Module Eight

The Study of the Historical Jesus

8.1 Introduction

Fig. 8.1: Mosaic of Christ “Pantocrator” (“ruler of all”). This was an iconic image throughout the Medieval period. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. 1261.

When most Christians speak about Jesus, they do not make a distinction between the person who lived in the first three decades of the first century and later interpretations of him in the Gospels and Church tradition. In other words, they rarely make a distinction between the Jewish Jesus and the Christianized Jesus, or as some describe it, the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. For eighteen hundred years of Christian history such divides were unthinkable. The Church oversaw the academy; most parishioners were illiterate; reason was subservient to doctrines of faith; and the bible was primarily in the hands of the clergy. The last two hundred years of New Testament scholarship has raised questions and issues about the historical Jesus that have changed the landscape forever. This chapter is an introduction to what has become the field of historical Jesus research. As you read this chapter, try to identify with the agonizing passion of historians—many of whom were committed Christians—in their search for the person who is believed to have turned the world upside down. Try to also wrestle with your own position on the relationship between the Jesus of history and the Christ of Christian faith. How are they distinct? How are they the same? This field of study has also raised numerous tangential issues that are interesting in and of themselves, such as the relationship between theology and history, faith and reason, and the nature of historical inquiry itself.

8.2 The Influence of the Enlightenment

Fig. 8.2: Eugene Delacroix, “Liberty Leading the People,” Louvre-Lens, 1830. This famous commemoration of the French revolution is personified in a woman, who is a goddess figure standing over the bodies of the fallen, holding the flag of the new Republic. This painting has often been viewed as the symbolic end of the Enlightenment.

The modern quest for the historical Jesus is rooted in the European Enlightenment (ca. 1650-1800), which is also known as the “Age of Reason,” the “Age of Modernity,” and the “Age of Science.” During this 150-year period, Western culture underwent a dramatic shift. The rise of rational inquiry, the scientific method, democratic political movements (and revolutions), and the legal emancipation of the individual all led to the secularization of society within a liberal democratic framework. One of the major outcomes of the Enlightenment was the challenge to the authority of the Church on almost every level of thought, including the historical identity of Jesus. Before the Enlightenment, the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christian tradition was assumed to be the same as the Jesus of history who ministered throughout Palestine during the late 20s of the first century. During the Enlightenment period, the attention to the critical use of sources in the study of history led to an alternate view that has remained with us ever since, namely the division between the “Christ of faith” and the “Jesus of history.” Scholars have used the designation “Christ of faith” to refer to the theologically interpreted Jesus as the object of Christian worship, who is believed to be, among other titles, the Messiah, Son of God, Lord, and the second person of the Trinity. Alternatively, they have used the designation “Jesus of history” to refer to the Jewish person who can be reconstructed using the tools and methods of historical inquiry. Since the latter part of the Enlightenment, New Testament scholars studying Jesus have been guided by two related overarching questions. (1) Who was Jesus prior to the emergence of Christianity? And (2) what is the relationship between the historical Jesus and later Christian portrayals of him?

Fig. 8.3: Fresco of Jesus healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5:25-34), Catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter, Rome. Early 4th century. Depictions of past figures like Jesus were commonly contemporized in writing and art. Jesus appears as a Roman healer and/or god.

Inquiry into the historical Jesus naturally stems from a comparative reading of the Gospels. Alongside the many similarities, the four Gospels of the New Testament contain diverse portrayals of Jesus. At the risk of repeating the detailed discussion of the Gospels in the next chapter, it is important for modern readers to understand that the Gospels convey a dual perspective. On the one hand, the evangelists write about Jesus in the context of Jewish life set in Palestine during the late 20s of the first century. This is where the plot unfolds and the interactions among the characters takes place. Yet, on the other hand, the Gospels were written for audiences who lived outside of Palestine decades later (approx. 70-95 CE). These audiences were Christians, living in a post-resurrection setting, and had as their main opponents Jews who did not believe that Jesus is the messiah. The Gospels were primarily written to address the issues plaguing the evangelists’ communities. While the Gospels contain historical material, they are not reconstructions of the life of Jesus as we might write them today.

Fig. 8.4: Mosaic of the Glorified Christ, St Vitus Cathedral, Prague, 14th century. Theological interpretations of Jesus in the Gospels and the church are not subject to historical critique. They are affirmations of faith.

The quest for the historical Jesus has been nothing short of controversial. Historians have represented almost every imaginable position. The main problem for many observers is that the reconstructions of Jesus by historians have not always lined up with the Gospel portrayals of him. What is more, many lay people regard the historical pursuit of Jesus as antithetical and even hostile to Christianity. Over the years, there has certainly been reason for this sentiment, but it does not represent the main thrust of this inquiry. Many scholars have viewed historical Jesus research as beneficial to the Church and Christianity. Learning and discovering what Jesus was like, why he taught the way he did, why he did the things he did, what he meant by what he said, all speak invaluably to who he really was and ultimately play a role in the broader understanding of Christianity.

Aside from the immense value of historical Jesus research, it is vital for the person of faith to keep in mind that whatever the historian concludes in his or her reconstruction of Jesus, this portrayal should not be confused with or replace the portrayals of Jesus in the New Testament as the symbols that guide worship. The Church has canonized the New Testament writings and not the reconstructions of Jesus. 

8.3 A Brief History of the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Historical surveys of quests for Jesus have often hinged on Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, originally published in 1906. Schweitzer surveyed all the works before him beginning with Herman Reimarus, who is often credited with writing the first critical work on the historical Jesus. Schweitzer concluded that all the reconstructions (or “Lives of Jesus” as they were often called) prior to his own were too subjective to be considered as accurate treatments. The main problem for Schweitzer was that the so-called historical reconstructions of Jesus resulted in portrayals that resembled the authors of the studies, and not a first century Galilean Jew. 

8.3.1 Before Schweitzer

Fig 8.4: Hermann Samuel Reimarus

Focusing only on two historians as a sampling, we begin with Herman Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), who laid the groundwork for a century’s worth of biographies about Jesus. Reimarus’ four thousand page manuscript was selectively published posthumously by G. E. Lessing as Wolfenbüttel Fragmente (published today in English as Fragments) between 1774 and 1778. Since Reimarus’ ideas about Jesus and the disciples were highly controversial, he refrained from publishing them during his lifetime, for fear of significant reprisals. Reimarus (in Fragments 6 and 7) argued for a rationalistic reconstruction of early Christianity that had its roots in the unsuccessful political ambitions of Jesus who ironically was not trying to start a new religion. Instead, he was trying to call Israel to repentance and establish the kingdom of God. For Reimarus, the kingdom of God was a political reality wherein Jesus would rule instead of the Romans. Unfortunately for Jesus, his hopes were dashed and he was executed for sedition, or pretensions of kingship. For Reimarus, Jesus’ cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46), clearly conveys the realization that God had failed him. Instead of a king, Jesus was a failed and broken man. Since Jesus’ disciples did not want to accept this outcome, they stole his body and claimed that he rose from the dead, and would return again to establish the kingdom of God that he previously promised. This, for Reimarus, constituted the beginning of Christianity. The Christ of the Gospels is thus regarded as a fanciful product of the disciples. By historically discrediting the Gospels’ portrayals of Jesus, Reimarus had hoped to discredit revealed religion in favor of worship that is rooted in reason and history.

Info Box 8.1: The Importance of Reimarus

Although Reimarus’ reconstruction has long been abandoned, his importance in the field of historical Jesus research has been enduring. Norman Perrin explains, “The important thing about Reimarus, however, is not his conscious purpose, nor his reconstruction of earliest Christian history, but the way in which he is able to show, in instance after instance, that the gospel narratives may not be understood as historical accounts of actual events, but must be recognized as the product of conceptions arrived at subsequent to the events which they purport to narrate. True, Reimarus is a hostile historian, thinking in terms of delusion and fantasy, but he is none the less a brilliant historian, and his instinct is surer than his own conscious purpose. So he is able to take the first step on the way to understanding the essential nature of the gospels, by recognizing the determinative character of the influence of early Christian conceptions on the narratives. In one other respect also his instinct is sure: he interprets both the purpose of Jesus and that of his disciples in terms of Jewish messianic conceptions, and in this way puts his finger on eschatology as a key element in both the ministry of Jesus and the life of the early Church. In this he was to be shown to be absolutely correct, some two hundred years later!” (Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 210).

As one can imagine, even by today’s standards, Reimarus’ controversial conclusions sparked not only a few responses, but also an entirely new field of study that shows no sign of abating. Interest soon developed in adjacent fields, like the study of early Judaism, Paganism, comparative religions, Greco-Roman literature, and historiography.

Fig 8.6: David Friedrich Strauss

The second major historian is David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), who claimed that the Gospels contained a mythological layer that was patterned on Old Testament stories and prophecies. Strauss argued that this layer needs to be peeled away so that the rationalistic and historically plausible Jesus can be revealed. But his efforts were not aimed only at discovering the Jesus of history. Strauss also wanted to know how historical events were theologically and mythologically interpreted. For example, the story of Jesus’ baptism refers to the Spirit descending upon Jesus as a dove and a voice from heaven declaring, “you are my son, the beloved one, in you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). For Strauss, Jesus’ baptism may have been a historical event, but the accompanying supernatural manifestation in the story was clearly not. Rather such manifestations were regarded as mythical constructs, influenced by Jewish tradition, which lent significance to a historical event. For Strauss, the historical Jesus was a religious genius who serves as a model for human behaviour.

Info Box 8.2: What is Myth? 

Terms like “myth” or “mythological” are neutral categories as far as the historicity of a story is concerned. Contrary to the popular use of the terms today, in the study of religion they are not equated with something that is untrue or false. Some myths are religious reenactments or retellings of actual historical events, like the crucifixion of Jesus. It is a historical event, but it is also a story that concerns the invisible world. The religious meaning of the crucifixion is not found in the fact of the event, as important as it is for Christians, but in the interpretation of it. Interpretations require narratives, which is where we encounter the mythological dimension as a key feature in a cosmic drama concerning salvation, evil, and restoration of the cosmos. So, the purpose of myths, or sacred stories, is that they communicate meaning that transcends the historical event and a single generation of devotees.

Fig. 8.7: John Trumbull’s portrait of Thomas Jefferson, which hangs in the White House, Washington, D.C. 1788. 

The nineteenth century saw many publications of “Lives of Jesus.” As Schweitzer ably observed, each portrayal described him as a great and compassionate teacher. But the portrayals also had their individual emphases, often reflecting the interests of the biographer. All of the biographers shared a common conviction that the historical reconstruction of Jesus was of vital importance for Christianity, be it positive or negative. Reimarus, for example, argued for the latter since the historically reconstructed Jesus does not coincide with later interpretations of him in Christianity. Along the same lines, President Thomas Jefferson, in his biography, describes Jesus as  “A man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart... enthusiastic mind, who set out without any pretensions of divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to Roman law” (388). Strauss, on the other hand, argued for a more positive impact since the mythical aspects of the Gospels convey timeless truths and thus should be divorced from history. This period, often called the original or first quest period, tended to emphasize the historical Jesus over the Christ of faith.

8.3.2 The “No Quest” Period

Fig. 8.8: Albert Schweitzer

Like his predecessors Albert Schweitzer wanted to root Jesus in his historical context. That context for Schweitzer, however, was different. He saw Jewish eschatology as the essential framework within which historians need to understand Jesus. For Schweitzer, Jesus saw himself as the eschatological Son of Man announcing the end of the age and the imminence of the kingdom of God, when Jewish political and spiritual ideals would be realized over and against the dominance of Rome. Jesus kept his identity secret during most of his life, but eventually revealed it to Peter, James and John. When Peter told the other disciples, Judas seized on the opportunity to cash in and betrayed the secret to the Jewish religious authorities who arrested and executed Jesus. Schweitzer argued that Jesus died as a disillusioned prophet. Contrary to his expectations, the kingdom never arrived. Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross was an expression of his disappointment. For Schweitzer, the historical Jesus is neither relevant for today nor is his reconstruction necessary since his teachings and hope of a coming kingdom of God only make sense in apocalyptic Judaism, which is so far removed from the context of modern Western culture. Instead, the relevance of Jesus resides in his unwavering character and passion. Schweitzer explains, “The truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually risen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes forth from him and in the spirits of men strives for new influence and rule, is that which overcomes the world ” (401).

Fig. 8.9: Rudolf Bultmann

One of the most important New Testament scholars participating in the “No Quest” period was Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), who proposed that the Gospels did not speak about the historical Jesus at all. Instead, they spoke about the Christian groups that produced the Gospels. Like his predecessor David Friedrich Strauss, he argued that the Gospels contain mythical accounts that naturally emerge out of the first-century prescientific worldview, which includes such things as a three-tiered universe, supernatural explanation for illness and tragedy, and the expectation of an end of the age. Therefore, the contents of the Gospels must be filtered through the mythical language of the day before it can be made relevant in the twentieth century scientific context. For Bultmann, history is still important, but the Gospels are not the means by which that history can be accessed. They are not windows through which the historical Jesus can be seen. They provide portraits of the theological Jesus.

In the first half of the twentieth century, mainly due to Schweitzer’s influence, attention turned more toward the Gospels and the Christ of faith. Since there was diminished confidence in retrieving the historical Jesus, this episode in the history of Jesus scholarship is known as the “No Quest” period. Some have instead referred to this period as the Quest for the kerygma (“preaching”) of the Church.

8.3.3 The “New Quest” Period

Fig. 8.10: Ernst Käsemann

In 1953, the German scholar Ernst Käsemann delivered a lecture that was highly critical of his teacher Rudolf Bultmann and the “No Quest” movement. The lecture injected new life and optimism into historical Jesus research and initiated what came to be known as the “New Quest” period. Käsemann proposed that the Christ of faith should share more continuity with the Jesus of history. He argued that the skepticism responsible for the divide was unfounded because the Gospels, though not full biographies of Jesus’ life, nevertheless refer to a real person. For Käsemann the divide between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith did not adequately do justice to the early Christian unification of both. The early Christians, argued Käsemann, wrote about and worshiped a real person. To do otherwise, as some groups such as the Gnostics and Docetists (who denied Jesus’ physicality) had done, was unacceptable. 

The “New Quest” period, which received its name from James M. Robinson’s The New Quest for the Historical Jesus (1959), was particularly known for its attempt to arrive at some continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. While there was considerable agreement that the historical Jesus cannot be reconstructed completely, it was nevertheless possible to arrive at some historical information about him. Much of the research during this period concentrated on the sayings of Jesus. Since the Gospels were viewed as faith stories, and not modern biographies, claims that Jesus’ sayings were historical, or “authentic,” demanded evidence and critical evaluation. Criteria for determining the historical probability of sayings were developed, some of which continue to be in use. These are discussed below. In contrast to the original Quest (from Reimarus to Schweitzer), the “New Quest” was much more aware of the limits of historical reconstruction. As a result, scholars became much more nuanced when speaking and writing about the historical Jesus. While the results of the “New Quest” were minimal, due in part to the rigidity of the criteria, the assumption that a partial historical reconstruction of Jesus is possible and that it can lead to continuity with the Christ of faith proved to be a significant contribution.

8.3.4 The “Third Quest” Period

It has become customary in recent years to refer to the most recent research on the historical Jesus as the “Third Quest,” which has also been called the “Post Quest” and the “Renewed Quest.” Whatever designation one chooses, it should not be regarded in a strict chronological sense as if the Third Quest replaced or put an end to the New Quest. There is overlap. Concerns and aims of the New Quest continually surface. The main difference between the two Quests lies in their aims and methods. The New Quest’s focus is on the criteria of authenticity and the Gospels. Its driving force is to determine the source of the theological material in the Gospels. It is guided by the question: Did the theological material go back to Jesus or was it a construct of the early Church? By contrast, the focus of the Third Quest is less theologically driven. Instead, the context of investigation is not restricted to the Gospels, but more broadly tries to incorporate the social world of the first century. A caveat: Not all scholars agree with these divisions. Since, in the end, the quests are similar, some scholars have advocated for only one quest from the time of Reimarus to today.

Fig. 8.11: Wilderness near Jerusalem.

The Third Quest is often identified with two trends. The first trend is to study Jesus within the social framework of early Judaism. The discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, and other documents have contributed significantly to our understanding of first-century Judaism. The reconstruction of the social world of Jesus, especially Jewish peasant life under Roman rule, has broadened well beyond that of the New Quest and its focus on the Gospels. For example, whereas the kingdom of God language in the New Quest period was understood theologically (as it was expressed in the Gospels); in the Third Quest its meaning incorporates a political dimension as a challenge to the kingdom of Caesar. Thus, Jesus is not simply viewed as a religious figure, but a political one as well. In short, the Third Quest tends to bring more continuity between Jesus and the Judaism of his day.

Fig. 8.12: Duccio di Buoninsegna “Healing of the blind man,” 1308-11. National Gallery, London. Jesus is depicted as both a healer and a sage.

Fig. 8.13: Emperor Tiberius, Uffizi Museum, Florence. If Jesus’ language was politically charged, it would have been directed at Tiberius who reigned between 14 CE and 37 CE.

The second trend that characterizes the Third Quest is a movement away from portraying Jesus as an eschatological prophet (as was common among New Quest scholars). This is still minority view, however. Proponents of this view have come to portray Jesus as a subversive wisdom teacher who challenges the conventional wisdom of his day. Jesus’ parables, proverbs, and aphorisms are central in these kinds of portrayals. Most scholars who identify themselves with the Third Quest are much more comfortable with an eschatological or apocalyptic Jesus who is calling for an end of the age and the coming of God’s kingdom. Given the current state of the debate between these two portrayals, broadly speaking, it may be more accurate to say that the trend is a debate between those who propose a non-eschatological Jesus and those who propose an eschatological Jesus.

Fig. 8.14: The Five Gospels is the first publication of the Seminar’s findings.

Many historical Jesus scholars would concur that the Third Quest began in the early 1980s, spearheaded primarily with the establishment of the “Jesus Seminar,” a largely American group of scholars that met twice a year to deliver papers and share research. The purpose of the Seminar was to ascertain, through the process of voting using various colors of marbles, which sayings and actions of Jesus can be deemed as (1) highly probable, (2) probable, (3) possible, and (4) improbable. The Seminar received considerable media attention. After about a decade of deliberations, the Seminar published its results in two books, The Five Gospels (1993) and The Acts of Jesus (1997), concluding that about 20 percent of Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels could be accepted as historically verifiable. The highly publicized results created a storm of controversy, especially among conservative scholars and religious communities. The Seminar was criticized for its assumptions and methods. Some have even argued that the Seminar’s skepticism and reliance on certain criteria of authenticity disqualify it from belonging to the Third Quest. Whatever one thinks about the results of the Seminar, there is no question that it has sparked considerable interest in historical Jesus research in academic and public spheres.

Info Box 8.3: What was the original purpose of the Jesus Seminar?

According to Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, “The aims of the Seminar were two: (1) we were to compile a raw list of all the words attributed to Jesus in the first three centuries (down to 300 C.E.). These sayings and parables were to be arranged as parallels, so that all versions of the same item would appear side by side on the page for close comparison and study. We decided to defer listing the deeds of Jesus until a second phase of the Seminar. (2) We were then to sort through this list and determine, on the basis of scholarly consensus, which items probably echoed or mirrored the voice of Jesus, and which items belonged to subsequent stages of the Jesus tradition” (Funk et al., The Parables of Jesus, xii).

Fig. 8.15: Did Jesus look something like this? This reconstruction was created for the BBC program “Son of God.” Forensic medical artist Richard Neave used the cast of a first-century male skull found in Israel. The forging of the face, skin, and hair was based on medical, archaeological, geographical, and artistic evidence from first-century Palestine.

The Third Quest has seen an exponential rise in research and publications and has contributed to public interest that extends well beyond Christian communities. The historical Jesus has, in a sense, gone mainstream. Numerous scholars have been identified with the Third Quest and have contributed to widespread public interest, but a few are noteworthy. Notice the different portrayals.

We begin with Marcus Borg, who describes Jesus as a Jewish mystic. For Borg, Jesus claimed an intimacy with God, which empowered him to initiate and complete the mission to which God had called him. Jesus understood himself as the initiator of a religious movement whose focus was not based on religious purity, but instead on compassion. Jesus was a social reformer who advocated for social justice toward all people, especially the marginalized. Borg’s Jesus conveys a shift from the importance of belief, law, and ritual within the Jewish establishment of his day to a practice of forgiveness, fairness, and compassion.

John Dominic Crossan views Jesus as a radical peasant who rebelled against the authorities of his day. Jesus was influenced by Cynic philosophy and taught a new wisdom through his parables which pointed out the shortcomings within the current religious system. He chose to live in poverty and engaged in table fellowship with the outcasts of first-century society as an act of protest against the economic and social oppression of Rome and the Jewish establishment. For Crossan’s Jesus, God’s justice extended beyond economic and social status, and was to be appropriated by everyone.

Fig. 8.16: Cretan Painter, St. John the Baptist, Galleria dell’ Academia, Florence. c. 1500. John the Baptist is depicted post-mortem as winged angel looking up at Christ.

John Meier describes Jesus as a Jewish teacher who chose to live in the outskirts of Jewish society. For Meier, Jesus left his average peasant family and quit his job as a woodworker and became a disciple of John the Baptist, who called people to repent in preparation for an imminent eschatological intervention by God. When he was ready, Jesus began a public ministry of his own, preaching that God was coming to gather his scattered people and to reign over them as their king. Jesus then presented himself as an authoritative teacher of God’s will, providing his followers with clear directives on how God wanted them to live in anticipation of the end of the age.

E. P. Sanders presents Jesus as an eschatological prophet whose essential mission was to announce that God was going to intervene directly in history in a way that would involve the elimination of all evil and the dawning of a new age. For Sanders, Jesus was thoroughly saturated in Jewish life. For example, Jesus’ selection of twelve disciples was intended to represent the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. Sander’s Jesus was radical because he promised sinners acceptance into God’s kingdom without demanding their repentance, which was at odds with Jewish practice. However, Jesus’ vision for the immediate dawn of God’s kingdom turned out to be wrong, and his followers had to reinterpret his message in religious terms to salvage its meaning for their own lives. This reinterpretation of the facts also made the message more appealing to Gentiles, and so Christianity was born.

Fig. 8.17: Anselmo da Campione, Last Supper in painted marble, c. 1184. Modena Cathedral.

N. T. Wright describes Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah who understood his own destiny as symbolizing the fate of Israel. For Wright, Jesus also sought to create a community of followers that would represent the reconstituted Israel (demonstrated by his choosing the twelve disciples). Eventually, Jesus came to believe that his vocation included dying as the representative of Israel. He understood his death as the judgment that Israel was to undergo because it failed in its vocation as the elect body that was to bring salvation to the world. Since Israel failed, God chose Jesus as the representative (hence Messiah) to fulfill the promise of salvation for the world. The resurrection of Jesus was the vindication that Jesus was God’s messiah.

Fig. 8.18: Entrance to a Jewish tomb near Jerusalem. Since the story of the empty tomb is not found in Paul’s writings or Q, our earliest sources, some scholars (e.g. Crossan and Borg) have argued that it was a later development.  

There are several points of agreement among Third Quest scholars. For example, all agree that Jesus was a Jewish peasant, taught in parables, announced the kingdom of God, was concerned about the outcasts of Jewish society, and that he was crucified. There are also many disagreements, but two are at the forefront. The first point of contention is Jesus’ identity. While all agree that he was Jewish, there is debate about what kind of Jew he was—as is evident in the previous examples. Was he a prophet, a sage, a social reformer, or a mystic? Was he trained sufficiently enough in Hellenistic thought to suggest that he was more like a Greek philosopher or cynic? Was he more allied theologically to the Pharisees or the Essenes? Not all of these options are equally popular, but they are all proposed by contemporary scholars.

Second, scholars have not agreed on Jesus’ vision of the future. Did Jesus believe that the end was near? If this was the case, then how might we today understand his predictions since the end did not come in “one generation” (e.g. Mark 13:30)? Was Jesus wrong, misinformed, or cryptic? Other scholars hold that Jesus’ view of the end was the radical transformation of Israel, which did happen in and through the Church. And still other scholars claim that Jesus had no developed view on the future and was primarily concerned with the situation of his own day. Related to his eschatological expectations, is Jesus understanding of the kingdom of God. Did Jesus believe that his mission initiated the kingdom of God or was he expecting it to unfold in the near future? If he initiated the kingdom of God, did it really happen the way that he expected? These kinds of questions continue to stimulate creative and exciting research.

8.4 Sources for the Historical Jesus Research

The first step taken by historians seeking to understand the past is the collection and assessment of primary sources. These are usually written documents stemming from the same general time frame and context as the topic or subject that is being studied. The closer the source is to the subject, such as eyewitness accounts or autobiography, the more helpful it usually is. So, in the study of the historical Jesus, scholars appeal to a wide range of documents from the ancient world.

One of the initial tasks that scholars undertake when attempting to reconstruct figures from the distant past, like Jesus, is the evaluation of sources. In comparison to other figures from the Greco-Roman period, there is a substantial quantity of sources that are available. But not all of them are of equal value. 

Our best sources for reconstructing the life and teachings of Jesus are the Synoptic Gospels. Before discussing these and other Christian sources, we will first consider the available data about Jesus in non-Christian writings. Roman and Jewish writings from the same period rarely have anything to say about Jesus in comparison to those written by his later followers. Given the magnitude of Jesus’ influence on subsequent generations, one might expect much more information about him from both Roman and Jewish writers. But historically, it must be remembered that within the grandeur of the Roman Empire, Judea was an insignificant player in the broader political and economic currents. A wandering Jewish peasant calling for the reform, social justice, and the kingdom of God would have only caught the eye of Jewish and Roman authorities if he and his followers posed a political threat. From the perspective of Rome, the historical Jesus was an insignificant figure living in an insignificant part of the empire. Yet, from a historical vantage point, the more insignificant Jesus was, the more historians are faced with the need to explain the rise of Christianity in a relatively short period of time.

8.4.1 Non-Christian Sources: Roman

These sources give us very little information about Jesus. They are nevertheless important as historical data because their authors appear to be hostile, or at least neutral, toward Christianity. Non-Christian sources have proved useful in the past as counter arguments to those who attempted to demonstrate that Jesus never existed.

Pliny the Younger. In 112 CE a letter was written from Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE), a governor in Bithynia-Pontus (Northern Turkey), to the Emperor Trajan requesting guidance on how to prosecute Christians in his province. The letter gives us insights into the practices of Christianity and its social impact on that part of the empire. We also find in it the Roman response to the Christian movement from an administrative perspective along with a passing reference to Jesus. Pliny writes that the Christians were diverse in age and social economic status (i.e. old and young, rich and poor) and that they were in the habit of reciting “chant verses to Christ as to a god”  (Letter to Trajan 10.96). For an English translation of the letter, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

Fig. 8.19: Statue of Tacitus at the Parliament building in Vienna.

Tacitus. Around the same time in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus (56-120 CE) wrote in his Annals that Emperor Nero blamed the great fire of Rome in 66 CE on the Christians, who were “hated for their abominations,” and banished them from Rome. In his description of the event, Tacitus briefly refers to the Christians as superstitious followers of Christus. Tacitus affirms that Jesus was crucified during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE), but he is incorrect in calling Pilate a Procurator. An English translation of the account can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html. 

Fig. 8.20: Pontius Pilate inscription from Caesarea Maritima.

According to an inscription on a stone from Caesarea Maritima, Pilate was a Prefect, a lower ranking governor. The inscription reads, "The Tiberieum of the Seamen...Pontius Pilate...Prefect of Judea, dedicates..."

Suetonius. A few years later in 120 CE, another Roman historian by the name of Suetonius (69-140 CE) included in his discussion of Christians a possible reference to Jesus. During the reign of Emperor Claudius (ca. 41-54 CE), Suetonius wrote that Jews were expelled from Rome due to riots concerning a figure called “Chrestus.” The passage reads, “Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome [ca. 49 CE] who, instigated by Chrestus, never ceased to cause unrest” (Life of Emperor Claudius 25.4). Many scholars think that this is perhaps a misspelling of Christus. Unfortunately, no additional information is provided in regard to this Chrestus. Suetonius does not say who he was, where he was from, or how he caused a disruption among the Jews. If it is a misspelling of “Christ,” we are not sure if this is Jesus of Nazareth or another figure hailed as Christ because of his revolutionary activity. Having said that, the probability that the reference is to Jesus as the Christ is fairly strong for two reasons. First, according to the New Testament writings, there was considerable division in the first century between Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and Jews who did not. Second, according to Paul’s letter to the Romans, significant unrest erupted between Jewish and Gentile Christians, which could have been simply lumped together by the Roman officials as “Jewish” unrest.

Fig. 8.21: Cynicism was not only encountered in writings. This is an early anti-Christian graffiti depicting a crucified man with an ass’s head. The inscription reads, “Alexamenos worships his god.” This graffiti was discovered on a patch of plaster at the Poedagogium, Palatine Hill, Rome, c. 200.

Lucian of Samosata. A satirist who targeted religious figures, philosophers, rhetoricians, and even the gods, Lucian (b. 120 CE) wrote a cynical life about a convert to Christianity who eventually gave up his faith. In this biography, he mocked Christians for worshipping an “impaled” [crucified?] sophist from Palestine as if he were a god (The Passing of Peregrinus §11, 13). Since Lucian’s use of the term “impaled,” instead of “crucified,” may indicate that his knowledge of the event was informed apart from the Christian Gospels and tradition.

Celsus. Celsus was a second century pagan philosopher who wrote a work entitled True Reason or True Account (178 CE) in which he mocked Christians for blindly capitulating to blind faith instead of exercising reason. In the account, Celsus accuses Jesus of practicing magic or sorcery. For example, he writes, “He was brought up in secret and hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and after having tried his hand at certain magical powers he returned from there, and on account of those powers gave himself the title of God” (Contra Celsum 1.38. See also 1.6, 68, 71; 2.48). About sixty years later Celsus was criticized by Origen in a massive treatment called Contra Celsum, wherein he quotes about three quarters of Celsus’ work.

8.4.2 Non-Christian Sources: Jewish

Josephus. One of the most important sources for the study of early Judaism is Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE), a Jewish General and Pharisee, turned Roman historian. We have already encountered Josephus and his works in the first four chapters of this book. Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews and Jewish War are histories of the Jewish people and the war with Rome during 66-70 CE respectively. They are both written from the perspective of a Pharisee under Roman patronage and do not depict social unrests and anti-Roman sentiments in a favorable light. Given Josephus’ detailed treatment of life in first-century Palestine, he only refers to Jesus on two occasions, and only in the Antiquities, which amounts to less attention than he gives to John the Baptist.

Fig. 8.22: Francesco Hayez, “Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,”  1867. Galleria dell’ Accademia, Venice.

The first reference to Jesus concerns James and his unlawful execution by the Jewish High Priest Ananus around 62 CE. Josephus writes:

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was hailed Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Antiquities 20.9.1 [§199-200]).

As is the case with the Roman sources, Jesus is a tangential figure, as is his brother James in this account. The primary focus in this context is the Governor Albinus, the successor of Festus.

Fig. 8.23: Alleged bust of Josephus, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen.

The second reference to Jesus by Josephus is more descriptive. However, this passage is clouded in controversy because it contains material that is often attributed to later Christian scribes who wanted to show that Josephus believed Jesus to be the Christ. Unfortunately, we do not have the original copies of Josephus’ writings, but only copies that were probably made by Christian scribes. In the following quotation from Josephus, the square brackets indicate those portions that most scholars believe came from Christian scribes.

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man,] for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men who receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ]. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, [for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63-64).

Apart from the Christian emendations, Josephus found Jesus significant enough to have mentioned him. However, in the broader context, Jesus is not the subject. He is incorporated into this section because it is primarily about the rule of Pontius Pilate.

Mara bar Serapion. Perhaps the least significant of these sources is a letter by a late first century Syriac Stoic named Mara bar Serapion. The use of “bar” (Aramaic for “son of”) in his name indicates that he may have been Jewish. There is very little known about him, but his letter from prison to his son about the persecution of wise men alludes to Jesus, who is not explicitly mentioned. The letter reads,

For what advantage did the Atheneans gain by the murder of Socrates, the recompense of which they received in famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because in one hour our country was entirely covered in sand? Or the Jews [gain] by the death of their wise king, because from that same time their kingdom was taken away? (from Mara’s letter to his son, c. 73 CE).

See the entire letter at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/spicilegium_9_mara.htm

Fig. 8.24: 11th century manuscript leaf from the Mishnah, Berakhot 4-5. From the Kaufmann collection (ms50). Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud, Midrashim. Between 200 CE and 600 CE, the practices and beliefs of the Jewish people were recorded in a collection of works that are the foundation for what is known as formative Judaism, which is the root of modern Judaism. These works are polemical in nature, containing dialogues among rabbis on numerous topics concerning Jewish religious life. The Mishnah (“repetition”), which is the earliest compilation (c. 200CE), is a collection of religious and legal practices. The Tosefta (“supplement”) is a commentary, explanation, and expansion of the Mishnah, published about a generation or two after the Mishnah. The Talmud (“learning”), which most people have heard of today, takes two forms, the Babylonian Talmud (ca. 500-550 CE) and the Jerusalem (also called Palestinian) Talmud (ca. 400-425 CE). Both are extensive, multi-volume interpretations and expansions of the Mishnah and Tosefta, and today serve as the authoritative collections of Jewish tradition. Lastly, midrash (“searching”), or the plural midrashim, refers to the interpretation of scripture by the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The midrashim are commentaries on the Jewish scriptures from approximately the second century through the Middle Ages.

Fig. 8.25: “Flight into Egypt.” Altarpiece commissioned by Pella Strozzi for his family chapel in the Church of Santa Trinita, 1423. Uffizi Museum, Florence.

Since all of these writings contain some references to the first century, especially the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees, they have been regarded as a possible source for the reconstruction of Jesus. They agree with the Gospels that Jesus spent time in Egypt, that he was from Nazareth, that he was opposed by the Jewish establishment, that he performed supernatural deeds, that he preached the kingdom, that he was regarded by some as a king, and that he was killed during Passover. 

But are rabbinic sources historically reliable? They certainly contain valuable information for reconstructing some of the Jewish groups, beliefs, and practices before the destruction of the Temple, but when they make the occasional mention of Jesus, their historical reliability is debatable because these writings emerged several hundred years after Jesus. Nevertheless, some scholars consider these sources as useful, especially those references that correspond to the Gospel material.

The following examples of references to Jesus, who is sometimes called Yeshu or Yeshu ha-Nosri, are either legendary or appear to be influenced by the Christian Gospels, and thus are considered by historians as second- or third-hand sources. 

On the Life of Jesus

When king Jannai [104-78 bce] slew our rabbis, R. Joshua and Jesus fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace...he arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shown him. “How beautiful is this innkeeper!” Thereupon Jesus observed, “Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.” “Wretch,” he rebuked him, “do you engage yourself thus?” He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He [Jesus] came before him many times pleading, “Receive me!” But he would pay no heed to him. One day he [R. Joshua] was reciting the Shema, when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He [Jesus] thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. “Repent,” said he [R. Joshua] to him. He replied, “I have thus learned from you: ‘He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.’” And a master has said, “Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray”… not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi away with both his hands, and not like Joshua ben Perahiah who thrust away Jesus the Nazarene with both his hands (b. Sanhedrin 107b; cf. Sotah 47a).

On the Ministry of Jesus

Jesus had five disciples: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah” (b. Sanhedrin 107b).

Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray (b. Sanhedrin 43a).

On the Teaching of Jesus

One of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene, Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah [James of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18) or James the Little (Mark 15:40)?] by name...said he to me, “Thus was I taught by Jesus the Nazarene, ‘For of the wages of a harlot has she gathered them and unto the wages of a harlot shall they return’” (b. Abodah Zarah 16b-17a ms. M; cf. Eccl. Rab. 1.8 §3).

He [a judge] said to them, “I looked at the end of the book, in which it is written, ‘I have not come to take away the Law of Moses and I have not come to add to the Law of Moses’ [cf. Matt 5:17], and it is written, ‘Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.’” She said to him, “Let your light shine forth as a lamp” [cf. Matt 5:16]. R. Gamaliel said to her, “The ass came and kicked the lamp over” (b. Shabbath 116b).

On the Crucifixion of Jesus

It was taught: On the Eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover (b. Sanhedrin 43a).

On Healing in the Name of Jesus

An objection was raised, “No man should have any dealings with heretics [Christians], nor is he allowed to be healed by them even in risking an hour’s life. It once happened to Ben Dama the son of R. Ishmael’s sister that he was bitten by a serpent and Jacob, a native of Kefar Sekaniah, came to heal him but R. Ishmael did not let him” (b. Aboda Zarah 27b; cf. t. Hullin 2.22-23).

Hanina, the son of R. Joshua’s brother, came to Capernaum, and the heretics [Christians] worked a spell on him and set him riding upon an ass on the Sabbath. He went to his uncle, Joshua, who anointed him with oil and he recovered from the spell. R. Joshua said to him, “Since the ass of that wicked person [Jesus] has roused itself against you, you are not able to reside in the land of Israel.” So he went down from there to Babylon where he died in peace (Eccl. Rab. 1.8 §3).

8.4.3 Christian Sources

In contrast to the previous sources, it should come as no surprise that Christian sources abound with information about Jesus. But again, these sources are not accepted uncritically. Just because they are Christian, does not preclude them from being evaluated in the same way as non-Christian sources. The potential problem that historians face with Christian sources is that they can be strongly biased toward Jesus and thus contain enlargements and exaggerations, much like we have seen in chapter four with respect to the midrashic interpretations of biblical figures in early Jewish writing.

Non-Canonical Sources

Since non-canonical Christian writings and their representative groups have already been addressed in the fifth chapter, we will limit our discussion to their usefulness for historical Jesus research. Many scholars today regard the non-canonical (or apocryphal) Christian writings, which date from approximately the early second century to the late fourth century, to be of little use for reconstructing Jesus. The main reasons are that they (1) are written much later than the New Testament writings, (2) are influenced by earlier (canonical) Christian writings, and (3) contain Gnostic interpretations of Jesus.

Fig. 8.26: Eastern icon of the Apostle Thomas.

This view, however, is not unanimous. There are some scholars who forcefully argue that a few of the non-canonical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, contain material that may precede the canonical Gospels. While this view is controversial, it has gained considerable interest even among the general public. Although the arguments for (and against) the dating of these sources are far too complex for this introduction, students should know that they are significant and continue to be debated in academic circles. If this non-canonical material is early, then it potentially effects reconstructions of Jesus. Since Jesus’ teachings in these writings are less Jewish and less apocalyptic, and more Gnostic and cynical, it is no wonder that scholars, like John Dominic Crossan (discussed above), portray Jesus as a cynic philosopher or Gnostic wisdom teacher whose aim was social justice reform. Once again, one’s sources will impact one’s portrayal of Jesus. Let’s take a closer look at the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter.

Fig. 8.27: Beginning of the Gospel of Thomas, 4th century. Coptic manscript found at Nag Hammadi.

Gospel of Thomas. Just before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948, archaeologists found a library of Christian documents in the Egyptian village of Nag Hammadi, along the Nile River. The majority of the documents are Gnostic, written in Coptic. Since the documents were dated to the fourth century, their value for historical Jesus research was initially regarded as minimal. However, since some of these writings matched early second century Greek fragments that were discovered a few decades earlier, their historical value was reconsidered. One such writing is the Gospel of Thomas. Since the Coptic version discovered at Nag Hammadi matched Greek fragments that were dated to the early part of the second century, the Gospel of Thomas (which may have originally been written in Greek) came to be regarded as a very early document. As a result, a handful of scholars have come to see some of the 114 sayings as valuable for reconstructing Jesus’ teachings.

Though it is possible that the Gospel of Thomas provides independent information about Jesus, its Gnostic perspective has caused many to be suspect of its historical value. Though not all of the sayings can be traced to Gnostic roots. Some are probably Jewish. Other sayings are very similar to the Gospels. Regardless, it is an early document and it appears to be independent of the four canonical Gospel. Scholars who accepted it as a viable source focus on the non-Gnostic sayings, suggesting that they may even pre-date the Gospels. See the entire Gospel at http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Fig. 8.28: Manuscript of the Gospel of Peter, 4th century. Cairo Museum.

Gospel of Peter. Late in the 19th century, French archaeologists discovered a gospel manuscript in Egypt that would lead to controversy. The Gospel of Peter dates to the 2nd century CE and provides a detailed account of Jesus’ trial and execution. It has been promoted by a handful of historians as the oldest form of the passion story, perhaps even used by the author of Mark’s Gospel. The majority of Jesus scholars, however, have not endorsed this view primarily because of its anti-Jewish bias that most likely reflects a later period. In Peter’s retelling, Pilate delivers Jesus into the hands of the Jews. During the crucifixion the Jews are filled with guilt and regret, and the criminal on the cross beside Jesus rebukes the Jewish people instead of the other criminal as in Luke 23:40-41. Jesus’ last words are not the Aramaic “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) as they appear in Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46, but rather “My power, my power, you have forsaken me.” The resurrection scene is most unusual with its walking cross that preaches. It reads,

Now in the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men came down from there in a great brightness and draw near to the sepulcher. That stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulcher started of itself to roll and gave way to the side, and the sepulcher was opened, and both the young men entered. When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders—for they also were there to assist the watch. And while they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulcher, two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led by them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, ‘Did you preach to those who sleep?’ and from the cross there was heard the answer, “Yes” (Gospel of Peter 9:35–10:42).

See the entire Gospel at http://www.gnosis.org/library/gospete.htm

Fig. 8.29: A leaf from Matthew 11, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 5th century. University of Cambridge (Lat. Cantabrigia).

Agrapha. Historical Jesus scholars also appeal to floating sayings of Jesus called agrapha (“unwritten”; singular agraphon). Several agrapha that are considered to go back to Jesus have been isolated in the first 500 years of Christianity. They were first popularized by Joachim Jeremias in his book Unknown Sayings of Jesus. Agrapha do not contribute significant information about Jesus. Many are very similar to sayings in the New Testament. However, they do help us to see how broadly independent sayings of Jesus circulated and were interpreted. Here are a few examples of agrapha:

1. Codex Bezea Luke 6:5

On the same day he saw a man performing a work on the Sabbath. Then he said to him: “Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the Law.”

The scribe of Codex Bezea, a sixth century manuscript, added this saying after Luke 6:5 to the story of the disciples picking and eating grain on the Sabbath.

2. Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 20.3

In one of his expositions, the third century scholar Origen says, “I have read somewhere that the Saviour said–and I question whether someone has assumed the person of the Saviour, or called the words to memory, or whether it be true that is said–but at any rate the Saviour says there: ‘Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever is far from me is far from the Kingdom’” (also found in the Gospel of Thomas §82).

Fig. 8.30: Origen. Illustration from "Les Vrais Portraits Et Vies Des Hommes Illustres" by André Thévet, 16th century.

This saying is similar to Mark 9:49 and 12:34 and reflects Jesus’ fondness of sharp antitheses. It also translates well into the Aramaic, where it takes the form of a common rhythm characteristic of proverbs. But we cannot say that this kind of saying would have been unique to Jesus. A similar expression is found in rabbinic writings: “Aqiba, he that separates himself from you separates himself from life” (b, Qidd. 66d; b. Zebah. 13a). It is also found in Greek literature: “He who is near Zeus is near the lightning” (Aesop); “Far from Zeus and far from the lightning” (Diogenianus).

3. Tertullian, On Baptism 20

Watch and pray. He said, “that you do not enter into temptation.” And this I believe is the reason why they were tempted–because they had fallen asleep, so that they forsook the Lord when he was taken, and even he who stayed with him and used the sword, likewise denied him three times. For the saying [of Jesus] had gone before, that “No one can obtain the kingdom of heaven who has not passed through temptation.”

The second century Church Father, Tertullian, quotes this saying of Jesus in an admonition on the preparation for baptism. He uses Jesus’ words as a support.

Canonical Sources

Most historians would agree that the writings of the New Testament contain our earliest and most accurate sources for reconstructing Jesus. As we have mentioned before, the difficulty with these sources for the historian is to determine which parts are historically accurate and which parts are theological interpretations. The difficulty is compounded because all of the writings are written after Easter (from the vantage point of the resurrection), from the perspective of faith, to people of faith, about faith.

Jesus is certainly the subject of all the writings, but only parts of the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and sometimes the book of Acts are consulted by historical Jesus scholars. The reason for this restriction of sources is that the writings of the New Testament are occasional, meaning that their aim is not to reconstruct Jesus, but to address the issues that target audiences are facing. All the writings are primarily oriented toward the meaning of Jesus in newly formed Christian communities, but a few (like the Gospels) contain material that is relevant for historical reconstruction.

Fig. 8.31: Rembrandt van Rijn, The Apostle Paul, 1657. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

Paul’s Letters. Students are often surprised to learn that the majority of what we know about Jesus outside the four canonical Gospels comes from Paul’s writings. The Apostle Paul did not know Jesus, but he came to know some of the disciples after his vision and conversion. His first hand exposure to the disciples makes him a reliable source. Paul’s letters are the earliest written accounts that we currently have. His earliest letters (1 Thessalonians and perhaps Galatians) precede Mark (the first Gospel) by about twenty years. Unfortunate for historians, Paul does not say much about the historical events of Jesus’ life. Nor does Paul recite any of Jesus’ sayings. Paul is more concerned with Jesus’ theological identity and the meaning of his death and resurrection as it impacts his converts. The little historical information that Paul does provide is summarized in the following list.

• Jesus had a brother named James (Gal 1:19)
• Jesus was born of a woman and born a Jew (Gal 4:4)
• Jesus was crucified (1 Cor 2:2)
• Jesus had multiple brothers (1 Cor 9:5)
• Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23)
• Jesus had twelve disciples (1 Cor 15:7)
• Jesus ministered among Jews (Rom 15:7)

Acts of the Apostles. The book of Acts covers a thirty-year theological history of the early church, beginning with the ascension of Jesus. So, while it is not specifically a book about the ministry of Jesus, Acts does contain an agraphon of Jesus that is often regarded as historically reliable. In Acts 20:35, Paul quotes Jesus saying: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” This saying is neither found in Luke’s Gospel (written by same author as Acts) nor any of the other Gospels. If this is an authentic quote, then it demonstrates that the sayings of Jesus are not limited to the Gospels.

Fig. 8.32: Gioacchino Assereto, St. Mark the Evangelist, c. 1640. Mote Carlo, private collection.

The Gospels. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written between 70 CE and 95 CE, with Mark being the earliest and John being the latest. Of the four Gospels, Mark is considered to be the best source for reconstructing Jesus. This does not mean that the other Gospels have nothing to contribute. The problem is that they are plagued with several characteristics that make their use by historians a little more difficult. For example, as we will see in the next chapter, Matthew and Luke most likely used Mark as a source. If this is the case, then the overlapping material is not considered to be independent. However, the material that is common to Matthew and Luke, but is not in Mark, probably stems from a document that contained a list of Jesus’ sayings. This hypothetical document is called Q, which stands for the German word Quelle (meaning “source”). Since this hypothetical source is dated to the 40s CE and is very Jewish, most scholars consider the Q sayings as the oldest source we have. So, in short, Mark and Q, along with Paul, are probably our oldest and most reliable sources for reconstructing Jesus.

Fig. 8.33: Titian, St. John the Evangelist, Santa Maria della Salute, Venice. c 1540.

John’s Gospel is the most controversial for historians. Not only is it written approximately sixty five years after Jesus’ death, it contains sayings and events that are very different from Mark and Q (see the list in chapter 5), it is highly polemical and theological, it was considered in the early Church as a “spiritual Gospel,” and its authorship is highly debated. One of the issues that is at the forefront of determining the historical value of John is its connection with the Synoptic Gospels. Did the author of John know these writings? If so, why did he deviate so much from them? Did he only know one of them? Some have suggested that it was Luke. If John did not know the Synoptics, it is an independent source and potentially much more useful for reconstruction. The debate about the use of John for historical Jesus research is interesting, vibrant, and ongoing.

Although the four canonical Gospels contain most of the information that we have about Jesus from the first century, historians approach them with caution. Reconstructions of Jesus based on these Gospels need to take into account three overarching problems.

Fig. 8.34: Relief of the crucifixion on the central gate of the main portal, St. Vitus Cathedral, 14th century. Prague. Reliefs and stained glass windows were the most common media used to communicate biblical scenes throughout much of Christian history.

The first problem is the timespan between the life of Jesus and the writing about him. Mark is considered to be the earliest Gospel, written around 70 CE, which is approximately forty years after Jesus’ death. Matthew and Luke were written in the mid-80s and John was written about a decade after that. Since the Gospels are anonymous, we are not sure exactly who their authors were, but most scholars do not regard them as eyewitness. Detailed discussion of the Gospels and their authorship is found in the following chapters. For now, let us suppose that they were eyewitness, simply to communicate the problem of timespan. Historians have observed that even eyewitness accounts of the same event or description of the same individual, can vary, and at times significantly. Eyewitness testimonies are never free from individual perspectives. No one testimony can give the full picture. Some testimonies can be deemed as more reliable than others. Usually the earlier testimonies are deemed as more accurate. For reasons like these, historians exercise caution when they use the Gospels.

The second, and related problem to that of timespan, is the oral transmission of the Jesus material. As early Christianity developed, the stories about Jesus were initially communicated through oral traditions that were passed down from one person to another. This means that the stories were taken from the event, transformed into a memorable story to be retained and repeated orally, and eventually written down. Once the oral traditions were written down, they were forever embedded in the host writing and hence its context. This process may explain why so many of Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels are short and memorable. Scholars disagree whether or not these sayings in the Gospels are the very words of Jesus (apart form their Greek form in the Gospels) or the voice of Jesus, which was meant to communicate the meaning of his teachings. The whole process from the time of Jesus to the writing of the Gospels is riddled with complexity. Take, for example, the parable of the sower. Scholars are not sure how many times, and in what contexts, Jesus spoke the parable. Likewise, they are not sure how the parable functioned in the preaching of the early Christians. The earliest reference to the parable is found in Mark 4 in the context of other parables. Working backwards through the compositional process to reconstruct the actual words of Jesus is a difficult and often imprecise undertaking.

Fig. 8.35: Fra Angelico, “St. Peter Preaching in thePresence of St Mark.” c. 1433. Museo di San Marco, Florence. Notice how biblical scenes were depicted in the cultural style of the artist. This is similar to the way the evangelists depicted Jesus. Emphasis was placed on present meaning and relevance.

The third problem is that the Gospels are not modern histories, journalism accounts, or reconstructions of Jesus (see the section on Gospel genre in the following chapters).Rather, they are complex syntheses of memories, traditions, and theological interpretations, the historian faces the difficult task of identifying what goes back to Jesus and what was developed by his followers. Put simply, the historian attempts to discern the so-called facts from their interpretation. Although facts have no meaning in of themselves, they serve as the building blocks for the historian’s reconstructions. The Christian interpretations of Jesus in the Gospels should not be regarded as somehow untrue or insignificant. Quite to the contrary, the interpretations of Jesus in the Gospels are theologically vital for the church because they have been canonized. For the historian, however, the interpretations are not the goal. They are the proverbial window through which the historical Jesus can potentially be seen. As one might imagine, scholars disagree as to what material in the Gospels is deemed historical and theological.

Historians have long recognized that ancient sources do not simply communicate the cold hard facts as we might want them or as they might be presented today. This was not the way that ancient writers communicated stories, biographies, and even histories. They were more interested in communicating why events happened and what they meant rather than reconstructing those events.

To reiterate, since the Gospels synthesize the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history, historians have wrestled with the relationship between the two. Some have argued for a complete divide, in that the theologized interpretation of Jesus in the context of Christianity should not be imposed onto the search for the historical Jesus whose identity was formed by the context of peasant life in Palestinian Judaism. Others have taken the opposite approach, arguing that the Christ of faith should inform the Jesus of history because they are not two separate persons, but one. The Christ of faith gives us a fuller, even more accurate, understanding of Jesus’ identity as a Jew. The debate has stimulated fascinating discussion on the nature of theology and history, and their relationship.

Fig. 8.35: Mosaic of Jesus’ baptism from St. Mary of Cosmedin, Ravenna. Early 6th century. In this synthesis of the Gospel story and popular belief, notice that Jesus is baptized by John, but he is also accompanied by the Jordan River god. Jesus appears as a Roman Gentile instead of a Jew from Galilee. Some scholars have suggested that Jesus’ youthful appearance mimics the divine attributes associated with personal saviour gods.

More recent discussion of the relationship between theology and history has been influenced by studies on the function of collective memory (i.e. how groups remember the past) in oral cultures. From this perspective, recollections of the past (e.g. Jesus) are viewed as being influenced by the present (e.g. the Gospels). But, according to collective memory theorists, the past is not completely lost to the present. While the past is continually (re)shaped and (re)collected so as to have meaning in the present, the present is continually informed and guided by the past, especially if the tradition is older, is adopted by a large number of adherents, and is widespread. One of the implications arising from the application of collective memory theory to the New Testament writings is the observation that Jesus tends to lose his (Galilean) Jewishness and his adherence to purity laws in memories of him within Gentile Christian communities.

8.5 Criteria of Authenticity

As scholars increasingly wrestled with the historical and theological components of the Gospels, it became necessary to have a standardized process of evaluation. Out of this need to critically determine what material in the Gospels is historical, several criteria were proposed. These criteria, initiated in the New Quest period, have often been called the “criteria of authenticity.” Not all scholars, however, abide by these. Some scholars only utilize some of them. And others are highly critical of this kind of standardization. There are approximately ten criteria that scholars have utilized, but the following three are the most common. The primary aim of their inclusion in this chapter is to introduce students to the ways that historians have attempted to verify material that may go back to Jesus. No one criterion determines the historicity of a saying or deed, but the convergence of the criteria offers the best case for a probable historical account. For a broader list of criteria, see http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/criteria.htm

8.5.1 Criterion of Multiple Attestation

This criterion targets sayings and deeds of Jesus that appear in more than one independent source. For example, if a common saying or theme appears in Mark and Q, then it is said to have a high degree of probability that it is authentic, namely that it goes to back to Jesus. The more independent sources there are, the higher the probability that their common saying is authentic. The reason why there is consensus that Jesus preached about the kingdom of God is that it appears in seven independent sources: Mark, Q, M (unique material to Matthew), L (unique material to Luke), John, Paul, the Gospel of Thomas. Other examples from the Gospels that are strongly attested (appearing in Mark, Q, M, L) include,

• healing miracles
• connection with John the Baptist
• Jesus had disciples
• use of parables
• concern for outcasts like tax collectors and sinners
• preaching of ethical reform
• emphasis on love
• preaching of forgiveness
• clash with authorities, especially concerning the Sabbath
• “son of man” sayings

By contrast, those sayings or deeds that only appear in one source are regarded as less probable. For example, Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah appears in all three Synoptic Gospels. But since Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark, this saying does not satisfy the criterion. As a result, some scholars have argued that Peter’s confession was the product of the early church.

Info Box 8.4: The Earliest Strata

The early strata of independent sources to which historical Jesus scholars turn are Mark, Paul’s letters, Q, M (unique material to Matthew), L (unique material to Luke), John (which is further divided into the “signs source” and the “passion source,” the Gospel of Thomas, and (for a few) the Gospel of Peter. For example, three independent sources attest that Jesus had brothers: Mark (6:3), John (7:3) and Paul (1 Cor 9:5). Mark, Paul and Josephus even state that his name was James.

8.5.2 Criterion of Embarrassment

Fig. 8.37: Piero della Francesca, “The Baptism Of Christ,” c 1450. National Gallery, London.

This criterion attempts to isolate sayings or deeds of Jesus that may have been embarrassing or difficult for the early Christians in the face of opposition. It is reasoned that such sayings or deeds would not have been created by early Christians, and thus probably go back to Jesus. By contrast, it is argued that the “softened” versions of the same sayings or deeds probably are the product of the early church. The example of Jesus’ baptism is helpful for clarifying the aim of this criterion. The story appears in all four Gospels, but only Mark (1:4-11) preserves that Jesus was baptized with “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” In Matthew’s (3:13-17) “softened” version, the Baptist confesses his unworthiness to baptize and simply follows Jesus’ instructions. In Luke (3:19-22), the Baptist is imprisoned prior to Jesus’ baptism, so we do not know who baptized Jesus. And in John (1:29-34), Jesus’ baptism is implied, but not stated explicitly. Proponents of this criterion argue that later Gospel writers removed Mark’s description of the baptism because it may have caused problems or even an embarrassment for early Christian preaching that Jesus was the Christ, and even sinless. As a result, Mark’s rendition is the earliest and may go back to Jesus.

While this criterion may help in the evaluation process, it cannot stand alone, but must be used in conjunction with other criteria. It must also be used with caution. That which may be considered as an embarrassment to us, may not have been the case for the early Christians.

8.5.3 Criterion of Dissimilarity

Fig. 8.38: Limbourg Brothers’ Illuminated manuscript depicting the exorcism scene in Matt 12,22-28, c. 1416. Musée Condé, Chantilly, France.

This criterion attempts to isolate sayings or deeds of Jesus that do not appear to derive from either the early church or early Judaism. It focuses on those sayings of Jesus that are said to be unique to him or “dissimilar.” The aim is to find distinctive Jesus material. Proponents have argued that this criterion is fundamental for reconstructing Jesus because it provides assured minimum results as a starting point. Some of the sayings that have been deemed as satisfying this criterion include (1) the reference to the “finger of God” in Luke 11:20 (“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you”), (2) the saying that the kingdom of God is “in your midst” in Luke 17:20-21, and (3) the saying in Matt 11:12 that the “kingdom of heaven suffers violence and violent men take it by force.”

This criterion can be the most promising in theory, but also the most troublesome. Several criticisms have been leveled against it. For example, (1) it is very difficult to divorce Jesus from the Judaism in which he was raised and later preached. (2) Even if this criterion can isolate unique sayings, they may not be representative of Jesus’ central message. And (3) the term “unique” and even “dissimilar” is a slippery concept. Some scholars wonder if there can even be such a thing as uniqueness.

8.5.4 Burden of Proof

On whom does the burden of proof lie? Is it on the one who is trying to prove the authenticity of a saying or deed? Or is it on the one who is trying to prove the inauthenticity? These are important questions because they allow the historian to better see the assumptions that are at play in reconstructions of Jesus.

Since the Gospels are filled with Jesus’ sayings and deeds, it is easy to assume that they are repositories of authentic historical data, even if they may have been slightly altered by the early church or Gospel writers. Indeed, some conservative scholars begin with the assumption that the burden of proof lies on the side of the one trying to disprove authenticity. But as we will see in the next chapter, the genre of the Gospels is not easily identified. We can’t simply assume one genre over another.

On the other side of the debate are those who assume that the Gospels are mainly repositories of the beliefs of the early church. For these scholars, whatever can be deemed as stemming from the early Christians does. In this regard, scholars begin with the assumption that the burden of proof lies on the side of the one who is trying to prove authenticity. Likewise, assumptions also extend to the genre of the Gospels.

Perhaps the best approach is to place the burden of proof on the one making the case. Each position requires evidence. Logic dictates that no one position is immune from evidence and argumentation. So, if one wants to argue that a saying of Jesus is authentic or that the Gospels are historical, legendary, or some kind of synthesis, then it is incumbent upon the claimant to make the best case possible. In order for a fair evaluative process to take place, both parties need to agree on method and what constitutes as evidence.

Try the Quiz

Bibliography

Allison Jr., D. C. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

–––––. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Borg, M. J. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994.

Borg, M. J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

Crossan, J. D. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

———. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Dunn, J. D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

Ehrman, B. D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins, 2012.

Evans, C. A. ed. Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. London: Routlege, 2008.

Funk, R. W., B. B. Scott, and J. R. Scott. The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition. A Report of the Jesus Seminar. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1988.

Jefferson, T. Thomas Jefferson’s Life of Jesus: Bicentennial Edition. Springfield: Templegate, 1975.

Jeremias, J. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. London: SPCK, 1958.

Käsemann, E. “The Problem of the Historical Jesus.” In Essays on New Testament Themes. Edited by E. Käsemann. London: SCM Press, 1964. Pp. 15-47. 

Keener, C. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Le Donne, A. Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Meier, J. A. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 1. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991.

Merz, A. and G. Theissen. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Perrin, N. Rediscovering the Teachings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1967.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993.

Schweitzer, A. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1910.

Tatum, W. B. In Quest of Jesus: A Guidebook. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Van Voorst, R. E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Vermes, Geza. The Real Jesus: Then and Now. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.

———.  Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. London, Collins, 1973.

Wright, N. T. The Contemporary Quest for Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.