The Full Wiki

Historical Jesus: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The Historical Jesus is a scholarly reconstruction of the first-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] This reconstruction is based upon historical methods.[2] These include critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, and non-biblical sources for the historical and cultural context in which he lived.

Over the past 150 years, historians and biblical scholars have made great strides in the quest for the Historical Jesus. From Albert Schweitzer’s[3] revolutionary work in 1906, to the controversial Jesus Seminar,[4] much has been learned. The purpose of these scholars is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order that we can compile a totally up-to-date composite of Jesus.[5][6] Use of the term the Historical Jesus implies that the figure thus reconstructed will differ from that presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ"). It will also sometimes differ from Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu beliefs.[7]

The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[8] He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, Jesus began his own preaching in Galilee. He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery and was renowned as a teacher and a healer. Many scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations that the gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[9] He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God.[10] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[8] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[8] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.[11] It developed into Early Christianity (see also List of events in early Christianity).

The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 18th century.[12] Two books, both called The Life of Jesus were written by David Strauss, published in German in 1835-36, and Ernest Renan, published in French in 1863. The Historical Jesus is conceptually different than the Christ of Faith. The former is physical, while the latter metaphysical. The Historical Jesus is based on historical evidence. Every time a new scroll is unearthed or new Gospel fragment is found, the Historical Jesus is modified. And because so much has been lost, we can never know him completely.[13][14]

A series of articles on


Scholarly methods

Historians and Bible scholars analyze the Canonical Gospels, Talmud, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gnostic Gospels, Josephus, and other early documents attempting to find the Historical Jesus. A number of methods have been developed to critically analyze these sources:


Historians prefer the oldest sources about Jesus, and as a rule of thumb they tend to disregard sources written more than a century after Jesus' death.[15]

Criterion of dissimilarity

More narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment, statements contrary or dissimilar to the author's agenda are likely to be more reliable. For example, early Christians would be unlikely to claim that Jesus had been crucified unless he actually had been because the crucifixion was a cause of embarrassment.[16]

Criterion of independent attestation

When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is at least nearly certain that the tradition pre-dates the sources. Multiple attestation is not the same as independent attestation, e.g. Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as a source, therefore a story present in all these three Gospels is in fact attested in only one independent source.[15] See the Historicity of Jesus for a list of sources pertaining to this question.

Cultural congruency (contextual credibility)

A source is more credible if the account makes sense in the context of what is known about the culture in which the events unfold.[17] E.g. some sayings from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas make sense in a second century gnostic beliefs context, but not in the context of first century Christians, since Gnosticism is assumed to have appeared in the second century.

Linguistic criteria

There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the Gospels. For example, if a dialogue makes sense only in Greek (the language of its written source), it is quite likely the author is reporting something different from the original historical facts, e.g. the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus from John ch. 3 makes sense in Greek, but not in Aramaic.[17] In Bart Ehrman's opinion, this criterion is included in the contextual credibility, e.g. in their historical context Jesus and Nicodemus were discussing in Aramaic.[17]

Author's agenda

This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When the presented material serves the perceived purpose of the author or redactor, it is suspect.[18] For example, various sections of the Gospels, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, portray Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in the view of many scholars, reflect the agenda of the gospel authors rather than historical events.

Since the early 1980s scholars associated with the "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus"[19] - including Géza Vermes, Ben Meyer, John Riches, Anthony Harvey, Marcus Borg, E.P. Sanders, and N.T. Wright - have argued that these authenticity criteria are far too stringent.[20]

Theories of the historical Jesus

Scholars see the historical Jesus as the founder and leader of a restoration movement within Judaism. They identify a continuity between the movement that Jesus started and the religion that would eventually define itself as the Christian Church.

Current scholarship is in the so-called "third quest" of the historical Jesus. Important representatives of the third quest are E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, and John Dominic Crossan. Scholarship has split into different trends, with the main point of contention over whether Jesus saw the Kingdom of God as an imminent apocalyptic, earthly victory undertaken by God or as something internal, enacted by believers. The latter, non-apocalyptic view was dominant in North American scholarship.[9] However, work by Bart Eherman has argued that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew.[21] This view is now considered widely in North America.

Apocalyptic prophet

The gospels portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, described by himself and by others as the Son of Man - translated as the Son of Humanity - and hailing the restoration of Israel.[9] Jesus himself, as the Son of God, a description also used by himself and others for him, was to rule this kingdom as lord of the Twelve Apostles, the judges of the twelve tribes.[22]

Albert Schweitzer emphasized that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, preparing his fellow Jews for the imminent end of the world. In fact, Schweitzer saw Jesus as a failed, would-be Messiah whose ethic was suitable only for the short interim before the apocalypse.[citation needed] Many historians concur that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, most notably Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, and John P. Meier. E. P. Sanders portrays Jesus as expecting to assume the "viceroy" position in God's kingdom, above the Twelve Disciples, who would judge the twelve tribes, but below God.[22] He concludes, however, that Jesus seems to have rejected the title Messiah, and he contends that the evidence is uncertain to whether Jesus meant himself when he referred to the Son of Man coming on the clouds as a divine judge (see also Daniel's Vision of Chapter 7), and further states that biblical references to the Son of Man as a suffering figure are not genuine.[22]

Wisdom sage

The common view in North American scholarship is that Jesus did not prophesy an imminent apocalypse.[9]

Historians associated with the Jesus Seminar, such as John Dominic Crossan, are often associated with this view. They reject the view that Jesus was apocalyptic, but that the kingdom was present and accessible for all Jews. Crossan emphasizes that Jesus' movement did not have a head, as John the Baptist's movement had taken John as their leader.[10] For Crossan, Jesus called people to emulate him, and travel as itinerant preachers.[10] Jesus' eschatology is one of personal action and social transformation, like Gandhi's, rather than apocalyptic.[10] These scholars also explain Jesus' apocalyptic statements as later, Christian additions to the biblical narrative, likely introduced by followers of John the Baptist (who did prophecy an imminent apocalypse) who later joined Jesus' movement.[23]

Marcus Borg maintains that three fifths to three quarters of North American scholars actively engaging in Jesus research no longer accept the apocalyptic viewpoint.[24] Several other authors vindicate that consensus in current theological literature is that Jesus did not see the Kingdom of God as a future apocalyptic event, but as a movement toward an ethical eschatology that had not been fully completed.[25][26]

Son of God

Some scholars, most notably N. T. Wright (Bishop of Durham) and Luke Timothy Johnson, defend the historicity of traditional views of Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins (see Atonement in Christianity). They demand that scholars be more cautious about what we can claim to know about the ancient period, and see no problem in accepting traditional accounts when miraculous events, such as the resurrection, are beyond the historical method to either prove or disprove.[27]

Other views

There are many other interpretations of Jesus. More notable ones are that of revolutionary, prophet of social change, and mystical spirit-person, e.g., Marcus Borg. In fact, one criticism of the quest for the Historical Jesus has been that each generation perceives Jesus according to the moral sentiments of its era.[citation needed]

Jewish background

Jesus preached in Galilee and Judea (modern-day Israel, Palestinian territories, and Jordan) for one to three years[citation needed] in the first half of the first century.

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

Following the fall of earlier Jewish kingdoms, the partially-Hellenized territory was under Roman imperial rule, but there were ongoing hopes of a revival of independent sovereignty. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but although the land was mostly peaceful (notably between 7 and 26[28]), there were continued risks of rebellion, riots, banditry, and violent resistance (see also Zealotry). Four decades after Jesus’ death, the tensions caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration of the kingdom of David culminated in the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.[citation needed]

In the Judaic religion of Jesus' day, the Pharisees were a powerful party, espousing (like the first Christians) belief in the resurrection of the dead, retribution in the next world, angels, human freedom, and Divine Providence.[29] The more conservative Sadducees held power in the Temple. The Essenes lived ascetically and looked for an imminent apocalypse. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus does not seem to have belonged to any particular party or movement.

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

Personal background


Many historians consider that Jesus was born around 4 BCE or slightly earlier.[30] The place of birth is disputed, some arguing Bethlehem[31][32] while others argue Nazareth.[33][34][35][36][37] Geza Vermes views the different accounts of Jesus' birth given in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "pious fictions".[38] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".[39] The Gospels associate Jesus' birth with the reign of Herod the Great. Raymond Brown notes that "it is unlikely that either account is completely historical",[40] and suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses.[41] Others such as Craig Keener believe that the evidence suggests that the Evangelists "chose the scripture texts to fit the stories."[42]

This first Herod, an Idumaean whom the Roman Senate elected King of the Jews[43] over Idumea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria and neighboring lands, ruled from 37 to 4 BCE.[44] Upon Herod's death, the Romans divided up his kingdom between his sons, and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee but not Judea (which became part of Iudaea province after Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE) when Jesus was a man.[44]

Linguistic proficiency

Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic.[45] The Gospels record him using metaphors unknown in Hebrew or Greek but common in Aramaic. Some scholars speculate that because the lingua franca under Roman occupation was Greek, which was replacing Aramaic, Jesus might have known at least some Koine Greek.[46]


There are a number of passages from the Gospels which state or imply that Jesus could at least read.[47] In ancient societies many more could read than write. The only Gospel reference to Jesus writing is John 8:6 in the Pericope Adulterae, widely considered a later addition, where it is not even clear he is forming letters in the dust, and the Greek "εγραφεν" could equally mean he was drawing.[48] The question of Jesus's literacy has been much discussed in modern scholarship; the Jesus Seminar and others feel references in the Gospels to Jesus reading and writing may well be fictions.[49][50] In the view of John Dominic Crossan, he would not have been literate.[51] James Dunn observes that, given importance of reading the Torah in Jewish culture of the time, a Galilean villager such as Jesus might have learned to read.[52] John P. Meier concludes that the literacy of Jesus probably extended to the ability to read and comment on sophisticated theological and literary works.[53]

Work as a "carpenter"

View of Nazareth

Jesus is identified in Mark as a τεκτων (tekton)[54] and in Matthew as the son of a tekton.[55] Like most people at the time, he presumably was trained by his parent in the family trade. Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as "carpenter", but is a rather general word (from the same root that gives us "technical" and "technology") that at the time could cover makers of objects in various materials, and builders.[56] The specific association with woodworking is a constant in Early Christian tradition; Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs, and there are similar early references.[57] Crossan puts tekton into a historical context more resembling an itinerant worker than an established artisan, emphasizing his marginality in a population in which a peasant who owns land could become quite prosperous.[58] However, other scholars have argued that tekton could equally mean a highly-skilled craftsman in wood or the more prestigious metal, perhaps running a workshop with several employees, and noted sources recording the shortage of skilled artisans at the time.[59]

Scholars, following S. J. Case, have noted that Nazareth is only about 6 kilometres from the city of Tzippori (ancient "Sepphoris"), which was destroyed by the Romans in 4BC, and thereafter was expensively rebuilt. It has been speculated that Joseph and Jesus might have travelled daily to work on the rebuilding.[citation needed] Specifically the large theatre in the city has been suggested, although this has aroused much controversy over dating and other issues.[60] Other scholars see Joseph and Jesus as the general village craftsmen, working in wood, stone and metal on a wide variety of jobs.[61]


Jesus lived in Galilee, north of Judea on the other side of Samaria (which was hostile to Judeans). Judeans did not hold Galileans in high regard as they were often of mixed blood and open to foreign influence.[49][62] The Galilean dialect was clearly distinguishable from the Judean dialect.[63]

Family background and childhood


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


Jesus' mother was named Mary,[64] a common name at the time. Beyond the accounts in the Gospels and a few other early Christian sources,[65] there is no independent or verifiable information about any aspect of Mary's life.

Jesus' siblings

Jesus had brothers and sisters, as reported in Mark[64] 6:3[66] and Matthew 13:55-56.[67] The Gospels name four brothers, but only James is known to history. After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother",[68] was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem[64] and Jesus' relatives seem to have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.[69] As the doctrine of Perpetual virginity of Mary developed, predominantly in the East, Christians began to regard the siblings of Jesus as children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, and Jerome went on to argue that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to were actually cousins.[70] The terms "brother" and "sister" as used in this context are open to different interpretations.[71] The most natural conclusion from what is written in the New Testament is that Jesus' siblings were children of Mary and Joseph, as accepted by some early Christian writers; but when Helvidius proposed this idea in the fourth century, Jerome, who seems to have expressed the general opinion of the Church, maintained that Mary remained always a virgin, and held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of Clopas, a brother-in-law of Mary.[72] The "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus have thus been interpreted as children of Joseph by a previous marriage, as Mary's sister's children, or as Joseph's sister's children.[72] Certain critical scholars, on the other hand, hold that the doctrine of perpetual virginity has long obscured the recognition that Jesus had siblings.[73] Their confidence in this opinion is not shared by all critical scholars. For instance, Raymond E. Brown says that the words used about the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the New Testament, which nowhere calls them children of Mary, do not necessarily mean that they were full siblings; he also mentions that the tradition that Mary had no children but Jesus, already existed by the early second century, and refers to evidence within the New Testament itself that suggests that at least two of the named "brothers" were sons of another woman.[74]

Ministry of Jesus

Works and miracles

Early Christian image of the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.

Jesus is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of miraculous healing, exorcisms and dominion over other things in nature besides people.

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

Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the reports of Jesus' miracles should be construed. The Christian Gospels states that Jesus has God authoritarian power over nature, life and death, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example, the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.[citation needed]

Jesus as divine

Jesus was a charismatic preacher who taught the principles of salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[9] Scholars see him as accepting a divine role in the approaching apocalypse as the divine king.[22] Jesus' use of three important terms: Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, reveals his understanding of his divine role.[9][22]


In the Hebrew Bible, three classes of people are identified as "anointed," that is, "Messiahs": prophets, priests, and kings.[22] In Jesus' time, the term Messiah was used in different ways, and no one can be sure how Jesus would even have meant it if he had accepted the term.[22] Though Messianic expectations in general centered on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.[citation needed]

The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[75] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").

Son of God

Paul describes God as declaring Jesus to be the Son of God by raising him from the dead, and Sanders argues Mark portrays God as adopting Jesus as his son at his baptism,[22] although many others don't accept this interpretation of Mark.[76] Sanders argues that for Jesus to be hailed as the Son of God does not mean that he is literally God's offspring.[22] Rather, it indicates a very high designation, one who stands in a special relation to God.[22]

In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[77][78]

Son of Man

The most literal translation here is "Son of Humanity", or "human being". Jesus uses "Son of Man" to mean sometimes "I" or a mortal in general, sometimes a divine figure destined to suffer, and sometimes a heavenly figure of judgment soon to arrive. Jesus usage of son of man in the first way is historical but without divine claim. The Son of Man as one destined to suffer seems to be, according to some, a Christian invention that doesn't go back to Jesus, and it's not clear whether Jesus meant himself when he spoke of the divine judge.[22] These three uses do not appear together, such as the Son of Man who suffers and returns.[22] Others maintain, that Jesus' use of this phrase, illustrates Jesus' self understanding as the divine representative of God.[79]

Other depictions

The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[80]

Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus "God".[81] New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[82] See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.

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

The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest.[9][16][64]

Jesus and John the Baptist

Judean hills of Israel

Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.

Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[83] John was a major religious figure, whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own.[84] Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power.[84] In a saying thought to have been originally recorded in Q,[85] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[86]

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

John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' own actions, rather than from God's intervention.[10]

Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report."[88] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[84]

John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).[citation needed]

Scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[89] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice.[citation needed] All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified at the requested of the Jewish Sanhedrin by Pontius Pilate.[citation needed] Crucifixion was the penalty for criminals, robbers, traitors, and political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority - those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.[citation needed]

Ministry and teachings

The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon.[90] Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house[citation needed] where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]

Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.

Length of ministry

Historians do not know how long Jesus preached. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[91] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[92] so Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[93][94] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[95]

Parables and paradoxes

Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies".

Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[10]

Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[64]


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

A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[96]

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

  • In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
  • In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
  • In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
  • The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.

According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church." [97] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish," as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[98]

Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[10]

Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[99]

  • In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
  • In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
  • In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
  • Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.

The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[99]

Laconic sage

The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[100] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[100] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[100]

The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[101] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.

Table fellowship

Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[10] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[10] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[64] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[64]

John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[10] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[10] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[64]


Jesus recruited twelve Galilean peasants as his inner circle, including several fishermen.[102] The fishermen in question and the tax collector Matthew would have business dealings requiring some knowledge of Greek.[103] The father of two of the fishermen is represented as having the means to hire labourers for his fishing business, and tax collectors were seen as exploiters.[104] The twelve were expected to rule the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom of God.[102]

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


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


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


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

Women Disciples

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

The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[105]

According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[10]

Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[10] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, the Great Commission, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[23]


The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and did not fast, other than as all observant Jews did.[106] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.

Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[107] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.

Some suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[108] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.[citation needed] However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene." [109]

John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, so he promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[110] Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.


The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.

Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria as reported in John, or around the border of Samaria as reported in Luke, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans. Jerusalem was packed with Jews who had come for Passover, perhaps comprising 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims.[111]

Entrance to Jerusalem

Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[64]

Temple disturbance

Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[64] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[64] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, or the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[64]


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

Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[64] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[112][113][114] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[115] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[16] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[116]

The Jesus Seminar argued that Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[64] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[117]

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

Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood [118], and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[119] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared that Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[120]

However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront to the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.

Burial and Empty Tomb

Some scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[121] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[122] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[123] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[124] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[125] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[126] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[127] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable,[128] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty.[129] Michael Grant wrote:

[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.[130]

However, Marcus Borg notes:

the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known[131]

Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[132]

Resurrection appearances

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

Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[64] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.

The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) were added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[133] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty of accusing the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:

It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.[134]

Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection a non-historical question but instead a philosophical or theological question.[27]

Quest for the historical Jesus

Traditionally, Western scholars considered the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be authoritative and inspired by God, but, starting in the late 1700s, scholars began to submit the Gospels to historical scrutiny. From 1744 to 1767, Hermann Samuel Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but did not publish his findings.[135] Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments.[7] D.F.Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course.[7] Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented.[136] Joseph Renan was the first of many to portray Jesus simply as a human person.[7] Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America.[7] Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis.[7] William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark.[7] Albert Schweitzer showed how histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.[7] Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from c 1920 to c 1970.[100] There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s.[7] Today, historical efforts to construct a biography of Jesus are as strong as ever.[7]

Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus

Critics variously characterize the historical reconstruction of Jesus as either an unwarranted a priori rejection of all supernatural elements in Jesus' true identity, or as ascribing historical status to a fictional character.

Christian criticism

In C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, the fictional demon Screwtape writes: "The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true".[137] Professor C. Stephen Evans[138] holds that the stories told by "scientific, critical historians" are based on faith convictions no less than is the account of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, an account that he maintains can be reasonably accepted as historically true.[139]

Criticism as myth

Some writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells and Robert M. Price[140] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the Gospels to reconstruct his life give the Gospels too much credit. This position, put forward in works such as the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Bible scholars.[141][142][143][144]

See also


  • Barnett, Paul W. (1997). Jesus and the Logic of History (New Studies in Biblical Theology 3). New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-385-49449-1. 
  • Brown, Raymond E. (1993). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-85111-512-8. 
  • Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary Prentice Hall 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
  • Bock, Darrell L., Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.. Baker Academic: 2002. ISBN 978-0801024511.
  • Craffert, Pieter F. and Botha, Pieter J. J. "Why Jesus Could Walk On The Sea But He Could Not Read And Write". Neotestamenica. 39.1, 2005.
  • Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus : A Revolutionary Biography. Harpercollins: 1994. ISBN 0-06-061661-X.
  • Dickson, John. Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Hudson plc, 2008, ISBN 0825478022, 9780825478024, Google Books
  • Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-512473-1. 
  • Fiensy, David A.; Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life, Gorgias Press LLC, 2007, ISBN 1593333137, 9781593333133, Google books
  • Fredriksen, Paula (2000). Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679767466. 
  • Grant, Michael. Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's, 1977. ISBN 0-684-14889-7.
  • Funk, Robert W. (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9. 
  • Harris, by William V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press: 1989. ISBN 0-674-03380-9.
  • Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday,
v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9
v. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 1994, ISBN 0-385-46992-6
v. 3, Companions and Competitors, 2001, ISBN 0-385-46993-4
  • Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1987.
  • Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
  • Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press: 1997. ISBN 0-8308-1544-9.
  • Wright, N.T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, a projected 6 volume series of which 3 have been published under:
v. 1, The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1992.;
v. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 1997.;
v. 3, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: 2003.
  • Wright, N.T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is. IVP 1996
  • Yaghjian, Lucretia. "Ancient Reading", in Richard Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences in New Testament Interpretation. Hendrickson Publishers: 2004. ISBN 1-56563-410-1.


  1. ^ D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 pp. 125 - 127
  2. ^ William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1997
  3. ^ James Brabazon, Albert Schweitzer: a biography, Syracuse University Press, 2000 pp. 110 -138
  4. ^ Gary R. Habermas, The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ, College Press, 1996 pp. 121 - 143
  5. ^ Gary R. Habermas, The historical Jesus, College Press, 1996 p. 219 ISBN 0899007325
  6. ^ I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Regent College Publishing, 2004 p. 214 ISBN 1573830194
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Historical Jesus, Quest of the." Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
  8. ^ a b c Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998.
  11. ^ E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.280
  12. ^ McKnight, Scot (1996). "Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Jesus Studies". in Michael J Wilkins, J P Moreland. Jesus Under Fire. Zondervan. pp. 53. ISBN 0-310-21139-5. 
  13. ^ William A. Van Roo, Basics of a Roman Catholic theology, Volume 75 of Series Facultatis Theologiae, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1982 pp. 343 - 347
  14. ^ Catherine M. Murphy The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007 pp. 55 - 60
  15. ^ a b Bart D. Ehrman, MDiv, PhD. Historical Jesus. 'Historical Criteria.' The Teaching Company, 2000, Lecture 9.
  16. ^ a b c "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  17. ^ a b c Bart D. Ehrman, MDiv, PhD. Historical Jesus. 'More Historical Criteria.' The Teaching Company, 2000, Lecture 10.
  18. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five Gospels. Harper SanFrancisco. 1993. page 21.
  19. ^ Witherington III, Ben (1995), The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0830818618 
  20. ^ Boyd, Gregory A. (1995), Cynic Sage or Son of God: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books/SP Publications, p. 47–48, ISBN 1564764486 
  21. ^ The Historical Jesus/course quidebook The Teaching Company chapters 14 and 15 pp. 88–98
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan.
  23. ^ a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
  24. ^ Borg, Marcus J. Jesus in contemporary scholarship Continuum International Publishing Group, 1994. pg. 7 ISBN 1563380943, 9781563380945
  25. ^ Brown, Stephen / Bell, Jim / Carson, David. Marketing apocalypse: eschatology, escapology and the illusion of the end Routledge, 1996. Pg. 206-207 ISBN 0415148227, 9780415148221
  26. ^ Powell, Mark Allan. Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. pg. 173 ISBN 0664257038, 9780664257033
  27. ^ a b Meier 1994 v.2 ch. 17; Ehrman 1999 p.227-8
  28. ^ John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, v. 1, ch. 11; also H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 251: "But after the first agitation (which occurred in the wake of the first Roman census) had faded out, we no longer hear of bloodshed in Judea until the days of Pilate."
  29. ^ "Pharisees." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  30. ^ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 10–11; Historians and Biblical scholars who place the birth of Jesus on April 17, within the range 7 - 2 BCE include D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, 54, 56 Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991–, vol. 1:214; , and Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources," Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12–20.
  31. ^ Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Mic. Baker Academic, 2002). 66.
  32. ^ Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (InterVarsity Press, 2002) p.90
  33. ^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1, Doubleday 1991, page 216.
  34. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 97.
  35. ^ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin 1993, page 85.
  36. ^ The Jesus Seminar found it likely that he was born in the last year's before Herod's reign ended in 4 BCE. Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
  37. ^ "Our conclusion must be that Jesus came from Nazareth." Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 165. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
  38. ^ Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend, London, Penguin, 2006, p22
  39. ^ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p.85
  40. ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 36. ISBN 0-385-05907-8. 
  41. ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8. 
  42. ^ Craig Keener, Mathew IVPNTCS 1 (Downers Grove, Ill. InterVarsity, 1997), 55.
  43. ^ Josephus' Jewish War 1.14.4: Mark Antony " ...then resolved to get him made king of the Jews... told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. And when the senate was separated, Antony and Caesar went out, with Herod between them; while the consul and the rest of the magistrates went before them, in order to offer sacrifices [to the Roman gods], and to lay the decree in the Capitol. Antony also made a feast for Herod on the first day of his reign;"
  44. ^ a b "Herod family." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  45. ^ Allen C. Myers, ed (1987). "Aramaic". The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. p. 72. ISBN 0-8028-2402-1. "It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Palestine in the first century A.D. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem (Matt. 26:73).". 
  46. ^ Fitzmyer, Joseph (September-October 1992). "Did Jesus Speak Greek?". Biblical Archaeology Review (Biblical Archaeology Society (USA)) 18 (5): 58–63. 
  47. ^ Theissen and Merz 1998, p. 354 (for example, Mark 1.39, 2.25, 12.10; Matt. 12.5, 19.4, 21.16; Luke 4.16; and John 7.15)
  48. ^ [1] Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus, Craig A. Evans
  49. ^ a b Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "What do we really know about Jesus" p. 527-534.
  50. ^ Craffert and Botha 2005
  51. ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 147
  52. ^ Dunn, James D G (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 313–314. ISBN 0802839312. 
  53. ^ Meier 1991, p.278
  54. ^ Mark 6:3
  55. ^ Matthew 13:55
  56. ^ Dickson, 47
  57. ^ Fiensy, 68-69
  58. ^ Fiensy, especially in pp. 30-59, describes our knowledge of Galilean society at the time from archaeological and literary, as well as Biblical, sources. He does not share Crossan's conclusions.
  59. ^ Fiensy, 75-77
  60. ^ Fiensy, 74-77
  61. ^ For example, Dickson, 47
  62. ^ Fiensy, 30-50 discusses the society of Galilee, and the reputation of Galileans among other Jews.
  63. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Galilee: Characteristics of Galileans: "But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b)."
  64. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
  65. ^ i.e., The Infancy Gospel of James
  66. ^ 6:3
  67. ^ Matthew 13:55-56
  68. ^ Galatians 1:19
  69. ^ "Jerusalem." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  70. ^ John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (University of South Carolina Press, 2004), page 326.
  71. ^ Raymond Edward Brown, Paul J. Achtemeier. Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Paulist Press, 1978 ISBN 0809121689 pp. 65-68
  72. ^ a b "Brethren of the Lord" Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  73. ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Mark," p. 51-161
  74. ^ Raymond E. Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible. Paulist Press 2003 Q. 67, pp. 93-95
  75. ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar. HarperSanFrancisco. 1999.
  76. ^ Brown, Raymond E.; et al. (1990). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-614934-0. 
  77. ^ Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press, New York 1981. p.209
  78. ^ Paolo Flores d'Arcais, MicroMega 3/2007, p.43
  79. ^ Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (2005), "The historical Jesus in recent research Volume 10 of Sources for biblical and theological study", Eisenbrauns: 325, ISBN 1575061007, 
  80. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
  81. ^ "[T]here is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition." in "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73
  82. ^ John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."; Gerd Lüdemann, "An Embarrassing Misrepresentation", Free Inquiry, October / November 2007: "the broad consensus of modern New Testament scholars that the proclamation of Jesus' exalted nature was in large measure the creation of the earliest Christian communities."
  83. ^ Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
  84. ^ a b c d e f g Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. John the Baptist cameo. p. 268
  85. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. p. 178
  86. ^ See Matthew 11:7-10. Crossan, John Dominic. The essential Jesus. Edison: Castle Books. 1998. p. 146
  87. ^ Mark 6:14, 16, 8:28
  88. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Historical Jesus" p. 255-260
  89. ^ following the conclusion of Josephus' Antiquities 18.5: "Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late."
  90. ^ Mark 7:24-30
  91. ^ Introduction. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993.
  92. ^ First: 2:13 and 2:23; second: 6:4; third: 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:29, 18:39, 19:14
  93. ^ Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, Zondervan, 1993, p. 152
  94. ^ Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D, Wm. B. Eerdmans 1995 p. 682
  95. ^ The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 p. 162
  96. ^ Ehrman, Bart. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. Oxford. 1999. page 127.
  97. ^ Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospels of Jesus. Penguin, 2003. p. 381.
  98. ^ E. P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 178
  99. ^ a b Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "God's Imperial Rule: Present or Future," p 136-137.
  100. ^ a b c d Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. Introduction, p 1-30.
  101. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pages 103-104.
  102. ^ a b Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
  103. ^ Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (BRILL, 1998 ISBN 9004111425, 9789004111424), p. 136
  104. ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus for Dummies 2007 ISBN 0470167858, 9780470167854, p. 23
  105. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
  106. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
  107. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 220.
  108. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. page 221.
  109. ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144
  110. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Essenes: "The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethren delegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia)."
  111. ^ Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 249
  112. ^ Sanders 1987, p.[citation needed]
  113. ^ The Jesus Seminar concurs that the temple incident led to Jesus' execution.
  114. ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church reports that "it is possible" that the temple disturbance led to Jesus' arrest, offers no alternative reason, and states more generally that a political rather than religious motivation was likely behind it. "Jesus Christ." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  115. ^ Ehrman 1999, p. 221-3
  116. ^ Are You the One? The Textual Dynamics of Messianic Self-Identity
  117. ^ Brown 1993, vol. 1, p. 711-12; Funk 1998, p. 152-3
  118. ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, page 49, 'The alleged contraventions of Jewish law seem to rest upon misunderstandings of Jewish texts'
  119. ^ Barrett, CK 'The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes', Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, pages 49-50, 'The explanation is that special circumstances were regularly allowed to modify the course of the law. For example, Simeon b. Shetah (fl. 104-69 B.C.) caused to be hanged 80 women (witches) in one day, though it was against the law to judge more than two. 'The hour demanded it' (Sanhedrin 6.4, Y. Sanhedrin 6,235c,58). Nisan 15, so far from being an unlikely day, was one of the best possible days for the execution of Jesus. The regulation for the condemnation of a 'rebellious teacher' runs: 'He was kept in guard until one of the Feasts (passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and he was put to death on one of the Feasts, for it is written, And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously (Deuteronomy 17.13)' (Sanhedrin 11.4). There was only one day on which 'all the people' were gathered together in Jerusalem for the Passover; it was Nisan 15, the Marcan date for the crucifixion.'
  120. ^ Fredriksen, Paula. (2000) From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ. Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 122 ISBN 0300084579
  121. ^ Craig A. Evans, "The Silence of Burial" in Jesus, the Final Days Ed. Troy A. Miller. p.68
  122. ^ Crossan 1994, p. 154-158; cf. Ehrman 1999, p.229
  123. ^ N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 49; who wrote "[Crossan's hypothesis] has not been accepted yet by any other serious scholar."
  124. ^ Ben Meyer, critical notice of The Historical Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 575
  125. ^ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990), p. 220.
  126. ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 128; he observed that the Jewish polemic is recorded in Matthew 28:11-15 and was employed through the second century, cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; Tertullian, On Spectacles, 30
  127. ^ G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, (College Press, 1996) p. 173; cf. Vasilius Tzaferis, "Jewish Tombs At and Near Giv'at ha-Mivtar", Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970) pp. 38-59".
  128. ^ Brown 1993, vol. 2, ch. 46
  129. ^ e.g. Paul L. Maier, "The Empty Tomb as History", in Christianity Today, March, 1975, p. 5
  130. ^ M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977) p. 176
  131. ^ Borg, Marcus J. "Thinking About Easter" Bible Review. April 1994, p. 15 and 49
  132. ^ Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 503. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
  133. ^ Funk, Robert W (1998). The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. A Polebridge Press Book from Harper San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-062978-9. 
  134. ^ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007
  135. ^ "Reimarus, Hermann Samuel." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  136. ^ "miracle." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  137. ^ Lewis, C. S. (2007) [1942]. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 150–151. ISBN 0-06-065289-6. 
  138. ^ "Biography of C Stephen Evans". Baylor University. Retrieved 2007-03-16. 
  139. ^ Evans, C. Stephen. "The historical Christ and the Jesus of faith". Retrieved 2007-03-16.  See C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. vi-vii.
  140. ^ Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus, pages 9, 16-17, quoted in Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Eerdrmans (2004), page 163: 'Price ... calls his position "agnosticism" rather than "atheism" on the question of Jesus' existence'.
  141. ^ The historian Michael Grant states that, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995).
  142. ^ "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
  143. ^ Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Eerdrmans (2004), page 24: most scholars regard the argument for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response".
  144. ^ "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt." - Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Four: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism", available, accessed 05 January 2008.

External links

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address