88] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.^[89]

Judean hills of Israel

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' posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke 3:21-22), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John 1:29-33).^{[citation needed]}

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.^[90] 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.^{[citation needed]} All four Gospels claim that Jesus was crucified at the request of a Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate^{[citation needed]}, 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.^{[citation needed]}

Works and miracles[link]

Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. 4th century.

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

As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were "rationalized" (e.g., by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g., by Strauss).^[91]

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.

Jesus' identity[link]

Jesus as divine[link]

Some scholars interpret Jesus as a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.^[7] E.P. Sanders sees him as accepting a divine role as God's viceroy in the coming kingdom.^[92][93] 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.^[7][93] Jürgen Becker sees Jesus taking his authority directly from God, in contrast to the prophets who revealed the future or will of God.^[92] M. de Jonge argues that Jesus saw himself as God's final envoy.^[94]

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.^[95]

Messiah[link]

In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.^[93] 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.^[93] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.^{[citation needed]} The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.^[96] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").

Son of God[link]

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,^[93] although many others do not accept this interpretation of Mark.^[97] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.^[93] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.^[93]

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.^[98][99]

Son of Man[link]

The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus' usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that does not go back to Jesus, and it is not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.^[93] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.^[93] 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 as using the term to refer to himself.^[100]

Laconic sage[link]

The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.^[6] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.^[6] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.^[6]

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.^[101] 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[link]

The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.^[102]

The earliest Christians did not call Jesus "God".^[103] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any explicit claims to be God.^[104] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.

Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.^{[citation needed]}

The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.^[7][21][31]

Teaching[link]

Parables and paradoxes[link]

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.^[8]

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.^[31]

Eschatology[link]

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

Some critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.^[105]

The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:

• In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."

• In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."

• In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

• The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.

According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church".^[106] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish" as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."^[107]

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.^[8]

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

• 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.^[108]

Jesus' repeated declarations that the kingdom of God was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views. According to Geza Vermes ^[109] and others^{[citation needed]}, 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[link]

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.^[110] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.

Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.^[111] 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.^[112] 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."^[113]

John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, who promoted celibacy like the Essenes.^[114] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.

Followers and audience[link]

Table fellowship[link]

Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.^[8] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.^[8] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.^[31] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.^[31]

John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.^[8] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art^[8] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.^[31]

Disciples[link]

Some scholars believe Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.^[115] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.^[116] 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.^[117] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.^[115]

The Jesus Seminar on the other hand believes that the number 'twelve' in connection with an inner circle of disciples is a fiction.^[31]

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."^{[citation needed]} 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.^{[citation needed]} 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.^{[citation needed]} In name, the women are not historically considered "disciples" of Jesus, but the fact that he allowed them to follow and serve him proves that they were to some extent treated as disciples.

Missionaries[link]

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.^[118]

According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God.^[8] 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.^[8] This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism.^[8] These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.^[8]

Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.^[8] 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.^[119]

Temple incident and execution[link]

Travel to Jerusalem[link]

The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.

Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.^[120]

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.^[31]

Temple disturbance[link]

Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the temple.^[31] This act seems to have been symbolic, related to Jesus' prediction that the Temple would be destroyed when the apocalypse came.^[51] Since Jesus was not arrested immediately, Bart Ehrman suggests that the event was not dramatic, but that it drew the authorities' attention to Jesus.^[51] 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.^[51]

Betrayal[link]

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.^[121] 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.^[51] It's not clear what information the traitor would have provided that the authorities would need.^[51] Bart Ehrman holds that Judas revealed that Jesus was secretly teaching the disciples that he would be the king of the coming kingdom.^[122] 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.^[121] John Shelby Spong thinks that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories.^[123] 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 him committing suicide before Jesus' crucifixion.^[124]

Trial and execution[link]

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

Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.^[31] 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,^{[125][126][127]} while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.^[128] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.^[21] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[31] Since none of Jesus' followers witnessed the trial, there is no way to know historically what took place.^[51] Scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.^[129]

John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have brought Jesus to the attention of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.

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

Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen 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.^{[130][131][132]}

Burial and empty tomb[link]

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."^[133] 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.^[134] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,^[135] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",^[136] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".^[137] Other scholars write that at least one member of the Sanhedrin obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate and arranged for a dishonorable burial.^[138][139] 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 [sic?] of shame that separated Jesus from his people".^[140]

Bart Ehrman points out that historians try to determine which events most probably occurred.^[51] 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.^[51] 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.^[141] 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".^[142] 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."^[143]

Disciples abandon Jesus[link]

When Jesus was arrested, the disciples fled (Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56) and did not witness his crucifixion.^[144] 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.^[144] 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.^[145]

Resurrection appearances[link]

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

Many philosophers of history and biblical scholars think that supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and so the resurrection of Jesus qualifies as a point of Christian dogma unamenable to the historical method.^[146][147] But some prominent figures disagree with them and try to determine what is the best hypothesis according to the data available.^[148][149] 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.

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.^[150] The Jesus Seminar favors the vision hypothesis, that the appearance stories are based on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary.^[151]

Theories of the historical Jesus[link]

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.^[7]

Apocalyptic prophet[link]

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.^[7] 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.^[93]

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.^[152] 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.^[93] 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.^[93]

Wisdom sage[link]

A common view in North American scholarship is that Jesus did not prophesy an imminent apocalypse.^[7]

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.^[8] For Crossan, Jesus called people to emulate him, and travel as itinerant preachers.^[8] Jesus' eschatology is one of personal action and social transformation, like Gandhi's, rather than apocalyptic.^[8] 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.^[153]

Marcus Borg maintains that three fifths to three quarters of North American scholars actively engaging in Jesus research no longer accept the apocalyptic viewpoint.^[154] 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.^[155] The apocalyptic view, however, seems to have enjoyed a revival.^[156]

Other views[link]

Scholars such as N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson, argue that the image of Jesus presented in the gospels is largely accurate. 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.^[146] 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.^[157] 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.^[158] Some Marxists, like Kautsky, see Jesus as a forerunner of communism, since according to Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32-5:12 the Apostles founded a communist society.^[159] 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.^[160]

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.^[161]

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.^[162] 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.^[163]

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.^[164]

History of historical Jesus research[link]

Quest for the historical Jesus[link]

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.^[165][166] Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments.^[14] D.F.Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course.^[14] Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented.^[167] Joseph Renan was the first to portray Jesus simply as a human person.^[14] Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America.^[14] Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis.^[14] William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark.^[14] Albert Schweitzer^[168] showed how modern histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.^[14] Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from c 1920 to c 1970.^[6] There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s.^[14] The 80s saw the founding of the controversial Jesus Seminar.^[169] 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.^[14] However, Scot McKnight has said that the latest quest for the historical Jesus is dead.^[170]

Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus[link]

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 wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate christology than a true historical search; as an example, he points out that the stated motivation of one of the Jesus Seminar members was to overthrow the "mistake called Christianity."^[15] The quest is also said to be too western, too white, too bourgeois, and too male.^[171][172]

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.^[164][173] According to the historian of religion Joseph Hoffman, there has never been "a methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence."^[174] 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.^{[175][176][177]} 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..."^[178] 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..."^[179] 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.^[180] 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.^[181]

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.^[182][183]

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.^[184][185]

Christian criticism[link]

Professor C. Stephen Evans^[186] 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.^[187]

Denial of a historical Jesus[link]

Early Christian Gnostic sects during the first three centuries denied that Jesus was crucified, because they believed he did not have a physical substance. Basilides promoted the idea that Simon of Cyrene substituted Jesus at the crucifixion, and that Jesus himself took the form of Simon, and stood by and laughed at them.^[188]

Docetists held the view that Jesus Christ only seemed to exist (their name was derived from the Greek word dokes, meaning "to seem"). To them Jesus existed as an incorporeal phantasm, a pure spirit and hence could not physically die.^[189]

Marcion of Sinope (c.100-c.160) promoted the doctrine that "Jesus did not really take human flesh. He was not even born, but simply appeared on earth during the reign of Tiberius. He was a celestial being with the appearance of a human body." ^[190] To Marcion there was a contrast between Yahweh, the Evil God of the Old Testament and the Good God of the New Testament who sent his son Jesus to redeem mankind. Marcion believed that matter was evil and spirit was good and that was why he rejected the physical substance of Christ.

A few modern writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells and Robert M. Price^[191] 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 movies Religulous and The God Who Wasn't There, is not held by most professional historians, nor the vast majority of New Testament scholars.^{[192][193][194][195]} Richard Dawkins wrote that while Jesus probably existed, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."^[196] The philosopher Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: and Peter Gandy argues that Jesus was derived from pagan gods like Dionysus.

See also[link]

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8. 
• Bauckham, Richard (2011). Jesus: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-957527-4. 
• Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1. 
• Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
• Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0-8010-2451-1.
• Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
• Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
• Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0-8254-7802-2, ISBN 978-0-8254-7802-4, Google Books
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1. 
• Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1-59333-313-7, ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3, Google books
• Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76746-6. 
• Gowler, David B.; What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus?, Paulist Press, 2007,
• Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
• Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9. 
• Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
• Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,

v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9

v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6

v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4

• 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[link]

• "Jesus Christ". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. The first section, on Jesus' life and ministry, is by E. P. Sanders, perhaps the most renowned expert on historical Jesus.
• The Historical Jesus at the New Testament Gateway
• PBS Frontline: From Jesus to Christ
• An Overview of The Quest for the Historical Jesus by ancient historian John Dickson
• Articles about the historical Jesus by William Lane Craig
• Unofficial page of N. T. Wright, including articles about the historical Jesus
• Faculty page of Paula Fredriksen, including articles about the historical Jesus

v t e The Bible and history General studies Biblical criticism Biblical studies History of ancient Israel and Judah The Bible and history Quest for the historical Jesus Jesus Christ in comparative mythology Historicity Biblical archaeology Historicity of Jesus Historical reliability of the Gospels List of artifacts significant to the Bible List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources Historical Jesus Criticism Criticism of the Bible Christ myth theory Bible Portal

Jesus
Jesus as Good Shepherd (stained glass at St John's Ashfield)
Born	7–2 BC/BCE[1] Judaea[2]
Died	30–36 AD/CE[3][4][5][6][7] Judaea
Cause of death	Crucifixion[8]
Ethnicity	Jewish[9]
Home town	Nazareth, Galilee[10]

Jesus ( /ˈdÊ’iË?zÉ™s/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς; 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE), also referred to as Jesus Christ or simply Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated. In Islam, Jesus (in Arabic: عÙ?سىâ€? in Islamic usage, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets.^[11][12]

Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.^{[13][14][15][16][8]} Scholars have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.^{[17][18][19][20]} Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.^{[3][5][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]}

Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died sacrificially by crucifixion to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return.^[28] The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.^[29] A few Christian groups, however, reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, believing it to be non-scriptural.^[29][30] Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah promised in the Old Testament and as God,^[31] arguing that he fulfilled many Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.^[32]

In Islam, Jesus is a bringer of scripture, and the product of a virgin birth, but not the victim of crucifixion.^[33] Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.^[34] Islam and the Bahá'í Faith use the title "Messiah" for Jesus,^[35][36] but do not teach that he was God incarnate.