Halakha () — also transliterated Halocho (Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation), or Halacha— is the collective body of Jewish law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions.

Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and ostensibly non-religious life; Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but numerous aspects of day-to-day life. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish Law", although a more literal translation might be "the path" or "the way of walking". The word derives from the Hebrew root that means to go or to walk.

Historically in the diaspora, Halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of civil and religious law. Since the Age of Enlightenment, emancipation, and haskalah in the modern era, Jewish citizens are bound to Halakha only by their voluntary consent. Under contemporary Israeli law, however, certain areas of Israeli family and personal status law are under the authority of the rabbinic courts and are therefore treated according to Halakha. Some differences in Halakha itself are found among Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Yemenite Jews, which are reflective of the historic and geographic diversity of various Jewish communities within the Diaspora.

Terminology

The name Halakha is derived from the Hebrew halakh הלך, which means "to walk" or "to go"; thus a literal translation does not yield "law", but rather "the way to go". The term Halakha may refer to a single law, to the literary corpus of rabbinic legal texts, or to the overall system of religious law. The root may be Semitic aqqa, meaning "to be true, be suitable".

Halakha is often contrasted with Aggadah, the diverse corpus of rabbinic exegetical, narrative, philosophical, mystical, and other "non-legal" literatures. At the same time, since writers of Halakha may draw upon the aggadic and even mystical literature, there is a dynamic interchange between the genres.

Halakha constitutes the practical application of the 613 mitzvot ("commandments", singular: mitzvah) in the Torah, (the five books of Moses, the "Written Law") as developed through discussion and debate in the classical rabbinic literature, especially the Mishnah and the Talmud (the "Oral law"), and as codified in the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch (the Jewish "Code of Law".)

The Halakha is a comprehensive guide to all aspects of human life, both corporeal and spiritual. Its laws, guidelines, and opinions cover a vast range of situations and principles, in the attempt to realize what is implied by the central Biblical commandment to "be holy as I your God am holy". They cover what are better ways for a Jew to live, when commandments conflict how one may choose correctly, what is implicit and understood but not stated explicitly in the Bible, and what has been deduced by implication though not visible on the surface.

Because Halakha is developed and applied by various halakhic authorities, rather than one sole "official voice", different individuals and communities may well have different answers to halakhic questions. Controversies lend rabbinic literature much of its creative and intellectual appeal. With few exceptions, controversies are not settled through authoritative structures because during the age of exile Jews have lacked a single judicial hierarchy or appellate review process for Halakha. Instead, Jews interested in observing Halakha typically choose to follow specific rabbis or affiliate with a more tightly structured community.

Halakha has been developed and pored over throughout the generations since before 500 BCE, in a constantly expanding collection of religious literature consolidated in the Talmud. First and foremost it forms a body of intricate judicial opinions, legislation, customs, and recommendations, many of them passed down over the centuries, and an assortment of ingrained behaviors, relayed to successive generations from the moment a child begins to speak. It is also the subject of intense study in yeshivas; see Torah study.

Laws of the Torah

:See also Oral law; Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai; Relationship between the Bible and the Mishnah and Talmud.

Broadly, the Halakha comprises the practical application of the commandments (each one known as a mitzvah) in the Torah, as developed in subsequent rabbinic literature; see The Mitzvot and Jewish Law. According to the Talmud (Tractate Makot), there are 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in the Torah; in Hebrew these are known as the Taryag mitzvot תרי"ג מצוות. There are 248 positive mitzvot and 365 negative mitzvot given in the Torah, supplemented by seven mitzvot legislated by the rabbis of antiquity; see Rabbinical commandments.

Categories

Jewish law may be categorized in various ways. Besides the basic categories applied to the mitzvot in antiquity, during the medieval period Jewish law was classified by such works as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah and Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch.

Classical Rabbinic Judaism has two basic categories of laws:

Laws believed revealed by God to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai (e.g. the written Pentateuch and elucidations therefrom, Halacha l'Moshe miSinai);

Laws of human origin including Rabbinic decrees, interpretations, customs, etc.

This division between revealed and rabbinic commandments (mitzvot) may influence the importance of a rule, its enforcement and the nature of its ongoing interpretation. Halakhic authorities may disagree on which laws fall into which categories or the circumstances (if any) under which prior Rabbinic rulings can be re-examined by contemporary rabbis, but all halakhic Jews hold that both categories exist and that the first category is immutable, with exceptions only for life-saving and similar emergency circumstances.

A second classical distinction is between the Written Torah (laws written in the Hebrew Bible, specifically its first five books), and Oral Law, laws believed transmitted orally prior to compilation in texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and Rabbinic codes.

Commandments are divided into positive and negative commands, which are treated differently in terms of divine and human punishment. Positive commandments (of which tradition holds there are 248) require an action to be performed and are considered to bring the performer closer to God. Negative commandments (traditionally 365 in number) forbid a specific action, and violations create a distance from God. In striving to "be holy" as God is holy, a person attempts so far as possible to live in accordance with God's wishes for humanity, striving to more completely live with each of these with every moment of one's life.

A further division is made between chukim ("decrees"—laws without obvious explanation, such as shatnez, the law prohibiting wearing clothing made of mixtures of linen and wool), mishpatim ("judgments"—laws with obvious social implications) and eduyot ("testimonies" or "commemorations", such as the Shabbat and holidays). Through the ages, various rabbinical authorities have classified the commandments in various other ways.

A different approach divides the laws into a different set of categories:

Laws in relation to God (bein adam la-Makom), and

Laws about relations with other people (bein adam la-chavero).

There is a notion in halakha that violations of the latter are more severe, in certain ways, because of the requirement that one must obtain forgiveness both from the offended person and from God.

As a practical matter, the mitzvot also may be classified in line with how they might be implemented after the destruction of the Temple. Some mitzvot are relevant only in the Land of Israel. Many laws pertaining to holiness and purity can no longer be performed as the holy Sanctuary in Jerusalem no longer exists. Some laws require a kind of beit din (Jewish court) that no longer exists.

Within Talmudic literature, Jewish law is divided into the six orders of the Mishnah, which are categories by proximate subject matter: Zeraim ("Seeds") for agricultural laws and prayer, Moed ("Festival"), for the Sabbath and the Festivals, Nashim ("Women"), dealing primarily with marriage and divorce, Nezikin ("Damages"), for civil and criminal law, Kodashim ("Holy things"), for sacrifices and the dietary laws, and Tohorot ("Purities") for ritual purity. However, Talmudic texts often deal with laws outside these apparent subject categories. As a result, Jewish law came to be categorized in other ways in the post-Talmudic period.

In the major codes of Jewish law, two other main categorization schemes are found. Maimonides' Mishneh Torah divides the laws into fourteen sections. The codification efforts that culminated in the Shulchan Aruch divide the law into four sections.

Sin

Judaism regards the violation of the commandments, the mitzvot, to be a sin. The English term "sin" is theologically loaded, as it means different things to Jews and Christians. In Christianity a "sin" is usually defined as an offense against God, by which one is separated from God's grace, and for which one would suffer punishment, unless one repents (see Sin for a more complete comparison of sin from several viewpoints). Judaism has a wider definition of the term "sin", and also uses it to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality. Further, Judaism holds it as given that all people sin at various points in their lives, and hold that God always tempers justice with mercy.

The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is aveira ("transgression"). Based on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) Judaism describes three levels of sin:

Pesha — an "intentional sin"; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God

Avon — a "sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion". It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God

Chet — an "unintentional sin"

Judaism understands that the vast majority of people, aside from those who are termed Tzadikim (the righteous), will succumb to sin in their lives. However, a state of sin does not condemn a person to damnation; there is always a road of teshuva (repentance, literally: "return"). There are some classes of people for whom this is exceedingly difficult, such as those who commit adultery, as well as those who slander others.

In earlier days, when Jews had a functioning court system (the beth din and the Sanhedrin high court), courts were empowered to administer physical punishments for various violations, upon conviction by far stricter standards of evidence than are acceptable in courts in modern democracies: execution, corporal punishment, incarceration, excommunication. Since the fall of the Temple, executions have been forbidden. Since the fall of the autonomous Jewish communities of Europe, the other punishments have been discontinued.

Today, then, one's accounts are reckoned solely by God. The Talmud says that although courts capable of executing sinners no longer exist, the prescribed penalties continue to be applied by Providence. For instance, someone who has a committed a sin punishable by stoning might fall off a roof, or someone who ought to be executed by strangulation might drown.

Gentiles and Jewish law

Judaism has always held that people who are not Jews are obliged only to follow the seven Noahide Laws; these are laws that the Oral Law derives from the covenant God made with Noah after the flood, which apply to all descendants of Noah (all living people). The Noahide laws are derived in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 57a), and are listed here:

#Murder is forbidden. #Theft is forbidden. #Sexual immorality is forbidden. #Eating flesh cut from a still-living animal is forbidden. #Belief in and worship of, or prayer to, "idols" is forbidden. #Blaspheming against God is forbidden. #Society must establish a fair system of legal justice to administer law honestly.

The details of these laws are codified from the Talmudic texts in the Mishneh Torah. They can be found mainly in chapter 9 and 10 of Hilkhoth Melakhim u'Milhamothehem in Sefer Shoftim of the Mishneh Torah.

Sources and process

The boundaries of Jewish law are determined through the halakhic process, a religious-ethical system of legal reasoning. Rabbis generally base their opinions on the primary sources of Halakha as well as on precedent set by previous rabbinic opinions. The major sources and genre of Halakha consulted include:

The foundational Talmudic literature (especially the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud) with commentaries;

The post-Talmudic codificatory literature, such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch with commentaries;

Regulations and other "legislative" enactments promulgated by rabbis and communal bodies:

* Gezeirah: "preventative legislation" of the Rabbis, intended to prevent violations of the commandments

* Takkanah: "positive legislation", practices instituted by the Rabbis not based (directly) on the commandments

Minhag: Customs, community practices, and customary law, as well as the exemplary deeds of prominent (or local) rabbis;

The she'eloth u-teshuvoth (responsa, literally "questions and answers") literature.

Dina d'malchuta dina ("the law of the land is law"): an additional aspect of Halakha, being the principle recognizing non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens, provided that they are not contrary to any laws of Judaism. This principle applies primarily in areas of commercial, civil and criminal law.

In antiquity, the Sanhedrin functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature for Judaism, and had the power to administer binding law, including both received law and its own Rabbinic decrees, on all Jews — rulings of the Sanhedrin became Halakha; see Oral law. That court ceased to function in its full mode in CE 40. Today, the authoritative application of Jewish law is left to the local rabbi, and the local rabbinical courts, with only local applicability. In branches of Judaism that follow halakha, lay individuals make numerous ad-hoc decisions, but are regarded as not having authority to decide definitively.

Since the days of the Sanhedrin, however, no body or authority has been generally regarded as having the authority to create universally recognized precedents. As a result, Halakha has developed in a somewhat different fashion from Anglo-American legal systems with a Supreme Court able to provide universally accepted precedents. Generally, contemporary halakhic arguments are effectively, yet unofficially, peer-reviewed. When a rabbinic posek ("decisor") proposes a new interpretation of a law, that interpretation may be considered binding for the posek's questioner or immediate community. Depending on the stature of the posek and the quality of the decision, an interpretation may also be gradually accepted by rabbis and members of similar Jewish communities.

Under this system, there is a tension between the relevance of earlier and later authorities in constraining halakhic interpretation and innovation. On the one hand, there is a principle in Halakha not to overrule a specific law from an earlier era, after it got accepted by the community as a law or vow. On the other hand, another principle recognizes the responsibility and authority of later authorities, and especially the posek handling a concurrent question. In addition, the Halakha embodies a wide range of principles that permit judicial discretion and deviation (Ben-Menahem). Generally speaking, a rabbi in any one period will not overrule specific laws from an earlier era, unless supported by a relevant earlier precedent; see list below. There are important exceptions to this principle, which empower the posek (decisor) or beth din (court) responsible for a given opinion.

Notwithstanding the potential for innovation, rabbis and Jewish communities differ greatly on how they make changes in Halakha. Notably, poskim frequently extend the application of a law to new situations, but do not consider such applications as constituting a "change" in Halakha. For example, many Orthodox rulings concerning electricity are derived from rulings concerning fire, as electricity is deemed to be a form of fire. In contrast, Conservative Poskim consider that switching on electrical equipment is physically and chemically more like turning on a water tap (which is permissible) than lighting a fire (which is not permissible), and therefore permitted on Shabbat. The reformative Conservative Judaism, in some cases, explicitly interprets Halakha to take into account its view of contemporary society. For instance, most Conservative rabbis extend the application of certain Jewish obligations and permissible activities to women. See below: How Halakha is viewed today.

Within certain Jewish communities, formal organized bodies do exist. Within Modern Orthodox Judaism, there is no one committee or leader, but Modern Orthodox rabbis generally agree with the views set by consensus by the leaders of the Rabbinical Council of America. Within Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly has an official Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.

Takkanot

Traditional Jewish law granted the Sages wide legislative powers. Technically, one may discern two powerful legal tools within the halakhic system:

Gezeirah: "preventative legislation" of the Rabbis, intended to prevent violations of the commandments

Takkanah: "positive legislation", practices instituted by the Rabbis not based (directly) on the commandments

However, in common parlance sometimes people use the general term takkanah to refer either gezeirot or takkanot.

Takkanot, in general, do not affect or restrict observance of Torah mitzvot. However, the Talmud states that in exceptional cases, the Sages had the authority to "uproot matters from the Torah" in certain cases. In Talmudic and classical halakhic literature, this authority refers to the authority to prohibit some things that would otherwise be biblically sanctioned (shev v'al ta'aseh). Rabbis may rule that a Torah mitzvah should not be performed, e.g. blowing the shofar on Shabbat, or taking the lulav and etrog on Shabbat. These takkanot are executed out of fear that some might otherwise carry the mentioned items between home and the synagogue, thus inadvertently violating a Sabbath melakha.

Another rare and limited form of takkanah involved overriding Torah prohibitions. In some cases, the Sages allowed the temporary violation of a prohibition in order to maintain the Jewish system as a whole. This was part of the basis for Esther's relationship with Ahasuerus. (Sanhedrin)

For general usage of takkanaot in Jewish history see the article Takkanah. For examples of this being used in Conservative Judaism see Conservative Halakha.

Eras of history important in Jewish law

The Tannaim (literally the "repeaters") are the sages of the Mishnah (0–200)

The Amoraim (literally the "sayers") are the sages of the Gemara (200–500)

The Savoraim (literally the "reasoners") are the classical Persian rabbis (500–650)

The Geonim (literally the "prides" or "geniuses") are the rabbis of Sura and Pumbeditha, in Babylonia (650–1038)

The Rishonim (literally the "firsts") are the rabbis of the early medieval period (circa 1000–1500) preceding the Shulchan Aruch

The Acharonim (literally the "lasts") are the rabbis from roughly 1500 to the present.

Rules by which early Jewish law was derived

Hermeneutics is the study of rules for the exact determination of the meaning of a text; it played a notable role in early rabbinic Jewish discussion. The sages investigated the rules by which the requirements of the oral law were derived from and established by the written law, i.e. the Torah. These rules relate to:

grammar and exegesis

the interpretation of certain words and letters and superfluous words, prefixes, and suffixes in general

the interpretation of those letters, which, in certain words, are provided with points

the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value

the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words

the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization

the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels

the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law

Compilations of such hermeneutic rules were made in the earliest times. The tannaitic tradition recognizes three such collections, namely:

the seven Rules of Hillel (baraita at the beginning of Sifra; Ab. R. N. xxxvii.)

the thirteen Rules of R. Ishmael (baraita at the beginning of Sifra; this collection is merely an amplification of that of Hillel)

the thirty-two Rules of R. Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili.

The last-mentioned rules are contained in an independent baraita, which has been incorporated and preserved only in later works. They are intended for haggadic interpretation; but many of them are valid for the Halakah as well, coinciding with the rules of Hillel and Ishmael.

Neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day, but they omitted from their collections many rules that were then followed. They restricted themselves to a compilation of the principal methods of logical deduction, which they called "middot" (measures), although the other rules also were known by that term (comp. Midrash Sifre, Numbers 2 [ed. Friedmann, p. 2a]).

One of these set of rules is found in the siddur, from the "Introduction to Sifra" by Ishmael ben Elisha, c. 200 CE. These are known as the thirteen rules of exegesis.

Kal va-Chomer (a fortiori): We find a similar stringency in a more lenient case; how more so should that stringency apply to our stricter case!

Gezera shava, similarity in phrase: We find a similar law in a verse containing a similar phrase to one in our verse. This method can only be used in a case where there is a tradition to use it.

Binyan av, either by one or two Scriptures: We find a similar law in another case, why shouldn't we assume that the same law applies here? Now the argument may go against this inference, finding some law that applies to that case but not to ours. This type of refutation is valid only if the inference was from one Scripture, not if it was from two Scriptures.

Klal ufrat, a generality and a particularity: If we find a phrase signifying a particularity following that of a generality, the particularity particularises the generality and we only take that particular case into account.

Prat ukhlal, a particularity and a generality: If the order is first the particularity and then the generality, we add from the generality upon the particularity, even to a broad extent.

Klal ufrat ukhlal, a generality, a particularity and a generality: If there is a particularity inserted between two generalities, we only add cases similar to the particularity.

Klal shehu tzarich lifrat, a generality that requires a particularity, and a particularity that requires a generality: If it is impossible to have the more general law without more specific examples or more specific cases without the statement of the general law, the above three rules don't apply.

Every thing that was within the general rule and was excluded from the rule to teach us a rule, we don't consider this rule as pertaining only to this excluded case, but to the entire general case.

Anything that was included in a general rule, and was excluded to be susceptible to one rule that is according to its subject, it is only excluded to be treated more leniently but not more strictly.

Anything that was included in a general rule and was excluded to be susceptible to one rule that is not according to its subject, it is excluded to be treated both more leniently and more strictly.

Anything that was included in a general rule and was excluded to be treated by a new rule, we cannot restore it to its general rule unless Scripture restores it explicitly.

A matter that is inferred from its context, and a matter that is inferred from its ending.

The resolution of two Scriptures that contradict each other [must wait] until a third Scripture arrives and resolves their apparent contradiction.

Historical analysis of rules

The antiquity of the rules can be determined only by the dates of the authorities who quote them; in general, they can not safely be declared older than the tanna to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot of Hillel and the thirteen of Ishmael are earlier than the time of Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them.

The Talmud itself gives no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim regarded them as Sinaitic. Modern historians believe that it is decidedly erroneous to consider the middot as traditional from the time of Moses on Sinai.

The middot seem to have been first laid down as abstract rules by the teachers of Hillel, though they were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricted or expanded them, in various ways. Akiba and Ishmael and their scholars especially contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. Akiba devoted his attention particularly to the grammatical and exegetical rules, while Ishmael developed the logical. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles that guided them in their respective formulations were essentially different. According to Akiba, the divine language of the Torah is distinguished from the speech of men by the fact that in the former no word or sound is superfluous.

Some scholars have observed a similarity between these rabbinic rules of interpretation and the hermeneutics of ancient Hellenistic culture. For example, Saul Lieberman argues that the *names* (e.g. kal vahomer) of Rabbi Ishmael's middot are Hebrew translations of Greek terms, although the methods of those middot are not Greek in origin.

Views today

Orthodox Judaism holds that Halakha is the divine law as laid out in the Torah (First five books of Moses), rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees and customs combined. The rabbis, who made many additions and interpretations of Jewish Law, did so only in accordance with regulations they believe were given for this purpose to Moses on Mount Sinai, see Deuteronomy 17:11. See Orthodox Judaism, Beliefs about Jewish law and tradition.

Conservative Judaism holds that Halakha is normative and binding, and is developed as a partnership between people and God based on Sinaitic Torah. While there are a wide variety of Conservative views, a common belief is that Halakha is, and has always been, an evolving process subject to interpretation by rabbis in every time period. See Conservative Judaism, Beliefs.

Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism both hold that modern views of how the Torah and rabbinic law developed imply that the body of rabbinic Jewish law is no longer normative (seen as binding) on Jews today. Those in the traditionalist wing of these movements believe that the halakha represents a personal starting-point, holding that each Jew is obligated to interpret the Torah, Talmud and other Jewish works for themselves, and this interpretation will create separate commandments for each person.

Those in the liberal and classical wings of Reform believe that in this day and era most Jewish religious rituals are no longer necessary, and many hold that following most Jewish laws is actually counter-productive. They propose that Judaism has entered a phase of ethical monotheism, and that the laws of Judaism are only remnants of an earlier stage of religious evolution, and need not be followed. This is considered wrong, and even heretical, by Orthodox and Conservative Judaism.

Flexibility

Throughout history, halakha has, within limits, been a flexible system, despite its internal rigidity, addressing issues on the basis of circumstance and precedent. The classical approach has permitted new rulings regarding modern technology. These rulings guide the observant about the proper use of electricity on the Sabbath and holidays within the parameters of halakhah. (Many scholarly tomes have been published and are constantly being reviewed ensuring the maximum coordination between electrical appliances and technology with the needs of the religiously observant Jew, with a great range of opinions.) Often, as to the applicability of the law in any given situation, the proviso is: "consult your local rabbi or posek." Modern critics, however, have charged that with the rise of movements that challenge the "Divine" authority of halakha, traditional Jews have greater reluctance to change, not only the laws themselves but also other customs and habits, than traditional Rabbinical Judaism did prior to the advent of Reform in the 19th century.

Differences between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism

Orthodox Jews maintain Halakha is derived from the divine law of the Torah (Bible), rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees and customs combined. As such it should be adhered to as an unalterable authority. They also believe there are traditional formulas that date back to Moses on how the divine law may be interpreted - see above, "Rules by which early Jewish law was derived". While Conservative Jews have varied views regarding the origin of the Torah and its authority today, and believe it can be continuously reinterpreted. Their view of Halakha has given rise to substantial differences in approach as well as result.

Orthodox Judaism

Orthodox Jews believe that Halakha is a religious system, whose core represents the revealed will of God. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis made many decisions and decrees regarding Jewish Law where the written Torah itself is non-specific, they did so only in accordance with regulations given to them by Moses on Mount Sinai (see Deuteronomy 5:8-13). These regulations were transmitted orally until shortly after the destruction of the second temple. They were then recorded in the Mishnah, and explained in the Talmud and commentaries throughout history, including today. Orthodox Judaism believes that subsequent interpretations have been derived with the utmost accuracy and care. The most widely accepted codes of Jewish law are known as Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch. No rabbi has the right to change Jewish law unless they clearly understand how it coincides with the precepts of the Talmud and later codes of Jewish law. Later commentaries were accepted by many rabbis as final rule, however, other rabbis may disagree.

Orthodox Judaism has a range of opinions on the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. Haredi Jews generally hold that even minhagim (customs) must be retained and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. Modern Orthodox authorities are generally more inclined to permit limited changes in customs, and some reconsideration of precedent. All Orthodox authorities, however, agree that only later Rabbinical interpretations are subject to reconsideration, and hold that core sources of Divine written and oral law, such as the Torah the Mishnah and the Talmud, cannot be overridden.

Conservative Judaism

The view held by Conservative Judaism is that while God is real, the Torah is not the word of God in a literal sense. However, in this view the Torah is still held as mankind's record of its understanding of God's revelation, and thus still has divine authority. In this view, traditional Jewish law is still seen as binding. Jews who hold by this view generally try to use modern methods of historical study to learn how Jewish law has changed over time, and are in some cases more willing to change Jewish law in the present.

A key practical difference between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its Rabbinical body's powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources, but the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Taanitic prohibitions by takkanah (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements and/or views of ethics. The CJLS has used this power on a number of occasions, most famously in the "driving teshuva", which says that if someone is unable to walk to any synagogue on the Sabbath, and their commitment to observance is so loose that not attending synagogue may lead them to drop it altogether, their rabbi may give them a dispensation to drive there and back; and more recently in its decision prohibiting the taking of evidence on Mamzer status on the grounds that implementing such a status is immoral. The CJLS has also held that the Talmudic concept of Kavod HaBriyot permits lifting rabbinic decrees (as distinct from carving narrow exceptions) on grounds of human dignity, and used this principle in a December 2006 opinion lifting all rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct (the opinion held that only male-male anal sex was forbidden by the Bible and that this remained prohibited). Conservative Judaism also made a number of changes to the role of women in Judaism, including counting women in the minyan and ordaining women as rabbis. The latter was accomplished by simple vote on the faculty of the JTS. Orthodox Judaism holds that takkanot (Rabbinical decrees) can only supplement and can never nullify Biblical law, and significant decisions must be accompanied by scholarly responsa citing sources and halakhic precedent.

An example of how different views of the origin of Jewish law inform Conservative approaches to interpreting that law involves the CJLS's acceptance of Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz's responsum decreeing the Biblical category of mamzer as "inoperative", in which The CJLS adopted the Responsum's view that of how, in the Conservative view of Halakha, the "morality which we learn through the unfolding narrative of our tradition" informs the application of Mosaic law:

The responsum cited several examples of how, in Spitz's view, the Rabbinic Sages declined to enforce punishments explicitly mandated by Torah law. The examples include the "trial of the accused adulteress (Sotah)", the "Law of the Breaking of the Neck of the Heifer" and the application of the death penalty for the "rebellious child". Spitz argues that the punishment of the Mamzer has been effectively inoperative for nearly two thousand years due to deliberate rabbinic inaction (with a few rule-proving counterexamples, including the 18th century Orthodox rabbi Ismael ha-Kohen of Modena, who decreed that a child should have the word "mamzer" tattoed to his forehead). Further he suggested that the Rabbis have long regarded the punishment declared by the Torah as immoral, and came to the conclusion that no court should agree to hear testimony on "mamzerut". His motion was passed by the CJLS.

The decision represented a watershed for Conservative Judaism because it represented an explicit abrogation of a Biblical injunction on the grounds of contemporary morality, as distinct from exigency. The dissenters, who included Rabbi Joel Roth as well as a partial concurrence by Rabbi Daniel Nevins, argued for reaffirming the classical halakhic framework in which human decrees inform and often limit but never wholly abrogate law believed to be of Divine origin, stating that "we should acknowledge that God's law is beyond our authority to eliminate", but should continue the traditional approach of applying strict evidentiary rules and presumptions that tend to render enforcement unlikely. He also argued that the current framework is moral, both because proving mamzer status sufficiently beyond all doubt is already so difficult that it is rare, and because the mere existence and possibility of mamzerut status, even if rarely enforced, creates an important incentive for divorcing parties to obtain a get (Jewish religious divorce) to avoid the sin of adultery. He cited a responsum by prominent Haredi Orthodox Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef as an example of how the traditional approach works. Rabbi Yosef was faced with the child of a woman who had left a religious marriage without religious divorce and had a child in the second marriage, seemingly an open-and-shut case of Mamzer status. Rabbi Yosef proceeded to systematically discredit the evidence that the former marriage had ever taken place. The Ketubah was mysteriously not found and hence disqualified, and the officiating Rabbi's testimony was never sufficiently corroborated and hence not credible. Rabbi Yosef then found reason to doubt that the new husband was ever the father, finding that because the ex-husband occasionally delivered alimony personally, an ancient presumption (one of many) that any time a husband and wife are alone together the law presumes intercourse has taken place governed the case. He held that Jewish law could not disprove, and hence had to conclude, that the original husband really was the child's father and there was no case of Mamzer status.

Codes of Jewish law

The Torah and the Talmud are not formal codes of law: they are sources of law. There are many formal codes of Jewish law that have developed over the past two thousand years. These codes have influenced, and in turn, have been influenced by, the responsa; History of Responsa thus provides an informative complement to the survey below.

The major codes are:

The Mishnah, composed by Rabbi Judah the Prince, in 200 CE, as a basic outline of the state of the Oral Law in his time. This was the framework upon which the Talmud was based; the Talmud's dialectic analysis of the content of the Mishna (gemara; completed c. 500) became the basis for all later halakhic decisions and subsequent codes.

Codifications by the Geonim of the halakhic material in the Talmud. An early work, She'iltot ("Questions") by Achai of Shabcha (c. 752), discusses over 190 Mitzvot — exploring and addressing various questions on these. The first legal codex proper, Halakhot Pesukot ("Decided Laws"), by Yehudai Gaon (c. 760), rearranges the Talmud passages in a structure manageable to the layman. (It was written in vernacular Aramaic, and subsequently translated into Hebrew as Hilkhot Riu). Halakhot Gedolot ("Great Law Book"), by R. Simeon Kayyara, published two generations later, contains extensive additional material, mainly from Responsa and Monographs of the Geonim, and is presented in a form that is closer to the original Talmud language and structure. (Probably since it was distributed, also, amongst the newly established Ashkenazi communities.) The She'iltot was influential on both subsequent works.

The Hilchot of the Rif, Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (1013–1103), summations of the legal material in the Talmud. Alfasi transcribed the Talmud's halakhic conclusions verbatim, without the surrounding deliberation; he also excludes all Aggadic (non-legal, homiletic) matter. The Hilchot soon superseded the geonic codes, as it contained all the decisions and laws then relevant, and additionally, served as an accessible Talmudic commentary; it has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.

The Mishneh Torah (also known as the Yad Ha-Hazaqah for its 14 volumes; "yad" has a numeric value of 14), by Maimonides (Rambam; 1135–1204). This work encompasses the full range of Talmudic law; it is organized and reformulated in a logical system — in 14 books, 83 sections and 1000 chapters — with each Halakha stated clearly. The Mishneh Torah is very influential to this day, and several later works reproduce passages verbatim. It also includes a section on Metaphysics and fundamental beliefs. (Some claim this section draws heavily on Aristotelian science and metaphysics; others suggest that it is within the tradition of Saadia Gaon.) It is the main source of practical Halakha for many Yemenite Jews — mainly Baladi and Dor Daim — as well as for a growing community referred to as talmidei haRambam.

The work of the Rosh, Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (1250?/1259?–1328), an abstract of the Talmud, concisely stating the final halakhic decision and quoting later authorities, notably Alfasi, Maimonides, and the Tosafists. This work superseded Rabbi Alfasi's and has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.

The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (The "SeMaG") of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy (13th century, Coucy, France). "SeMaG" is organised around the 365 negative and the 248 positive commandments, separately discussing each of them according to the Talmud (in light of the commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafot) and the other codes existent at the time.

"The Mordechai" — by Mordecai ben Hillel, d. Nuremberg 1298 — serves both as a source of analysis, as well of decided law. Mordechai considered about 350 halakhic authorities, and was widely influential, particularly amongst the Ashkenazi and Italian communities. Although organised around the Hilchot of the Rif, it is, in fact, an independent work. It has been printed with every edition of the Talmud since 1482.

The Arba'ah Turim (The Tur, The Four Columns) by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270–1343, Toledo, Spain). This work traces the Halakha from the Torah text and the Talmud through the Rishonim, with the Hilchot of Alfasi as its starting point. Ben Asher followed Maimonides's precedent in arranging his work in a topical order, however, the Tur covers only those areas of Jewish religious law that were in force in the author's time. The code is divided into four main sections; almost all codes since this time have followed the Tur's arrangement of material.

* Orach Chayim: "The Way of Life" worship and ritual observance in the home and synagogue, through the course of the day, the weekly sabbath and the festival cycle.

* Yoreh De'ah: "Teach Knowledge" assorted ritual prohibitions, dietary laws and regulations concerning menstrual impurity.

* Even Ha'ezer: "The Rock of the Helpmate" marriage, divorce and other issues in family law.

* Choshen Mishpat: "The Breastplate of Judgment" The administration and adjudication of civil law.

The Beit Yosef, and the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575). The Beit Yosef is a huge commentary on the Tur in which Rabbi Karo traces the development of each law from the Talmud through later rabbinical literature (examining thirty-two authorities, beginning with the Talmud and ending with the works of Rabbi Israel Isserlein). The Shulchan Aruch is, in turn, a condensation of the Beit Yosef — stating each ruling simply (literally translated, Shulchan Aruch means "set table"); this work follows the chapter divisions of the Tur. The Shulchan Aruch, together with its related commentaries, is considered by many to be the most authoritative compilation of halakha since the Talmud. In writing the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Karo based his rulings on three authorities — Maimonides (Rambam), Asher ben Jehiel (Rosh), and Isaac Alfasi (Rif); he considered the Mordechai in inconclusive cases. Sephardic Jews, generally, refer to the Shulchan Aruch as the basis for their daily practice.

The works of Rabbi Moshe Isserles ("Rema"; Kraków, Poland, 1525 to 1572). Rema noted that the Shulchan Aruch was based on the Sephardic tradition, and he created a series of glosses to be appended to the text of the Shulkhan Aruch for cases where Sephardi and Ashkenazi customs differed (based on the works of Yaakov Moelin, Israel Isserlein and Israel Bruna). The glosses are called Hamapah, the "Tablecloth" for the "Set Table". His comments are now incorporated into the body of all printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch, typeset in a different script; today, "Shulchan Aruch" refers to the combined work of Karo and Isserles. Isserles' Darkhei Moshe is similarly a commentary on the Tur and the Beit Yosef.

The Levush Malkhut ("Levush") of Rabbi Mordecai Yoffe (c. 1530-1612). A ten volume work, five discussing Halakha at a level "midway between the two extremes: the lengthy Beit Yosef of Caro on the one hand, and on the other Caro's Shulchan Aruch together with the Mappah of Isserles, which is too brief", that particularly stresses the customs and practices of the Jews of Eastern Europe. The Levush was exceptional among the codes, in that it treated certain Halakhot from a Kabbalistic standpoint.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (c. 1800) was an attempt to recodify the law as it stood at that time — incorporating commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch, and subsequent responsa — and thus stating the decided halakha, as well as the underlying reasoning. The work was written, partly, so that laymen would be able to study Jewish law. Unfortunately, most of the work was lost in a fire prior to publication. It is the basis of practice for Chabad-Lubavitch and other Hasidic groups, and is quoted as authoritative by many subsequent works, Hasidic and non-Hasidic alike.

"Layman oriented" digests of Halakha. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (Hungary 1804–1886), based on the very strict Hungarian customs of the 19th century, became immensely popular after its publication due to its simplicity. This work is not binding in the same way as the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch. It is still popular in Orthodox Judaism as a framework for study, if not always for practice. Chayei Adam and Chochmat Adam by Avraham Danzig (Poland, 1748–1820) are similar Ashkenazi works, but are regarded as a more appropriate basis for practice. The Ben Ish Chai by Yosef Chaim (Baghdad, 1832–1909) is a corresponding Sephardi work.

Works structured directly on the Shulchan Aruch, providing analysis in light of Acharonic material and codes. The Mishnah Berurah of Rabbi Yisroel Meir ha-Kohen, (the "Chofetz Chaim", Poland, 1838–1933) is a commentary on the "Orach Chayim" section of the Shulchan Aruch, discussing the application of each Halakha in light of all subsequent Acharonic decisions. It has become the authoritative halakhic guide for much of Orthodox Ashkenazic Jewry in the postwar period. Aruch HaShulchan by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829–1888) is a scholarly analysis of Halakha through the perspective of the major Rishonim. The work follows the structure of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch; rules dealing with vows, agriculture, and ritual purity, are discussed in a second work known as Aruch HaShulchan he'Atid. Kaf HaChaim on Orach Chayim and parts of Yoreh De'ah, by the Sephardi sage Yaakov Chaim Sofer (Baghdad and Jerusalem, 1870–1939) is similar in scope, authority and approach to the Mishnah Berurah. Yalkut Yosef, by Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, is a voluminous, widely cited and contemporary work of Halakha, based on the rulings of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

Temimei Haderech ("A Guide To Jewish Religious Practice") by Rabbi Isaac Klein with contributions from the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly. This scholarly work is based on the previous traditional law codes, but written from a Conservative Jewish point of view. It is not accepted among Orthodox Jews.

See also

Mishpat Ivri

Jewish ethics

Jewish medical ethics

Antinomianism

References

Bibliography

J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems (5 vols), Ktav. ISBN 0-87068-450-7, ISBN 0-88125-474-6, ISBN 0-88125-315-4, ISBN 0-87068-275-X, Feldheim ISBN 1-56871-353-3

Menachem Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (trans. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles ISBN 0-8276-0389-4), Jewish Publication Society. ISBN 0-8276-0537-4

Jacob Katz, Divine Law in Human Hands — Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility, Magnes Press. ISBN 965-223-980-1

Mendell Lewittes, Jewish Law: An Introduction, Jason Aronson. ISBN 1-56821-302-6

Daniel Pollack ed., Contrasts in American and Jewish Law, Ktav. ISBN 0-88125-750-8

Emanuel Quint, A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law (11 vols), Gefen Publishing. ISBN 0-87668-765-6, ISBN 0-87668-799-0, ISBN 0-87668-678-1, ISBN 0-87668-396-0, ISBN 0-87668-197-6, ISBN 1-56821-167-8, ISBN 1-56821-319-0, ISBN 1-56821-907-5, ISBN 0-7657-9969-3, ISBN 965-229-322-9, ISBN 965-229-323-7, ISBN 965-229-375-X

Emanuel Quint, Jewish Jurisprudence: Its Sources & Modern Applications , Taylor and Francis. ISBN 3-7186-0293-8

Joel Roth, Halakhic Process: A Systemic Analysis, Jewish Theological Seminary. ISBN 0-87334-035-3

Joseph Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, Jewish Publication Society trans. Lawrence Kaplan. ISBN 0-8276-0397-5

David, Joseph E., "Beyond the Janus Face of Zionist Legalism: The Theo-Political Conditions of the Jewish Law Project" Ratio Juris, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 206–35, June 2005. http://ssrn.com/abstract=729044

Kosman, Admiel: “Right and good” – On Halakha and Meta-Halakha and the actual meaning of these terms today. "And thou shalt do that which is right and good" (Deuteronomy 6:18)

External links

Full-text resources of major halakhic works

Mishneh Torah:

*Hebrew: mechon-mamre.org; wikisource

*Translation: chabad.org; mechon-mamre.org (incomplete)

Arba'ah Turim:

*Hebrew: wikisource

Shulchan Aruch:

*Hebrew: chassidus.org (archived); wikisource

*Translation: ; shulchanarach.com

Shulchan Aruch HaRav:

*Hebrew: wikisource; chabadlibrary.org

Aruch HaShulchan:

*Hebrew: wikisource

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch:

* Hebrew: www.kitzur.net; shofar.net; wikisource

*Translation: torah.org (organised thematically); Yona Newman

Ben Ish Chai:

* Hebrew: wikisource; shechem.org

Kaf haChaim:

* Hebrew: hebrewbooks.org (volume 1; others available via search on site)

Mishnah Berurah:

* Hebrew: wikisource; mishnaberura.com (With .mp3 and .wma files); hebrewbooks.org

*Translation: torah.org

A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice

*jtsa.edu (archived)

Category:Hebrew words and phrases Category:Orthodox Judaism Category:Legal codes

Name	Jesus
Caption	Jesus as Good Shepherd (stained glass at St John's Ashfield).
Birth date	7–2 BC/BCE
Language	Aramaic (perhaps some Hebrew, Koine Greek)
Birth place	Bethlehem, Judea, Roman Empire (traditional); Nazareth, Galilee (modern critical scholarship)
Death place	Calvary, Judea, Roman Empire (according to the New Testament, he rose on the third day after his death.)
Death date	30–36 AD/CE
Death cause	Crucifixion
Resting place	Traditionally and temporarily, a garden tomb in Jerusalem
Ethnicity	Jewish
Nationality	Israelite
Home town	Nazareth, Galilee, Roman Empire
Parents	Father: (Christian view) God through virginal conception;

Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua in Hebrew or Aramaic (7–2 BC/BCE — 30–36 AD/CE), commonly referred to as Jesus Christ or simply as Jesus or Christ, is the central figure of Christianity. Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated and believe that he rose from the dead after being crucified. The principal sources of information regarding Jesus are the four canonical gospels, and most critical scholars find them useful for reconstructing Jesus' life and teachings. Some scholars believe apocryphal texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant.

Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement. Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating a future apocalypse.

Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah promised in the Old Testament and as God, arguing that he fulfilled many Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. In Islam, Jesus ( or , commonly transliterated as or , respectively) is considered one of God's important prophets, a bringer of scripture, and the product of a virgin birth; but did not experience a crucifixion. Islam and the Bahá'í Faith use the title "Messiah" for Jesus, but do not teach that he was God incarnate.

Etymology of name

“Jesus” () is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek (), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic (Yēšûă‘).meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".

The etymology of the name Jesus is generally explained as "God's salvation" usually expressed as "Yahweh saves" "Yahweh is salvation" and at times as "Jehovah is salvation". The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judaea at the time of the birth of Jesus. And Philo's reference (Mutatione Nominum item 121) indicates that the etymology of Joshua was known outside Judaea at the time.

In the New Testament, in the angel Gabriel tells Mary to name her child Jesus, and in an angel tells Joseph to name the child Jesus. The statement in Matthew 1:21 "you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" associates salvific attributes to the name Jesus in Christian theology.

"Christ" () is derived from the Greek (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (), usually transliterated into English as Messiah. In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible (written well over a century before the time of Jesus), the word Christ was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew word . In , Apostle Peter's profession: "You are the Christ" identifies Jesus as the Messiah. In post-biblical usage Christ became a name, one part of the name "Jesus Christ", but originally it was a title (the Messiah) and not a name.

Chronology

and Galilee at the time of Jesus]] Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence. As discussed in the sections immediately below, the estimation of the year of death of Jesus places his lifespan around the beginning of the first century AD/CE, in the geographic region of Roman Judaea.

Roman involvement in Judaea began around 63 BC/BCE and by 6 AD/CE Judaea had become a Roman province. In this time period, although Roman Judaea was strategically positioned between Asia and Africa, it was not viewed as a critically important province by the Romans. The Romans were highly tolerant of other religions and allowed the local populations such as the Jews to practice their own faiths.

Possible year of birth

Two independent approaches have been used to estimate the year of the birth of Jesus, one by analyzing the Nativity accounts in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew along with other historical data, the other by working backwards from the estimation of the start of the ministry of Jesus, as also discussed in the section below.

In their Nativity accounts, both the Gospels of Luke and Matthew associate the birth of Jesus with the reign of Herod the Great, who is generally believed to have died around 4 BC/BCE. states that: "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king" and mentions the reign of Herod shortly before the birth of Jesus. But the author of Luke also describes the birth as taking place during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea, which is generally believed to have occurred in 6 AD/CE. Most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE. Other scholars assume that Jesus was born sometime between 7–2 BC/BCE.

The year of birth of Jesus has also been estimated in a manner that is independent of the Nativity accounts, by using information in the Gospel of John to work backwards from the statement in that Jesus was "about 30 years of age" at the start of his ministry.

However, the common Gregorian calendar method for numbering years, in which the current year is , is based on the decision of a monk Dionysius in the six century, to count the years from a point of reference (namely, Jesus’ birth) which he placed sometime between 2 BC/BCE and 1 AD/CE. Although Christian feasts related to the Nativity have had specific dates (e.g. December 25 for Christmas) there is no historical evidence for the exact day or month of the birth of Jesus.

Possible dates of ministry

model of Herod's Temple, referred to in .]] There have been different approaches to estimating the date of the start of the ministry of Jesus. One approach, based on combining information from the Gospel of Luke with historical data about Emperor Tiberius yields a date around 28-29 AD/CE, while a second independent approach based on statements in the Gospel of John along with historical information from Josephus about the Temple in Jerusalem leads to a date around 27-29 AD/CE.

The estimation of the date based on the Gospel of Luke relies on the statement in that the ministry of John the Baptist which preceded that of Jesus began "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar".

The estimation of the date based on the Gospel of John uses the statements in that Jesus went to the Temple in Jerusalem around the start of his ministry and in that "Forty and six years was this temple in building" at that time. According to Josephus (Ant 15.380) the temple reconstruction was started by Herod the Great in the 15th-18th year of his reign at about the time that Augustus arrived in Syria (Ant 15.354). Temple expansion and reconstruction was ongoing, and it was in constant reconstruction until it was destroyed in 70 AD/CE by the Romans. Given that it took 46 years of construction, the Temple visit in the Gospel of John has been estimated at around 27-29 AD/CE.

states that at the start of his ministry Jesus was "about 30 years of age", but the other Gospels do not mention a specific age. However, in the Jews exclaimed to Jesus: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" suggesting that he was much less than 50 years old during his ministry.

Possible year and place of death

A number of approaches have been used to estimate the year of the death of Jesus, including information from the Canonical Gospels, the chronology of the life of Paul the Apostle in the New Testament correlated with historical events, as well as different astronomical models, as discussed below.

All four canonical Gospels report that Jesus was crucified in Calvary during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect who governed Judaea from 26 to 36 AD/CE. The late 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, writing in Antiquities of the Jews (c. 93 AD/CE), and the early 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus, writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD/CE), also state that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus, though each writer gives him the title of "procurator" instead of prefect.

The estimation of the date of the conversion of Paul places the death of Jesus before this conversion, which is estimated at around 33-36 AD/CE. The remaining period is generally accounted for by Paul's missions (at times with Barnabas) such as those in and , resulting in the 33-36 AD/CE estimate. In 1990 astronomer Bradley E. Schaefer computed the date as Friday, April 3, 33 AD/CE. In 1991, John Pratt stated that Newton's method was sound, but included a minor error at the end. Pratt suggested the year 33 AD/CE as the answer. Using the completely different approach of a lunar eclipse model, Humphreys and Waddington arrived at the conclusion that Friday, April 3, 33 AD/CE was the date of the crucifixion.

Life and teachings in the New Testament

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus’ life. However, the authors of the New Testament showed little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life with the secular history of the age. The gospels were primarily written as theological documents in the context of early Christianity with the chronological timelines as a secondary consideration. Although the gospels do not provide enough details to satisfy the demands of modern historians regarding exact dates, it is possible to draw from them a general picture of the life story of Jesus.

The five major milestones in the New testament narrative of the life of Jesus are his Baptism, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. The New Testament accounts of the teachings of Jesus is often presented in terms of specific categories involving his "works and words", e.g. his ministry, parables and miracles.

The gospels include a number discourses by Jesus on specific occasions, e.g. the Sermon on the Mount or the Farewell Discourse, and also include over 30 parables, spread throughout the narrative, often with themes that relate to the sermons. Parables represent a major component of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, forming approximately one third of his recorded teachings, and positions them as the revelations of God the Father. The gospel episodes that include descriptions of the miracle of Jesus also often include teachings, providing an intertwining of his "words and works" in the gospels. The fourth canonical Gospel, John, differs greatly from these three, as do the Apocryphal gospels.

The gospel of John is not a biography of Jesus but a theological presentation of him as the divine Logos. To combine these four stories into one story is tantamount to creating a fifth story, one different from each original.

According to the two-source hypothesis, Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke, both of whom also independently used a now lost sayings source called the Q Gospel. Mark defined the sequence of events from Jesus' baptism to the empty tomb and included parables of the Kingdom of God.

Genealogy and Nativity

The accounts of the genealogy and Nativity of Jesus in the New Testament appear only in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew. While there are documents outside of the New Testament which are more or less contemporary with Jesus and the gospels, many shed no light on the more biographical aspects of his life and these two gospel accounts remain the main sources of information on the genealogy and Nativity.

Genealogy

Mathew begins his gospel in with the genealogy of Jesus, and presents it before the account of the birth of Jesus, while Luke discusses the genealogy in chapter 3, after the Baptism of Jesus in when the voice from Heaven addresses Jesus and identifies him as the Son of God.

While Luke traces the genealogy upwards towards Adam and God, Matthew traces it downwards towards Jesus. Both gospels state that Jesus was begotten not by Joseph, but by God. Both accounts trace Joseph back to King David and from there to Abraham. These lists are identical between Abraham and David (except for one), but they differ almost completely between David and Joseph. Matthew gives Jacob as Joseph’s father and Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli. Attempts at explaining the differences between the genealogies have varied in nature, e.g. that Luke traces the genealogy through Mary while Matthew traces it through Joseph; or that Jacob and Heli were both fathers of Joseph, one being the legal father, after the death of Joseph's actual father — but there is no scholarly agreement on a resolution for the differences.

Nativity

The Nativity is a prominent element of the Gospel of Luke, comprises over 10% of Luke's text and is three times the length of the Nativity text in Matthew. Luke's Nativity account takes place mostly before the birth of Jesus and centers on Mary, while Matthew's story takes place mostly after the birth of Jesus and centers on Joseph. According to Luke and Matthew, Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary, his betrothed, in Bethlehem. Both support the doctrine of the Virgin Birth in which Jesus was miraculously conceived in his mother’s womb by the Holy Spirit, when his mother was still a virgin.

Luke is the only Gospel to provide an account of the birth of John the Baptist, and he uses it to draw parallels between the births of John and Jesus. Luke relates the two birth in the visitation of Mary to Elizabeth. In Mary learns from the angel Gabriel that she will conceive and bear a child called Jesus through the action of the Holy Spirit. When Mary is due to give birth, she and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Joseph's ancestral home in Bethlehem to register in the census of Quirinius. In . Mary gives birth to Jesus and, having found no place for themselves in the inn, places the newborn in a manger. An angel visits the shepherds and sends them to adore the child in . After presenting Jesus at the Temple, Joseph and Mary return home to Nazareth.

The Nativity appears in chapters 1 and 2 of the Gospel of Matthew, where following the bethrothal of Joseph and Mary, Joseph is troubled in because Mary is pregnant but in the first of Joseph's three dreams an angel assures him not be afraid to take Mary as his wife, because her child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In , the Wise Men or Magi bring gifts to the young Jesus after following a star which they believe was a sign that the King of the Jews had been born. King Herod hears of Jesus’ birth from the Wise Men and tries to kill him by massacring all the male children in Bethlehem under the age of two (the Massacre of the Innocents). Before the massacre, Joseph is warned by an angel in his dream and the family flees to Egypt and remains there until Herod’s death, after which they leave Egypt and settle in Nazareth to avoid living under the authority of Herod’s son and successor Archelaus.

Early life and profession

In the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, Jesus’ childhood home is identified as the town of Nazareth in Galilee. Joseph, husband of Mary, appears in descriptions of Jesus’ childhood and no mention is made of him thereafter. The New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, and Galatians mention Jesus’ brothers and sisters, but the Greek word adelphos in these verses, has also be translated as brother or kinsman.

includes an incident in the childhood of Jesus, where he was found teaching in the temple by his parents after being lost. The Finding in the Temple is the sole event between Jesus’ infancy and baptism mentioned in any of the canonical Gospels.

In Mark 6:3, Jesus is called a tekton (τέκτων in Greek), usually understood to mean carpenter. Matthew 13:55 says he was the son of a tekton.

Beyond the New Testament accounts, the specific association of the profession of Jesus with woodworking is a constant in the traditions of the 1st and 2nd centuries and Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs.

Baptism and temptation

, Jesus calls Peter and Andrew as Apostles in , by Harold Copping.]] All the gospels report that he had become known as a religious teacher by the time he had reached his 30s. Luke says Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when he was baptized. All three Synoptic Gospels describe the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, an event which Biblical scholars describe as the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. According to these accounts, Jesus came to the Jordan River where John the Baptist had been preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus was baptized and rose from the water, Mark states Jesus “saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’”

Mark starts his narration with Jesus’ baptism, specifying that it is a token of repentance and for forgiveness of sins. Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus’ superiority to John. Matthew describes John as initially hesitant to comply with Jesus’ request for John to baptize him, stating that it was Jesus who should baptize him. Jesus persisted, “It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness”. In Matthew, God’s public dedication informs the reader that Jesus has become God’s anointed (“Christ”).

The Gospel of John does not describe Jesus' baptism, or the subsequent Temptation, but it does attest that Jesus is the very one about whom John the Baptist had been preaching—the Son of God. The Baptist twice declares Jesus to be the “Lamb of God”, a term found nowhere else in the Gospels. John also emphasizes Jesus’ superiority over John the Baptist. In the synoptics, Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms, exorcises demons, champions the poor and oppressed, and teaches mainly about the Kingdom of God. In John, Jesus speaks in long discourses, with himself as the theme of his teaching. The Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. In the synoptics, Jesus' ministry takes place mainly in Galilee, until he travels to Jerusalem, where he cleanses the Temple and is executed. In John, his ministry in and around Jerusalem is more prominently described, cleansing the temple at his ministry's beginning.

In Mark, the disciples are strangely obtuse, failing to understand Jesus' deeds and parables. In Matthew, Jesus directs the apostles' mission only to those of the house of Israel, Luke places a special emphasis on the women who followed Jesus, such as Mary Magdalene.

Teachings and preachings

- ancient mosaic from Hagia Sophia]] In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks primarily about the Kingdom of God.

His moral teachings in Matthew and Luke encourage unconditional self-sacrificing God-like love for God and for all people. During his sermons, he preached about service and humility, the forgiveness of sin, faith, turning the other cheek, love for one's enemies as well as friends, and the need to follow the spirit of the law in addition to the letter.

In the Synoptics, Jesus relays an apocalyptic vision of the end of days. He preaches that the end of the current world will come unexpectedly, and that he will return to judge the world, especially according to how they treated the vulnerable. He calls on his followers to be ever alert and faithful. In Mark, the Kingdom of God is a divine government that will appear by force within the lifetimes of his followers. Only after his resurrection does he command his disciples to "make disciples of all nations."

At various times, Jesus makes a point of welcoming sinners, children, women, the poor, Samaritans, and foreigners.

Proclamation as Christ and Transfiguration

depicting him with Elijah, Moses and 3 apostles by Carracci, 1594.]] At about the middle of each of the three Synoptic Gospels, two related episodes mark a turning point in the narrative: the Confession of Peter and the Transfiguration of Jesus. These episodes begin in Caesarea Philippi just north of the Sea of Galilee at the beginning of the final journey to Jerusalem which ends in the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. These episodes mark the beginnings of the gradual disclosure of the identity of Jesus to his disciples; and his prediction of his own suffering and death. In Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, and states: "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven." In blessing Peter, Jesus not only accepts the titles Christ and Son of God which Peter attributes to him, but declares the proclamation a divine revelation by stating that his Father in Heaven had revealed it to Peter. In this assertion, by endorsing both titles as divine revelation, Jesus unequivocally declares himself to be both Christ and the Son of God.

The account of the Transfiguration of Jesus appears in , , . A bright cloud appears around them, and a voice from the cloud states: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him". The significance is enhanced by the presence of Elijah and Moses, for it indicates to the apostles that Jesus is the voice of God, and instead of Elijah or Moses, he should be listened to, by virtue of his filial relationship with God.

At the end of both episodes, as in some other pericopes in the New Testament such as miracles, Jesus tells his disciples not to repeat to others, what they had seen - the command at times interpreted in the context of the theory of the Messianic Secret. At the end of the Transfiguration episode, Jesus commands the disciples to silence about it "until the Son of man be risen from the dead", relating the Transfiguration to the Resurrection episode.

Betrayal, arrest, trial, and death

In Jerusalem

relates Jesus' entry to Zechariah (): "the King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass." Traditionally, arrival on a donkey signifies peace, while war waging kings ride horses. While at Bethany Jesus sent two disciples to retrieve a donkey that had been tied up but never ridden and rode it into Jerusalem, with Mark and John stating Sunday, Matthew Monday, and Luke not specifying the day. includes a similar narrative much earlier, and scholars debate if these refer to the same episode. Matthew specifies the price as thirty silver coins.

(detail), by Juan de Juanes, mid-late 16th century.]] In all four gospels, during the meal, Jesus predicts that one of his Apostles will betray him. Jesus is described as reiterating, despite each Apostle's assertion that he would not betray Jesus, that the betrayer would be one of those who were present. In and Judas is specifically singled out as the traitor. Although the Gospel of John does not include a description of the bread and wine ritual during the Last Supper, most scholars agree that (the Bread of Life Discourse) has a Eucharistic nature and resonates with the "words of institution" used in the Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline writings on the Last Supper.

In all four Gospels Jesus predictes that Peter will deny knowledge of him, stating that Peter will disown him three times before the rooster crows the next morning. The synoptics mention that after the arrest of Jesus Peter denied knowing him three times, but after the third denial, heard the rooster crow and recalled the prediction as Jesus turned to look at him. Peter then began to cry bitterly.

The Gospel of John provides the only account of Jesus washing his disciples' feet before the meal. John's Gospel also includes a long sermon by Jesus, preparing his disciples (now without Judas) for his departure. of the Gospel of John are known as the Farewell discourse given by Jesus, and are a rich source of Christological content.

Agony in the Garden, betrayal and arrest

In , , and , immediately after the Last Supper, Jesus takes a walk to pray, Matthew and Mark identifying this place of prayer as Garden of Gethsemane.

Jesus is accompanied by Peter, John and James the Greater, whom he asks to "remain here and keep watch with me." He moves "a stone's throw away" from them, where he feels overwhelming sadness and says "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it."

Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate

In the narrative of the four Canonical Gospels after the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, he is taken to the Sanhedrin, a Jewish judicial body. Jesus is tried by the Sanhedrin, mocked and beaten and is condemned for making claims of being the Son of God. He is then taken to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish elders ask Pilate to judge and condemn Jesus — accusing him of claiming to be the King of the Jews. Although the Gospel accounts vary with respect to various details, they agree on the general character and overall structure of the trials of Jesus.]] In, , and Jesus was taken to the high priest's house where he was mocked and beaten that night. The next day, early in the morning, the chief priests and scribes gathered together and lead Jesus away into their council. In , however, Jesus is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and then to Caiaphas.

In the Gospel accounts Jesus speaks very little, mounts no defense and gives very infrequent and indirect answers to the questions of the priests, prompting an officer to slap him. In the lack of response from Jesus prompts the high priest to ask him: "Answerest thou nothing?" states that the chief priests had arranged false witness against Jesus, but the witnesses did not agree together. In the high priest then asked Jesus: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am" at which point the high priest tore his own robe in anger and accused Jesus of blasphemy. In when asked: "Are you then the Son of God?" Jesus answers: "You say that I am" affirming the title Son of God. At that point the priests say: "What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth" and decide to condemn Jesus. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod to be tried. However, Jesus says almost nothing in response to Herod's questions, or the continuing accusations of the chief priests and the scribes. Herod and his soldiers mock Jesus, put a gorgeous robe on him, as the King of the Jews, and sent him back to Pilate. And when in Pilate seeks to release Jesus, the priests object and say: "Every one that makes himself a king speaks against Caesar... We have no king but Caesar." Pilate then writes "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" as a sign (abbreviated as INRI in depictions) to be affixed to the cross of Jesus.

In Pilate's wife, tormented by a dream, urges Pilate not to have anything to do with Jesus, and Pilate publicly washes his hands of responsibility, yet orders the crucifixion in response to the demands of the crowd. The trial by Pilate is followed by the flagellation episode, the soldiers mock Jesus as the King of Jews by putting a purple robe (that signifies royal status) on him, place a Crown of Thorns on his head, and beat and mistreat him in , and . Jesus is then sent to Calvary for crucifixion.

Crucifixion and burial

's depiction of the Crucifixion as Stabat Mater, 1482.]] Jesus' crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, and is attested to by other sources of that age (e.g. Josephus and Tacitus), and is regarded as an historical event.

After the trials, Jesus made his way to Calvary (the path is traditionally called via Dolorosa) and the three Synoptic Gospels indicate that he was assisted by Simon of Cyrene, the Romans compelling him to do so. Each gospel has its own account of Jesus' last words, comprising the seven last sayings on the cross. In Jesus entrusts his mother to the disciple he loved and in he states: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", usually interpreted as his forgiveness of the Roman soldiers and the others involved.

In the three Synoptic Gospels, various supernatural events accompany the crucifixion , including darkness of the sky, an earthquake, and (in Matthew) the resurrection of saints. The tearing of the temple veil, upon the death of Jesus, is referenced in the synoptic.

Following Jesus' death, Joseph of Arimathea asked the permission of Pilate to remove the body. The body was removed from the cross, was wrapped in a clean cloth and buried in a new rock-hewn tomb, with the assistance of Nicodemus.

Resurrection and ascension

by Noel Coypel, 1700, using a hovering depiction of Jesus.]]The New Testament accounts of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, state that the first day of the week after the crucifixion (typically interpreted as a Sunday), his followers encounter him risen from the dead, after his tomb is discovered to be empty. The resurrected Jesus appears to them that day and a number of times thereafter, delivers sermons and commissions them, before ascending to Heaven. Two of the Canonical gospels (Luke and Mark) include a brief mention of the Ascension, but the main references to it are elsewhere in the New Testament. and the road to Damascus episode in which Apostle Paul is converted to Christianity.

Title attributions

The New Testament attributes a wide range of titles to Jesus by the authors of the Gospels, by Jesus himself, a voice from Heaven (often assumed to be God) during the Baptism and Transfiguration, as well as various groups of people such as the disciples, and even demons throughout the narrative. The emphasis on the titles used in each of the four canonical Gospels, gives a different emphasis to the portrayal of Jesus in that Gospel.

, applying 2 titles to Jesus:"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God".]] Two of the key titles used for Jesus in the New Testament are Christ and Son of God. The opening words in attribute both Christ and Son of God as titles, reaffirming the second title again in . The Gospel of Matthew also begins in with the Christ title and reaffirms it in . The immediate declaration by Jesus that the titles were revealed to Peter by "my Father who is in Heaven" not only endorses both titles as divine revelation but includes a separate assertion of sonship by Jesus within the same statement.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God far more frequently than in the Synoptic Gospels. In a number of other episodes Jesus claims sonship by referring to the Father, e.g. in when he is found in the temple a young Jesus calls the temple "my Father's house", just as he does later in in the Cleansing of the Temple episode. In Martha tells Jesus "you are the Christ, the Son of God", signifying that both titles were later used (yet considered distinct) in the narrative. While the Gospel of John frequently uses the Son of God title, the Gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus as a prophet.

One of the most frequent titles for Jesus in the New Testament is the Greek word Kyrios (κύριος) which may mean God, Lord or master and is used to refers to him over 700 times. In everyday Aramaic, Mari was a very respectful form of polite address, well above "Teacher" and similar to Rabbi. In Greek this has at times been translated as Kyrios. The Rabbi title is used in several New Testament episodes to refer to Jesus, but more often in the Gospel of John than elsewhere and does not appear in the Gospel of Luke at all. Although Jesus accepts this title in the narrative, in he rejected the title of Rabbi for his disciples, saying: "But be not ye called Rabbi".

Many New Testament scholars state that Jesus claimed to be God through his frequent use of "I am" (Ego eimi in Greek and Qui est in Latin). This term is used by Jesus in the Gospel of John on several occasions to refer to himself, seven times with specific titles. It is used in the Gospel of John both with or without a predicate.

The Gospel of John opens by identifying Jesus as the divine Logos in . The Greek term Logos () is often translated as "the Word" in English. The identification of Jesus as the Logos which became Incarnate appears only at the beginning of the Gospel of John and the term Logos is used only in two other Johannine passages: and . John's Logos statements build on each other: the statement that the Logos existed "at the beginning" asserts that as Logos Jesus was an eternal being like God; that the Logos was "with God" asserts the distinction of Jesus from God; and Logos "was God" states the unity of Jesus with God.

Some authors have suggested that other titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament had meanings in the 1st century quite different from those meanings ascribed today, e.g. “Son of David” is found elsewhere in Jewish tradition to refer to the heir to the throne.

Historical views

Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop plausible reconstructions of Jesus' life. Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus different in ways from the image found in the gospels. Scholars of the “historical Jesus” distinguish their concept from the “Jesus Christ” of Christianity.

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus’ life and teachings are the three Synoptic Gospels. Scholars conclude the authors of the gospels wrote a few decades after Jesus’ crucifixion (between 65 – 100 AD/CE),

The English title of Albert Schweitzer’s 1906 book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, is a label for the post-Enlightenment effort to describe Jesus using critical historical methods. Since the end of the 18th century, scholars have examined the gospels and tried to formulate historical biographies of Jesus. The historical outlook on Jesus relies on critical analysis of the Bible, especially the gospels. Many Biblical scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus’ life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious crises and movements in late 2nd Temple Judaism and in Roman-occupied Palestine, including differences between Galilee and Judea, and between different sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots, and in terms of conflicts among Jews in the context of Roman occupation.

Descriptions

Jesus lived in Galilee for most of his life and spoke Aramaic and possibly Hebrew and some Greek.

Historians of Christianity generally describe Jesus as a healer who preached the restoration of God's kingdom.

Baptism by John the Baptist

John the Baptist led a large apocalyptic movement. He demanded repentance and baptism. Jesus was baptized and later began his ministry. After John was executed, some of his followers apparently took Jesus as their new leader. Historians are nearly unanimous in accepting Jesus' baptism as a historical event.

Arrival of the Kingdom – Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God. He said that the age of the Kingdom had in some sense arrived, starting with the activity of John the Baptist. Scholars commonly surmise that Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, like John's.

Parables – Jesus taught in pithy parables and with striking images. His teaching was marked by hyperbole and unusual twists of phrase. that have great effects. Significantly, he never described the Kingdom in military terms. Associated with this main theme, Jesus taught that one should rely on prayer and expect prayer to be effective.

The Gospels report that Jesus foretold his own Passion, but, according to Geza Vermes, the confused and fearful actions of the disciples suggest that it came as a surprise to them. After the fall of the Temple, the Pharisee outlook was established in Rabbinic Judaism. Some scholars speculate that Jesus was himself a Pharisee. In Jesus' day, the two main schools of thought among the Pharisees were the House of Hillel, which had been founded by the eminent Tanna, Hillel the Elder, and the House of Shammai. Jesus' assertion of hypocrisy may have been directed against the stricter members of the House of Shammai, although he also agreed with their teachings on divorce. Jesus also commented on the House of Hillel's teachings (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a) concerning the greatest commandment and the Golden Rule. Historians do not know whether there were Pharisees in Galilee during Jesus' life, or what they would have been like.

Essenes were apocalyptic ascetics, one of the three (or four) major Jewish schools of the time, though they were not mentioned in the New Testament. Some scholars theorize that Jesus was an Essene, or close to them. Among these scholars is Pope Benedict XVI, who supposes in his book on Jesus that "it appears that not only John the Baptist, but possibly Jesus and his family as well, were close to the Qumran community."

Zealots were a revolutionary party opposed to Roman rule, one of those parties that, according to Josephus inspired the fanatical stand in Jerusalem that led to its destruction in the year 70 AD/CE. Luke identifies Simon, a disciple, as a "zealot", which might mean a member of the Zealot party (which would therefore have been already in existence in the lifetime of Jesus) or a zealous person.

Higher criticism and Christian scripture

Contemporary historians of Christianity use the historical-critical method (or higher criticism) to examine scripture for clues about the historical Jesus. They sort out sayings and events that are more likely to be genuine and use those to construct their portraits of Jesus. They use standard historical methods to discern who wrote each book, where and when they were written, what sources the authors used, what the authors' agendas were.

Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion. After the original oral stories were written down in Greek, they were transcribed, and later translated into other languages. The books of the New Testament had mostly been written by 100 AD/CE, making them, at least the Synoptic Gospels, historically relevant. The Gospel tradition certainly preserves several fragments of Jesus' teaching. The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written c. 70 AD/CE. Matthew is placed at being sometime after this date and Luke is thought to have been written between 70 and 100 AD/CE. According to the majority viewpoint, the gospels were written not by the evangelists identified by tradition but by non-eyewitnesses who worked with second-hand sources and who modified their accounts to suit their religious agendas. Sayings attributed to Jesus are deemed more likely to reflect his character when they are distinctive, vivid, paradoxical, surprising, and contrary to social and religious expectations, such as "Blessed are the poor". Short, memorable parables and aphorisms capable of being transmitted orally are also thought more likely to be authentic.

A minority of prominent scholars, such as J. A. T. Robinson, have maintained that the writers of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John were either apostles and eyewitness to Jesus' ministry and death, or were close to those who had been.

Professor of Divinity James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a ‘thoroughly dead thesis’.

Religious perspectives

By and large, the Jews of Jesus' day rejected his claim to be the Messiah, as do Jews today. For their part, Christian Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, Reformers, and others have written extensively about Jesus over the centuries. Christian sects and schisms have often been defined or characterized by competing descriptions of Jesus. Meanwhile, Gnostics, Mandaeans, Manichaeans, Muslims, Baha'is, and others have found prominent places for Jesus in their own religious accounts.

Christian views

Though Christian views of Jesus vary, it is possible to describe a general majority Christian view by examining the similarities between specific Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant doctrines found in their catechetical or confessional texts. Almost all Christian groups regard Jesus as the "Savior and Redeemer", as the Messiah (Greek: Christos; English: Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament, who, through his life, death, and resurrection, restored humanity's communion with God in the blood of the New Covenant. His death on a cross is understood as the redemptive sacrifice: the source of humanity's salvation and the atonement for sin, which had entered human history through the sin of Adam. Christians profess that Jesus suffered death by crucifixion, and rose bodily from the dead in the definitive miracle that foreshadows the resurrection of humanity at the end of time, when Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, resulting in either entrance into heaven or damnation.

Christians profess Jesus to be the only Son of God, the Lord, and the eternal Word (which is a translation of the Greek Logos), who became man in the incarnation, so that those who believe in him might have eternal life. They further hold that he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit in an event described as the miraculous virgin birth or incarnation. Christians believe that Christ is the true head of the one holy universal and apostolic church.

Orthodox Christians believe that the Godhead is triune, a "Trinity," and that Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, is fully God. As the 6th-century Athanasian Creed says, the Trinity is "one God" and "three persons... and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Some unorthodox Christian groups do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), Unitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Sabbatarian Churches of God and the Christadelphians. (See also Nontrinitarianism)

Christians consider the Gospel and other New Testament accounts of Jesus to be divinely inspired. Christian writers, such as Benedict XVI, proclaim the Jesus of the Gospels, discounting the historical reconstruction of Jesus as entirely inadequate.

Jewish views

Judaism, including Orthodox Judaism, Hareidi Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism, rejects the idea of Jesus being God, or a person of a Trinity, or a mediator to God. Judaism also holds that Jesus is not the Messiah, arguing that he had not fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh nor embodied the personal qualifications of the Messiah. According to Jewish tradition, there were no more prophets after Malachi, who lived centuries before Jesus and delivered his prophesies about 420 BC/BCE.

The Babylonian Talmud include stories of Yeshu ; the vast majority of contemporary historians disregard these as sources on the historical Jesus.

The Mishneh Torah, an authoritative work of Jewish law, provides the last established consensus view of the Jewish community, in Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12 that Jesus is a "stumbling block" who makes "the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God". Because, is there a greater stumbling-block than this one? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commandments. And this one caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God. However, the thoughts of the Creator of the world — there is no force in a human to attain them because our ways are not God's ways, and our thoughts not God's thoughts. And all these things of Jesus the Nazarene, and of (Muhammad) the Ishmaelite who stood after him — there is no (purpose) but to straighten out the way for the King Messiah, and to restore all the world to serve God together. So that it is said, "Because then I will turn toward the nations (giving them) a clear lip, to call all of them in the name of God and to serve God (shoulder to shoulder as) one shoulder." Look how all the world already becomes full of the things of the Messiah, and the things of the Torah, and the things of the commandments! And these things spread among the far islands and among the many nations uncircumcised of heart.}}

According to Conservative Judaism, Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah have "crossed the line out of the Jewish community". Reform Judaism, the modern progressive movement, states "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate".

Islamic views

In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى; `Īsā) is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Masih ("Messiah") who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel. Jesus is seen in Islam as a precursor to Muhammad, and is believed by Muslims to have foretold the latter's coming.

Ahmadiyya views

The Ahmadiyya Movement considers Jesus a mortal man who died a natural death. According to the early 20th century writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement) , Jesus survived his ordeal on the cross, and after his apparent death and resurrection, he fled Palestine and migrated eastwards to further teach the gospels. Jesus eventually died a natural death of old age in India – Kashmir - and is believed to be buried at Roza Bal.

Although the view of Jesus having migrated to India has also been researched in the publications of independent historians with no affiliation to the movement, the Ahmadiyya Movement are the only religious organization to adopt these views as a characteristic of their faith. The general notion of Jesus in India is older than the foundation of the movement, and is discussed at length by Grönbold and Klatt.

The movement also interprets the second coming of Christ prophesied in various religious texts would be that of a person "similar to Jesus" (mathīl-i ʿIsā). Thus, Ahmadi's consider that the founder of the movement and his prophetical character and teachings were representative of Jesus and subsequently a fulfillment of this prophecy.

Bahá'í views

The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations.

God is one and has manifested himself to humanity through several historic Messengers. Bahá'ís refer to this concept as Progressive Revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Book of Certitude, Bahá'u'lláh claims that these messengers have a two natures: divine and human. Examining their divine nature, they are more or less the same being. However, when examining their human nature, they are individual, with distinct personality. For example, when Jesus says "I and my Father are one", Bahá'ís take this quite literally, but specifically with respect to his nature as a Manifestation. When Jesus conversely stated "...And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me", Bahá'ís see this as a simple reference to the individuality of Jesus. This divine nature, according to Bahá'u'lláh, means that any Manifestation of God can be said to be the return of a previous Manifestation, though Bahá'ís also believe that some Manifestations with specific missions return with a "new name". and a different, or expanded purpose. Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is, in both respects, the return of Jesus.

Buddhist views

Buddhists' views of Jesus differ. Some Buddhists, including Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama regard Jesus as a bodhisattva who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings. The 14th century Zen master Gasan Jōseki indicated that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels were written by an enlightened man.

Hindu views

In a letter to his daugher Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru mentioned that all over Central Asia, Ladakh, Kashmir, Tibet & further north, there is a strong belief that Jesus or 'Isa' travelled about there.

Other views

Mandaeanism, a very small Mideastern, Gnostic sect that reveres John the Baptist as God's greatest prophet, regards Jesus as a false prophet of the false Jewish god of the Old Testament, Adonai, and likewise rejects Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad.

Manichaeism accepted Jesus as a prophet, along with Gautama Buddha and Zoroaster.

The New Age movement entertains a wide variety of views on Jesus. The creators of A Course In Miracles claim to trance-channel his spirit. However, the New Age movement generally teaches that Christhood is something that all may attain. Theosophists, from whom many New Age teachings originated (a Theosophist named Alice A. Bailey invented the term New Age), refer to Jesus of Nazareth as the Master Jesus and believe he had previous incarnations.

Many writers emphasize Jesus' moral teachings. Garry Wills argues that Jesus' ethics are distinct from those usually taught by Christianity. The Jesus Seminar portrays Jesus as an itinerant preacher who taught peace and love, rights for women and respect for children, and who spoke out against the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the rich. Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a deist, created the Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the other supernatural aspects of the Bible.

See also

General topics

* Christian mythology

* INRI (stands for "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews")

Views on Jesus

* Cultural depictions of Jesus

* Jesusism

* Pauline Christianity

* Sexuality of Jesus

New Testament Jesus

* King of Kings

* Miracles of Jesus

* Race of Jesus

Jesus and history

* Apostolic succession

* Christian apologetics

* Historical reliability of the Gospels

* Historicity of Jesus

* The life of Jesus in the New Testament

Related lists

* List of books about Jesus

* List of founders of religious traditions

* List of messiah claimants

* List of people claimed to be Jesus

* List of people who have been considered deities

Notes

References

The Bible

Allison, Dale. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999. ISBN 0-8006-3144-7

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997. ISBN 0-385-24767-2

Cohen, Shaye J.D.. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. ISBN 978-0-664-21911-6

Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. ISBN 0-520-22693-3

Crossan, John Dominic.

* The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. ISBN 0-06-061629-6

* Who Killed Jesus?: exposing the roots of anti-semitism in the Gospel story of the death of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995. ISBN 978-0-06-061671-7

Davenport, Guy; and Urrutia, Benjamin (trans.) The Logia of Yeshua: The sayings of Jesus. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1996. ISBN 978-1-887178-70-9

De La Potterie, Ignace. The hour of Jesus: The passion and the resurrection of Jesus according to John. New York: Alba House, 1989. ISBN 978-0-8189-0575-9

Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944. ISBN 0-671-11500-6

Ehrman, Bart. The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-514183-0

Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2

Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage, 2000. ISBN 0-679-76746-0

Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ: The origins of the New Testament images of Christ. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-300-08457-3

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology, revised ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. ISBN 1-56563-143-9

Fuller, Reginald H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Scribners, 1965. ISBN 0-227-17075-X

Meier, John P., , New York: Anchor 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

O'Collins, Gerald. Interpreting Jesus. "Introducing Catholic theology". London: G. Chapman; Ramsey, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983. ISBN 978-0-8091-2572-2

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-300-07987-7

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001 (original 1977). ISBN 1-57910-527-0.

Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane Penguin Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-7139-9059-1

Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987. ISBN 0-8006-2061-5

Vermes, Géza. Jesus in his Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. ISBN 0-8006-3623-6

Vermes, Géza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1981. ISBN 0-8006-1443-7

Vermes, Géza. The Religion of Jesus the Jew. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. ISBN 0-8006-2797-0

Wilson, A.N. Jesus. London: Pimlico, 2003. ISBN 0-7126-0697-1

Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997. ISBN 0-8006-2682-6

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. ISBN 0-8006-2679-6

External links

Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ In Parallel Latin & English

"Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 12 Nov. 2009

From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians — documentary about Jesus' life and the early Church.

The Jewish Roman World of Jesus

Category:0s BC births Category:1st-century deaths Category:1st-century executions Category:Apocalypticists Category:Carpenters Category:Christian mythology Category:Christian religious leaders Category:Creator gods Category:Deified people Category:Founders of religions Category:God in Christianity Category:Islamic mythology Category:Jewish Messiah claimants Category:Life-death-rebirth gods Category:Messianism Category:New Testament people Category:People executed by crucifixion Category:People executed by the Roman Empire Category:People from Bethlehem Category:People from Nazareth Category:Prophets in Christianity Category:Prophets of Islam Category:Roman era Jews Category:Savior gods Category:Self-declared messiahs

Name	Founder of The Ahmadiyya Movement
Caption	Mirza Ghulam Ahmad c. 1897
Full name	Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
Caliphate start	c. 1891
Date of birth	February 13, 1835
Place of birth	Qadian, British India
Date of death	May 26, 1908
Place of death	Lahore, British India
Resting place	Bahishti Maqbara Qadian
Spouse	Hurmat BibiNusrat Jehan Begum
Children	Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad Mirza Bashir AhmadMirza Sharif AhmadMubarika BegumSahiba Amtul Hafeez Begum
Parents	Mirza Ghulam Murtaza Chiragh Bibi

Mīrzā Ghulām Aḥmad (; Urdu: ; February 13, 1835 – May 26, 1908 CE, or Shawal 15, 1250 – Rabi' al-thani 24, 1326 AH) was a religious figure from India, and the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. He claimed to be the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, the promised Messiah (“Second Coming of Christ”), and the Mahdi awaited by the Muslims in the end days. He declared that Jesus (Isa) had in fact survived the crucifixion and later died a natural death, after having migrated towards Kashmir and that he had appeared in the spirit and power of Jesus.

He traveled extensively across the subcontinent of India preaching his religious ideas and ideals and won a sizable following within his lifetime. He is known to have engaged in numerous debates and dialogues with the Muslim, Christian and Hindu priesthood and leadership. Ghulam Ahmad founded the Ahmadiyya movement on March 23, 1889. The mission of the movement, according to him, was the propagation of Islam in its pristine form.

Ghulam Ahmad authored around 80 books on various religious, spiritual and theological issues. He advocated a peaceful propagation of Islam and emphatically argued against the necessity of Jihad in its military (physical fighting) form in the present age. Travelling through Samarkand, they finally settled in the Punjab, India, where Mirza Hadi founded the town known today as Qadian during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Zaheer al-Din Babur. The family were all known as Mughals within the British governmental records of India probably due to the high positions it occupied within the Mughal empire and their courts. Mirza Hadi beg was granted a Jagir of several hundred villages and was appointed the Qadhi (judge) of Qadian and the surrounding district. According to the followers of Ahmad, for generations the descendants of Mirza Hadi held important positions within the Mughal empire and had consecutively been the chieftains of Qadian.

Early life

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born on February 13, 1835, in Qadian, Punjab, India the surviving child of twins born to an affluent family. As a child, he received his early education at home. He learned to read the Arabic text of the Qur'an and studied basic Arabic Grammar and the Persian language. In addition, he also studied some works on medicine from his father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, who was a physician.

From 1864 to 1868, upon his father's wishes, he worked as a clerk in Sialkot where he is said to have come in contact with Christian missionaries with whom he would have conversations on religion. After 1868 he returned to Qadian, as per his father’s wishes, where he was entrusted to look after some estate affairs. During all this time Ahmad was known as a social recluse because he would spend most of his time in seclusion studying religious books of love and praying in the local Mosque. As time passed, he began to engage more with the Christian missionaries, particularly in defending Islam against their criticism. He would often confront them in public debates, especially with the ones based in the town of Batala, about from Qadian in India.

Forty days of solitude

In 1886, certain leaders of the Arya Samaj held discussion and debate with Ghulam Ahmad about the truthfulness of Islam and asked for a sign to prove that Islam was a living religion. In order to dedicate special prayers for this purpose and so as to seek further divine guidance, Ghulam Ahmad traveled to Hoshiarpur upon what he claimed was divine instruction. Here he spent 40 days in seclusion, a practice known as chilla-nashini. He traveled accompanied by 3 other companions to the small 2-storied house of one of his followers and was left alone in a room where his companions would bring him food and leave without speaking to him as he prayed and contemplated. He only left the house on Fridays and used an abandoned mosque for Jumu'ah (Friday prayers). It is during this period that he declared God had given him the glad tidings of an illustrious son.

Taking of the covenant

Ghulam Ahmad claimed divine appointment as a reformer as early as 1882, but did not take any pledge of allegiance or initiation. In December 1888 Ahmad announced that God had ordained him that his followers should enter into a Bay'ah with him and pledge their allegiance to him. In January 1889 he published a pamphlet in which he laid out ten conditions or issues to which the initiate would abide by for the rest of his life. On 23 March 1889 he founded the Ahmadiyya community by taking a pledge from forty followers.

His claim

Ahmad proclaimed that he was the promised Messiah and Mahdi, and that he was fulfillment of various prophecies. This sparked great controversy, especially among the Muslim and Christian clergy. Ahmad's followers say that he never claimed to be the same physical Jesus who lived 19 centuries earlier. Ahmad claimed that Jesus died a natural death, in contradiction to the traditional Muslim view of Jesus' physical ascension to heaven and the traditional Christian belief of Jesus' crucifixion. He claimed in his books that there was a general decay of Islamic life and a dire need of a messiah. He argued that just as Jesus had appeared 1400 years after the time of Moses, the promised messiah—i.e. the Mahdi—must also appear in the 14th century after the appearance of Muhammad.

In Tazkiratush-Shahadatain he wrote about the fulfillment of various prophecies. In it he enumerated a variety of prophecies and descriptions from both the Qur'an and Hadith relating to the advent of the Mahdi and the descriptions of his age which he ascribed to himself and his age. These include assertions that he was physically described in the Hadith and manifested various other signs; some of them being wider in scope, such as focusing on world events coming to certain points, certain conditions within the Muslim community, and varied social, political, economic, and physical conditions.

He was accused of creating a new religion, a heretical act in Islam, which he repeatedly denied claiming only an Islamic revival and rejuvenation and that he was a Prophet within the Ummah and dispensation of Muhammad just as Jesus was a prophet within the dispensation of Moses.

Post claim

In time, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims of being the Mujaddid (reformer) of his era became more explicit. In one of his most well-known and praised Ahmad, by contrast, asserted that Jesus had in fact survived crucifixion and died of old age much later in Kashmir where he had migrated. According to Ahmad the promised Mahdi was a symbolic reference to a spiritual leader and not a military leader in the person of Jesus Christ as is believed by many Muslims. With this proclamation he also rejected the idea of armed Jihad, and argued that the conditions for such Jihad are not present in this age which requires defending Islam by the pen and tongue but not with the sword.

Reaction of religious scholars

In time, the religious scholars turned against him, and he was often branded as a heretic. His opponents accused him of working for the British Government due to the termination of armed Jihad, since his claims of being the Mahdi were made around the same time as the Mahdi of Sudan (Muhammad Ahmad). Many years after his death he was again accused of working for the British to curb the Jihadi ideology of Muslims.

Following his claim to be the Promised Messiah and Mahdi, one of his adversaries prepared a Fatwa (decree) of disbelief against Ahmad, declaring him a Kafir (disbeliever), a deceiver, a liar, and him and his followers to be permissible of being killed. This decree was taken all around India and was signed by some two hundred religious scholars.

Some years later a prominent Muslim leader and founder of the Barelwi sect, Ahmed Raza Khan was to travel to the Hejaz to collect the opinions of the religious scholars of Mecca and Medina. He compiled these opinions in his work Hussam ul Harmain (The sword of two sanctuaries on the slaughter-point of blasphemy and falsehood), in it Ghulam Ahmad was again labeled an apostate. The unanimous consensus of about thirty-four religious scholars was that Ghulam Ahmad’s Beliefs were blasphemous, tantamount to apostasy, and that he must be punished by imprisonment and if necessary by execution.

Journey to Delhi

Ghulam Ahmad traveled to Delhi which was at the time considered a centre of religious learning and home to many prominent religious leaders, in 1891, with the intention of distinguishing what he believed to be the truth from falsehood, and attempting to make it openly manifest for people through these influential divines. He published an advertisement in which he invited the scholars to accept his claim and to engage in a public debate with him regarding the life and death of Isa (Jesus), particularly Maulana Nazeer Hussein who was hailed as the greatest shaikh and a leading religious scholar. He also proposed three conditions that were essential for such a debate. Namely, that there should be a police presence to maintain peace, the debate should be in written form and that the debate should be on the subject of the death of Jesus.

Eventually it was settled and Ahmad traveled to the Jama Masjid Delhi (main mosque) of Delhi accompanied by twelve of his followers, where some 5,000 people were gathered. Before the debate started there was a discussion on the conditions, which led to the conclusion that the debate should not be upon the death of Jesus, but upon the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He explained that his claim could only be discussed after the death of Jesus was proven, for Jesus was considered by many to be living and the one who will descend to earth himself. Only when this belief was refuted could his claim to be the Messiah be discussed.

Upon this there was a clamor among the crowds, and Ahmad was informed that the other party alleged that he was at odds with Islamic beliefs and was a disbeliever, therefore it was not proper to debate with him unless he clarified his beliefs. Ahmad wrote his beliefs on a piece of paper and had it read aloud, but due to the clamor among the people it could not be heard. Seeing that the crowd was drifting out of control and that violence was imminent, the police superintendent gave orders to disperse the audience and the debate did not take place. A few days later however, a written debate did take place between Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Maulwi Muhammad Bashir of Bhopal which was later published.

Ghulam Ahmad is known to have traveled extensively across Northern India during this period of his life and having held various debates with influential religious leaders.

Challenge to opponents

Ahmad published a book called The Heavenly Decree in which he challenged his opponents to a 'spiritual duel', in which the question of whether someone was a Muslim or not would be settled by God based on the four criteria laid out in the Qur'an. Namely, that a perfect believer will frequently receive glad tidings from God, will be given awareness about hidden matters and events of the future from God, most of his prayers will be fulfilled and that he will exceed others in understanding novel finer points, subtleties and deeper meanings of the Qur'an.

The sun and moon eclipse

After announcing his claim to be the Messiah and Mahdi, his opponents demanded that he should produce the "heavenly sign" detailed in the tradition attributed to the 7th century Imam Muhammad al-Baqir also known as Muhammad bin Ali, in which it is stated about the appearance of the Mahdi

Ahmadis maintain that this prophecy was fulfilled in 1894/1895, about three years after Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed himself to be the Promised Mahdi and messiah, with the lunar and solar eclipse during the month of Ramadhan. Ghulam Ahmad declared that this was a sign of his truth, and was in fulfillment of the tradition or prophecy.

The occurrence has, however, faced some criticism, with critics of Ahmad asserting that this was a weak tradition with unreliable narrators, one which cannot be traced back to Muhammad himself, and that such eclipses have taken place before. Ahmadis however argue that such eclipses have never taken place as a sign for the truth of any person, and that this sign being mentioned in other religious scriptures such as the Bible and the Qur'an, and the fact that it actually took place while there was a claimant further enhances the reliability of the tradition.

Lawsuit

In 1897 a Christian missionary, Henry Martyn Clarke filed a lawsuit of attempted murder against Ahmad at the court of District Magistrate Captain William Douglas in the city of Ludhiana. The charge laid against him was that he hired a man by the name of Abdul Hameed to assassinate Clarke. However he was not detained by the police and was declared innocent by the then Magistrate Captain Douglas.

Ahmad was offered permission to sue the plaintiff. However he declined to do so stating that he is answerable to God. Upon retirement, Captain Douglas stated: I was certain that a man with such a good face could not have committed the deeds that he was accused of. His was a smiling, open countenance.

Ahmad wrote later:

The Lahore controversy with Pir Meher Ali Shah

Pir Meher Ali Shah of Golra Sharif is recognised by some as the person at the forefront in striving to bring Ghulam Ahmad and his movement down. He penned the book on the ‘apostasy’ of Ahmad titled “Sayf-e-Chishtia”. Meher Ali was one of the spiritual leaders whom Ghulam Ahmad had challenged collectively to a ‘prayer duel’. 0n July 20, 1900,Ghulam Ahmad issued a poster in which he proposed a gathering at Lahore to hold a written contest in Arabic consisting of writing a commentary on 40 verses (selected by ballot) of the Qur'an after invoking divine assistance.

According to the poster the commentaries were to be written within seven hours and in the presence of witnesses, without the assistance of a book or any person. An hour was to be given for preparation. The commentaries were to span at least 20 pages, purely in Arabic. After their completion and signatures by the contestants, they were to be read out to three learned persons for adjudication nominated and seen to by Meher Ali Shah. After listening to the two commentaries, the judges would pronounce on solemn triple oath which one was superior and written ‘with Divine endorsement’.

Pir Meher Ali Shah accepted the challenge to such a contest provided that first an oral debate take place between him and Ghulam Ahmad on the issue of his claims. Ghulam Ahmad refused to debate. Ahmad's followers claim that he had categorically vowed in Anjam-e-Atham not to engage in any more debates, as he judged them ineffective at convincing the religious clergy to reform (the reason why he had challenged Meher Ali Shah to such a decisive contest in the first place and not to a debate); rather he would invoke God for divine intervention by holding such contests or ‘prayer duels’ which he called ‘Ejazi-Muqabala’ or Miraculous contest between him and his opponents; primarily Christian missionaries and Muslim Scholars and divines.

Challenge to John Alexander Dowie

in his robes as ‘Elijah the restorer’]] In 1899, a Scottish-born American clergyman by the name of John Alexander Dowie had laid claim to be the forerunner of the second coming of Christ. Ghulam Ahmad exchanged a series of letters with him between 1903-1907. Ghulam Ahmad challenged him to a prayer duel, where both would call upon God to expose the other as a false prophet. Ghulam Ahmad stated:

Dowie declined the challenge, calling Mirza Ghulam Ahmad the “silly Mohammedan Messiah”.Ghulam Ahmad prophesied:

The challenge of "prayer duel" was made by Mirza in September 1902. Dowie died before Mirza, in March 1907. The Dictionary of American Biography states that after having been deposed during a revolt in which his own family was involved, Dowie endeavoured to recover his authority via the law courts without success and that he may have been a victim of some form of mania as he suffered from hallucinations during his last illness.

Encounter with the Agapemonites

In September 1902 a man by the name of Rev. John Hugh Smyth-Pigott proclaimed himself the Messiah, and also claimed to be God, while preaching in the Church of the Ark of the Covenant in Clapton, London. This church was originally built by the Agapemonites, a religious movement founded by the Anglican priest Henry James Prince.

When the news of his claim reached India, Mufti Muhammad Sadiq, a disciple of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was informed of it and wrote to Pigott informing him of the claim of Ahmad and requesting more information about his own claim. Pigott did not reply directly but a letter was received from his secretary along with two advertisements one carrying the title 'The Ark of Noah'. When these advertisements and letter was read out in the presence of Ahmad he replied:

After having prayed about Pigott, Ahmad claimed to have seen in a dream 'some books on which was written three times: Holy, Holy, Holy' followed by a revelation:

Ahmad issued an advertisement forewarning Pigott of the “Punishment that awaits him” if he did not repent of his irreverent claim. Which is said to have been widely publicized in English Newspapers, it is said that thenceforth Pigott became silent and did not repeat his claim. He left London and retreated to a small village in Somerset, changed his name, seeking a life of anonymity and was defrocked by the Anglican Church following the birth of three sons from one of his many spiritual brides. He eventually died in March 1927. Ghulam Ahmad argued that this Hadith does not explain whether the minaret will be within the eastern side of Damascus or to the eastern side of the city. According to him this prophecy was fulfilled with his advent in Qadian a town situated to the east of Damascus and the significance of the minaret symbolic. The minaret according to him symbolised the spread of the 'light of Islam', its message reaching far and wide and the ‘supremacy of Islam’ which was to tower up as it were like a minaret in the time of the promised one. The prophecy is also believed to be pointing to an age of enlightenment and one where there are numerous facilities for communication and transport, thereby making conveyance and proselytising easier.This being reflective of the physical purpose that minarets were used in medieval Islamic societies, the efficient communication of the call to prayer to a wider audience in the locality. Ghulam Ahmad claimed that God had revealed to him:

In 1903 Ahmad laid the foundation of a Minaret to commemorate the prophecy. This according to him will represent the physical as well as spiritual aspects of Islam with a light and a clock fixed on its top symbolising the 'light of Islam' spreading far and wide and "so man will recognize his time", and a Muezzin to give the call to prayer five times a day symbolising an invitation to Islam. The construction of this minaret was completed in 1916 and has since become a symbol and distinctive mark in Ahmadiyya Islam

Heavenly Graveyard

Ahmad mentioned the establishment of a Heavenly Graveyard (Bahishti Maqbara) under divine commandment in his booklet Al-Wasiyyat (The Will). It is stated that in a spiritual vision Ahmad was shown a plot of land called Bahishti Maqbara, containing the graves of such members of his Community who are destined to be in heaven. In order to fulfil this vision, Ahmad donated a parcel of his land in Qadian for those members of the Community who fulfilled certain conditions:

Whoever desires to be buried in this graveyard should contribute towards the expenses of its maintenance according to his capacity.

Whoever desires to be buried therein should make a testamentary disposition that one tenth of his property shall, under direction of the Movement, be devoted to the propagation of Islam, and carrying out the teachings of the Quran. It will be open to every righteous person whose faith is perfect to provide for this purpose in his will more than one tenth, but it shall not be less.

Whoever shall lead a righteous life and abstain from all that is prohibited and shall not do anything that amounts to association of something with God or to innovation in the faith. He should be a true and sincere Muslim. (Al-Wasiyyat pp 16-19)

Over time, the cemetery in Qadian has expanded while another one was established in Rabwah, Pakistan after the partition of India. Established under the direction Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad, the second Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the cemetery in Rabwah has over 10,000 graves.

Last journey

Towards the end of 1907 and early 1908 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have received numerous revelations informing him of his imminent death. In April 1908 he traveled to Lahore with his family and companions. Here he gave many lectures. A banquet was arranged for dignitaries where Ghulam Ahmad, upon request, spoke for some two hours explaining his claims, teachings and speaking in refutation of objections raised against his person, here he preached reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims. He completed writing his last work entitled “Message of Peace” a day before his death.

Death

While he was in Lahore at the home of Dr. Syed Muhammad Hussain (who was also his physician), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad fell ill from dysentery and excessive weakness. He died in Lahore on 26 May 1908. His body was subsequently taken to Qadian and buried there. A few years before his death, Ahmad claimed to have received several prophecies relating to his upcoming death.

Marriages and children

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad married twice. His first wife was his paternal cousin Hurmat Bibi. Later they separated and lived separately for a long time. At the time of his second marriage, Hurmat Bibi gave him the permission to live with the second wife and decided against a divorce.

Children

From his first wife Hurmat Bibi two sons:

#Mirza Sultan Ahmad(1853–1931) # Mirza Fazal Ahmad (1855–1904)

From his second wife Nusrat Jehan Begum ten children:

Five children who died in infancy: # Ismat(1886–1891) # Bashir (1887–1888) # Shaukat (1891–1892) # Mirza Mubarik Ahmad (1899–1907) # Amtul Naseer (1903-1903)

And five children who lived longer:

# Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad (1889–1965) # Mirza Bashir Ahmad (1893–1963) # Mirza Sharif Ahmad (1895–1961) # (Nawab) Mubarika Begum (1897–1977) # (Nawab)Sahiba Amtul Hafeez Begum (1904–1987)

Knowledge of Arabic

See also: Noor-ul-Haq

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was criticized for his inadequate knowledge of the Arabic language. Subsequently he claimed to have been taught Arabic directly by God and that he received the knowledge of 40,000 Arabic roots from God in a single night. He wrote some 20 books in Arabic, and Urdu combined with Arabic, as well as poetry upon what he considered was divine direction. He wrote:

Ahmad challenged his critics and contemporary religious scholars to produce the like of his Arabic works with as much help as they wanted individually or collectively. After having been alleged to have hired some experts of the Arabic language to write those books, he gave them leave to call to their aid the learned men and divines of Arabia, Egypt and Syria whose mother-tongue was Arabic thereby extending his challenge to all Arabs and non-Arabs alike. According to Ahmadi sources no one took up this challenge and those who did, only sought to find fault with the works of Ghulam Ahmad and failed to produce any book. He also declared Arabic to be the mother of all languages (Ummul-Lisana) and the original tongue of mankind. This subject he dealt with in some detail in his book Minanur-Rahman.

Although Ahmad stated:

Ahmad did go on to say however that such teaching of his was an

From this, Ahmadis argue that learning basic rules of Arabic grammar in the manner of a student learning a classical language at a young age cannot on its own lead to writing scores of books, delivering lectures and challenging the Arabic-speaking world, all successfully, fifty years later. Ahmadis conclude therefore that extra knowledge, above and beyond an "elementary education" is required to achieve such literary feats.

Legacy

One of the main source of dispute during his lifetime and continuing since then, is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s use of the terms “Nabi” (prophet) and “Rasool” (messenger) when referring to himself. Muslims consider the prophet Muhammad to be the last of the prophets and believe that Ahmad's use of these terms is a violation of not only the rudimentary concept of the “finality of prophethood”, but the Qur'an itself. His followers fall into two camps in this regards. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believe in a literal interpretation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s prophethood (with some qualifications), and is currently headed by Ahmad's fifth Caliph or successor carrying the title of Khalifatul Masih an institution believed to have been established soon after Ahmad’s death. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement believe in an allegorical interpretation of these two terms and is administered by a body of people called the Anjuman Ishat-e-Islam (Movement for the propagation of Islam) headed by an Emir. This among other reasons caused a split in the movement soon after Ahmad’s death.

Followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are considered non-Muslims in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and have faced relentless persecution of various types over the years. In 1974, the Pakistani parliament amended the Pakistani constitution to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims for purposes of the constitution of the Islamic Republic. In 1984, a series of changes in the Pakistan Penal Code sections relating to blasphemy were made, which, in essence, made it illegal for Ahmadis to preach their creed, leading to arrests and prosecutions. However, no one has been executed yet, even though it is allowed under the law.

In 2007 The Ahmadiyya were banned from practising their faith openly in the state of Belarus, and given a similar status to other banned religious groups in the country.

Relative to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, some mainstream Muslim opinion towards the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement has been more accepting, with the Lahore Ahmadiyya Literature finding easier compatibility with orthodox Muslims and some Orthodox Muslim scholars considering the members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement as Muslims. though the majority orthodox position of most Muslims with regard to this issue has not changed.

Criticism

Due to the nature of his claims and teachings, he had been a subject of criticism throughout his life and has been ever since his death. He and his movement are still regarded by most Muslim scholars as kuffar (unbelievers), and as guilty for an attempted schism in Islam.

Ahmadi`s believe that Mirza Ghulahm Ahmad`s writings are taken completely out of context by critics. For example critics may show parts of writing that support their view, but fail to show the parts of writing that contradict their view.

Regarding Prophecies

Criticism on prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed can be seen in the article Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Relationship with the British

Many orthodox Muslims feel that Ghulam Ahmad was aided in his mission by the British government, whose stated policy of “divide and rule” was expressed in their approval of Ahmad's introducing a dissident faction within Islam. Ghulam Ahmad is criticised by the orthodox Muslims for his support for the British Government in India and maintain that he and his associates went on publishing in favor of British control and even tried to convince Muslims in other Muslim countries that a British government would be in their favor. It is alleged that he had collaborated with the British against Muslims. They give reference to one of his books in which he said:

His followers reject this criticism and point out that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was constantly engaged in controversies with the British missionaries. Western historians have recorded this effort as one of the features of Ahmad’s legacy. Francis Robinson states; His followers also say that Ahmad openly supported the British government in India, and therefore his critic's consideration of this being tantamount to “conspiring” with the British is baseless. They further argue that his open support for the British was on account of the religious freedom the British extended to the Muslims as opposed to the preceding Sikh rule in Punjab wherein Muslims were persecuted and their religious freedom curtailed.; and that one of the reasons for his expression of loyalty towards the British was due to him being repeatedly presented as a threat and danger to the government with rebellious intent by his opponents such as Maulvi Muhammad Hussein who warned the government in the following words:

It is also pointed out by them that some prominent main stream Muslim leaders of the time had also openly expressed similar sentiments for the British rule for the same reasons. Such leaders included Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, Deputy Nazir Ahmad and members of Anjuman Himayat-i-Islam. Furthermore the famous founders of the Muslim League had also expressed similar sentiments of Loyalty to the British Government at around the same time as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In summary the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad contend that his views towards the British Rulers at the time were the same as those of numerous other well regarded Muslim Leaders of the same time.

Termination of Jihad

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's critics allege that he had terminated Jihad, which is an important Islamic requirement, to appease the British. His followers, however, argue that he never terminated Jihad, in the broader sense of the word, but only forbade physical fighting for the sake of religion or against a government which gives freedom of religion. An official British government report of 1901 states:

Ahmad wrote:

According to Ahmad this age did not require defending Islam by the sword but that the Jihad of this age was to be carried out by preaching and defending Islam by speech and by the pen. In another place he writes:

Plagiarism

Ghulam Ahmad has been accused of plagiarising, and altering the words of Arab linguists to appear as his own. He claimed that his book Hujjatullah [Convincing Proof from God] was of superior Arabic. However, his critics allege that several sentences and paragraphs in this text are taken directly without alteration, from Maqamat al-Hariri, the best known poetry collection of the Arabic scholar and poet Al-Hariri of Basra. For this reason, his claim to divine instruction in Arabic is not accepted in Islamic Orthodoxy. Ahmadis, however, claim that the alleged instances of plagiarism are not true because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had deliberately inserted the writings of Al-Hariri with his own and then openly declared that he had done as such as a challenge to his critics to compare and separate the two. His followers claim that as clearly stated by him in the beginning of his book Hujjatullah it was only after his use of Arabic was labelled inadequate, ungrammatical and 'unchaste' by his opponents that Ghulam Ahmad deliberately amalgamated his own writings with that of Al-Hariri's in order to expose his adversaries; whom he called upon to distinguish between his writings and that of Al-Hariri’s. Ghulam Ahmad stated:

See also

Seal of the prophets

People claiming to be the Mahdi

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

List of founders of religious traditions

Yuz Asaf

Mohammadi Begum

Khalifatul Masih

Literature

Yohanan Friedmann, Prophecy Continuous - Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background; Oxford University Press (2003) ISBN 965264014X

Jesus in India, Ahmadiyya Muslim Foreign Mission Department, 1978, ISBN 978-1-8537-2723-8; Original Masih Hindustan Mein, Oriental & Religious Publications Ltd., Rabwah (Online)

The Essence of Islam, Islam International Publications, Ltd.; 2nd edition (2004), ISBN 1-8537-2765-2

Teachings of Islam, Kessinger Publishing (August 2003), ISBN 978-0-76617614-0

The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, The London Mosque Publishing, 1979

Iain Adamson: Ahmad, The Guided One, Islam International Publications, 2000

S. R. Valentine, 'Islam & the Ahmadiyya Jama'at', Hurst & Co, London/New York, 2008

Notes

External links

Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Official Website of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

The Ask Islam website contains a vast library of the popular question and answer sessions held with Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad

Islam-Ahmadiyya specifically caters to an Arabic-speaking audience. Like Al Islam itself, Islam-Ahmadiyya is home to a wide variety of content including books, articles and multimedia content.

Category:1835 births Category:1908 deaths Category:Punjabi people Category:Indian religious leaders Category:Self-declared messiahs Category:Prophets Category:People from Gurdaspur Category:Indian Ahmadis Category:Mujaddid