.png){kind=icon}
This chapter marks the turn from a literary study of the Gospels to a historical inquiry. Rather than focusing on the Gospel writers’ beliefs about Jesus, we begin an exploration of the historical Jesus: what can we be relatively certain that he said and did?
Christianity is, as many people have pointed out, not the religion of Jesus but the religion about Jesus. Thus, Christianity begins not with the life of the historical Jesus but with the belief in the resurrection, the central event for salvation.
Problems with Sources
Most historians agree that to reconstruct the life of a person from antiquity, they need a number of sources that can be dated close to the events they narrate. Ideally, these sources would be independent of one another and would not contradict each other. In addition, historians look for texts that are internally consistent and are not biased toward their subject matter. Because our investigations thus far have shown that there are disagreements between the Gospel accounts and that they are biased, we should look for non-Christian sources to corroborate our evidence.
Jesus is not mentioned by any pagan writer from the first century. The first helpful pieces of information from pagan literature about Jesus’ life come from Tacitus, a Roman historian writing around 115 CE. Tacitus says that Pontius Pilate executed Jesus. The only Jewish source of the first century to mention Jesus is Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus briefly reports that Jesus was a teacher and a “doer of startling deeds,” who had Jewish and ggentile followers and was condemned to the cross by Pilate.
Because the non-Christian sources give us little helpful information, we must rely on Christian texts. As we have seen, the noncanonical Gospels are late and usually rely on earlier materials. Thus, they are of little use to historians seeking the historical Jesus. We might expect that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, would be a good source of information about the historical Jesus, but, in fact, Paul says surprisingly little about Jesus’ life. Thus, historians must return to the New Testament Gospels for information about the historical Jesus.
Using Our Sources
The Gospels might serve as useful historical sources if some basic methodological principles are followed:
The earlier the better: historians agree that sources closest to the events they narrate have a greater likelihood of containing historically reliable material because they have undergone fewer revisions in oral tradition. So, early sources, such as Mark and Q, are among the most valuable. This principle does not necessarily exclude later sources.
The more the better: it is better to have a number of independent witnesses to an event. That is, a stronger case for historical reliability can be made if a saying or event is mentioned by two or more authors who did not know or use each other’s work. John and Luke, for instance, would count as independent witnesses to Jesus’ crucifixion.
The more it works “against the grain” the better: The criterion of dissimilarity suggests that if a tradition goes against what a Christian author was likely to write or believe, it is most likely historically reliable. The assumption of this criterion is that Christians were not likely to invent stories that disagreed with their beliefs.
The more contextually credible the better: if a saying or deed of Jesus cannot plausibly be placed within a first-century Palestinian Jewish context, then it is probably not historically reliable.
Jesus in His Apocalyptic Context
Many of the earliest sources we have for Jesus’ life depict him as a Jewish apocalypticist. As such, he proclaimed the imminent end of the present age, which would entail the judgment of the world by the Son of Man, the destruction of evil, and the coming of the kingdom of God. In addition, he taught that the Jews must repent and return to God.
Whether these earliest sources record a historically accurate portrayal of Jesus is the subject of much scholarly debate. Most scholars, however, agree that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. If we analyze the Jesus traditions according to the criteria for determining the historical accuracy of a tradition as previously outlined (the age and number of sources, their independence, their coherence with Christian belief, and their contextual credibility), we see that this portrayal of Jesus passes our criteria. The earliest sources for Jesus’ life, teachings, and death (Mark, Q, M, and L) show him as an apocalypticist. These sources, moreover, are independent of one another. Many of the stories that show Jesus as an apocalypticist pass the criterion of dissimilarity, and all of them are contextually credible (we have already seen that apocalypticism was a part of several Jewish groups).
The Beginning and End as Keys to the Middle
Perhaps the most compelling reason to view Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet is the line of apocalypticism that precedes and follows him. Jesus associated with John the Baptist whose ministry was apocalyptic, and we know that the earliest Christian churches were apocalyptic. The only connection between John and the later Christian community is Jesus. Jesus’ apocalypticism, first influenced by John the Baptist, must have been the source of apocalypticism in the early church.
The Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus
A number of Jesus’ sayings refer to the imminent arrival of the Son of Man, the approaching Day of Judgment, the importance of repentance and preparation, and the coming kingdom of God. Taking into account the criterion of dissimilarity (the gospels are sometimes ambiguous about whether Jesus is referring to himself), Jesus probably did not equate himself with the cosmic Son of Man but, instead, expected that this figure described in Daniel would soon come to judge the world. Furthermore, Jesus’ ethical teachings coincide with his apocalyptic worldview.
The Apocalyptic Deeds of Jesus
Christian descriptions of events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion also contribute to a portrayal of Jesus as an apocalypticist. If Jesus had been just a Jewish reformer, there would have been little reason for Roman authorities to notice him. If his message was subversive—that is, if he prophesied the downfall of the present regime and the coming of a new kingdom—there would indeed be reason to kill him.
Although the Romans crucified Jesus, the Gospels indicate that it was done at the instigation of the Jewish leaders. When Jesus entered the Temple and wreaked havoc, he not only preached the coming of God’s kingdom but also denounced the Temple authorities, proclaiming that God’s temple had been corrupted and was inhabited by thieves. The cleansing of the Temple can be interpreted as an enacted parable: by turning over the tables, Jesus may have been predicting the impending destruction of the Temple.
Yet another literary indication of Jesus’ apocalyptic deeds is his association with twelve disciples. Twelve is a symbolic number in Jewish tradition, a symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel. The tradition of the twelve may reflect the expectation of a new kingdom that would once again unify God’s people. In addition, Jesus’ associations with tax collectors, sinners, and women are fitting because of the apocalyptic theme of reversal; Jesus taught that the outcasts of this world would occupy a prominent place in the coming kingdom, in sharp contrast to their present low state.
Jesus’ reported healings are also indicative of his apocalyptic ministry. Exorcisms, for instance, illustrate the victory of good over evil: This triumph revealed that the kingdom of God, in which there would be no suffering or sickness, was entering into the world.
The Apocalyptic Death of Jesus
Jesus took his apocalyptic message to the heart of Judaism—to the Jerusalem Temple—during Passover, a time when a large number of Jews were available to hear his teachings. At Jesus’ last supper with the disciples, he interpreted his death as bringing forgiveness of sins. Although this was a Christian teaching and, thus, does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity, it does cohere with an apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus’ death and is reflected in two independent, early sources. It is likely that Jesus anticipated Jewish reaction to his teachings, and he may not have been surprised when he was arrested. He was betrayed by Judas and put on trial for calling himself king of the Jews – a political charge. Pontius Pilate, not Jewish authorities, sentenced him to crucifixion.
Jesus’ Resurrection from an Apocalyptic Perspective
The first believers were Jesus’ closest followers who, presumably, agreed with Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings. Their interpretation of the empty tomb was influenced by this apocalyptic worldview. For the first Christians, Jesus’ death and resurrection symbolized the beginning of the end: apocalypticists believed that the resurrection of the dead would occur at the end of the age. Because Jesus had been resurrected, the end must be near. Jesus’ resurrection demonstrated God’s triumph over death. In addition, these Christians believed that Jesus was exalted in heaven and would return at the end of the age as the apocalyptic judge who would rule the kingdom of God.
Jesus’ Death According to the Scriptures
Those Jews who awaited the coming of the messiah expected that he would come with power and authority. They would have difficulty, therefore, believing that Jesus was the messiah because he was powerless and suffered an ignoble death at the hands of the Romans.
Those Jews who came to believe that Jesus was the messiah used scripture to confirm their beliefs. Although the Hebrew Bible does not explicitly connect the messiah with suffering, there are many passages that speak of the suffering of a righteous person. Christians who read these parts of scripture were convinced that this person was Jesus. These scriptural passages, including Psalms of Lament and Isaiah’s Songs of the Suffering Servant, subsequently influenced the way Christians talked about Jesus. He was meant to suffer and die, as part of God’s eternal plan.
The Emergence of Different Understandings of Jesus
As we have seen, early Christianity was far from a unified religion. There were vast differences in the ways Christians understood Jesus’ significance. The term “Son of Man” would resonate with some Jewish-Christian groups familiar with the apocalyptic book of Daniel. The identification of Jesus as the Son of Man would lead these Christians to believe that Jesus was the judge of the world. Pagans, on the other hand, would have to be told about the cosmic figure in Daniel or would simply understand the term “Son of Man” to be a statement about Jesus’ humanity. The term “Son of God,” too, carried different meanings for Jews and pagans. For Jews, this title referred to a king, someone favored by God. For ggentiles, on the other hand, the term referred to a divine man. Early Christian communities also disagreed about how these titles applied to Jesus.
All of these interpretations made their ways into stories told about Jesus. Many of these stories were included in the earliest Christian writings. When the New Testament books are read separately, the differences between them stand out. The process of canonization, however, works to homogenize the texts. By placing these disparate texts into one book, the New Testament, their distinctive emphases are minimized.