"Historical Jesus"?

[Vouthon]

The purpose of this thread is explore some of the theories put forward by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus. There are roughly five "mainstream" perspectives, which can be laid out as follows (with the names of some prominent scholars advocating this viewpoint):


Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

• Bart Ehrman
• Paula Fredriksen
• Gerd Lüdemann
• John P. Meier
• E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

• Richard Horsley
• Elisabeth Fiorenza
  
• Gerd Theissen
• David Kaylor

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

• John Dominic Crossan
• Robert Funk
• Burton Mack
• Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit (Charismatic Healer/Hasid)

• Marcus Borg
• Stevan Davies
• Geza Vermes

Jesus the Messiah claimant

• Luke Timothy Johnson
• Robert H. Stein
• N. T. Wright
• Markus Bockmuehl
  
• Peter Stuhlmacher

Folks may have other opinions but these are the only ones generally deemed "historically plausible" by experts in the field of New Testament scholarship.

I should note that one need not limit themselves to one 'model'. These portraits often include overlapping elements. I, for instance, can see things I agree with in each perspective but veer more towards a combination of the "apocalyptic prophet" and "prophet of social change" paradigms based upon my own reading of the gospels in their Second Temple Jewish context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I should note that one need not limit themselves to one 'model'. I, for instance, can see things I agree with in each perspective but veer more towards a combination of the "apocalyptic prophet" and "prophet of social change" paradigms based upon my own reading of the gospels in their Second Temple Jewish context.

What, precisely have you read about the Second Temple Jewish context that informs your decision, and in what ways have they done so?

 

[Sunstone]

I am so far from being a scholar in this area, but I'll play along in the hopes of a good conversation: I favor the first two options: Apocalyptic Prophet and Prophet of Social Change. I'm a bit more certain, however, that Jesus did not see himself as the messiah -- based on what little I know.

 

[Vouthon]

What, precisely have you read about the Second Temple Jewish context that informs your decision, and in what ways have they done so?

There are a lot of factors guiding my judgement in favour of the apocalyptic and social change schools of thought.

The third quest for the historical Jesus (of which all the scholars mentioned in the OP are part) starts with this question: where do we locate him within Second Temple Judaism?

Eschatological literature enjoyed widespread popularity during the period of the Second Temple, typified by a variety of texts roughly contemporaneous with Jesus and his apostles: the Psalms of Solomon, the Book of Enoch, 4 Ezra, Testament of Abraham and the Qumran writings (about the coming war between the sons of light and those of darkness) etc.

The common thematic element in this explosion of apocalyptic literature is not the "end of the world" (as many people understand eschatology today, unfortunately) but rather a time of tribulation followed by a decisive intervention by God that would lead to him establishing His own Kingdom on earth, a paradise of peace and well-being.

As the eminent scholar E.P. Sanders explains in relation to Jesus:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/11/15/in-quest-of-the-historical-jesus/

Jesus was a prophet who preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. This expectation of a dramatic end of the current age is called “eschatological” or “apocalyptic.” “The End” in first-century Judaism was not the dissolution of the universe but a decisive change in the world, ushering in a new era and establishing God’s reign throughout the world, peace on earth, and plenty of food and drink for all.

Jesus taught ethical perfectionism, that is, behavior that is appropriate to the Kingdom of God.
​

Mark 13 and gospel passages explicitly declare the imminent arrival of God's pacific reign, and this plurality suggests that Jesus was influenced by, or spoke in the vein of, Jewish apocalypticism - which makes sense given the pervasive nature of these themes during his day.

In thinking this way, Jesus seems to have believed that the predictions of the prophets of the Tanakh - i.e. Isaiah 35, 48.20-1 - were at hand.

In pointing to this looming seismic change in human affairs, Jesus made a powerful symbolic gesture by overturning tables in the temple. This is the act which many scholars - both in the apocalyptic and social change schools - believe led to his execution, though there were obviously other contributing causes. His disciples, after the death and resurrection, continued to expect the restoration of Israel and the inauguration of the new age as indicated by Acts 1:6:

6So when they came together, they asked Him, “Lord will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”​

I need to attend to something at home but will get back to this later with more information, on not only the apocalyptic dimension but the social change.

 

[sayak83]

The purpose of this thread is explore some of the theories put forward by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus. There are roughly five "mainstream" perspectives, which can be laid out as follows (with the names of some prominent scholars advocating this viewpoint):


Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

• Bart Ehrman
• Paula Fredriksen
• Gerd Lüdemann
• John P. Meier
• E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

• Richard Horsley
• Elisabeth Fiorenza
  
• Gerd Theissen
• David Kaylor

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

• John Dominic Crossan
• Robert Funk
• Burton Mack
• Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit (Charismatic Healer/Hasid)

• Marcus Borg
• Stevan Davies
• Geza Vermes

Jesus the Messiah claimant

• Luke Timothy Johnson
• Robert H. Stein
• N. T. Wright
• Markus Bockmuehl
  
• Peter Stuhlmacher

Folks may have other opinions but these are the only ones generally deemed "historically plausible" by experts in the field of New Testament scholarship.

I should note that one need not limit themselves to one 'model'. These portraits often include overlapping elements. I, for instance, can see things I agree with in each perspective but veer more towards a combination of the "apocalyptic prophet" and "prophet of social change" paradigms based upon my own reading of the gospels in their Second Temple Jewish context.

I believe that Jesus thought he was centrally involved in bringing in the apocalyptic Kingdom of God on earth through his charismatic healing and miracle ministries and his final cleansing of the Temple so that God can once again reign there. His social and moral teachings were based on his expectations of the kind of world this new Kingdom ruled directly by God was going to be.

He was walking up and down the Judean region so that it can be "cleansed" and prepared for God... both the people and the land. When he finished this circuit, he went to Jerusalem for the final act of cleansing the temple so that God would enter.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

• John Dominic Crossan
• Robert Funk
• Burton Mack
• Stephen J. Patterson

I don't have much time to devote to this right now, but seeing that you linked Burton Mack under Wisdom Sage, I think there is some point of correction here. I've read several of Mack's books, and this following quote in particular should show he doesn't fit into any one of these categories, but rather that he views what we see of Jesus in the early church is a product of many differing views of him by differing groups, and the whole enterprise is the product of the evolution of social movements in a time of great change and active mythmaking, with each group bringing their own image of Jesus into the whole from how they wished to see him to speak to their audiences.

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)
​

Although, one could argue that he sees the Q1 Jesus, the Sage, as a kernel of historical reality that everything else was a creative spin from. So that might put him into that category. I'm not positive he would say that about himself though.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't have much time to devote to this right now, but seeing that you linked Burton Mack under Wisdom Sage, I think there is some point of correction here. I've read several of Mack's books, and this following quote in particular should show he doesn't fit into any one of these categories, but rather that he views what we see of Jesus in the early church is a product of many differing views of him by differing groups, and the whole enterprise is the product of the evolution of social movements in a time of great change and active mythmaking, with each group bringing their own image of Jesus into the whole from how they wished to see him to speak to their audiences.

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)
​

Although, one could argue that he sees the Q1 Jesus, the Sage, as a kernel of historical reality that everything else was a creative spin from. So that might put him into that category. I'm not positive he would say that about himself though.

Many good points Windwalker, thanks for your intervention!

Mack is placed in the "wisdom sage" branch of scholarship because he stratifies Q into a number of competing layers, with the earliest stage in the development of the sayings tradition being (in his assessment) the portrayal of Jesus as a wise man with a penchant for paradox, who lived an itinerant lifestyle free from material attachments and uttered bold statements against prevailing social norms.

Although he refrains from making any direct assertions about the historical Jesus (unlike other scholars), he seems to suggest that these early Cynic-like Jesus followers were following the practice of their founder, since they represent the earliest chain in the tradition, with apocalypticism relegated to Q2 in his model.

In this respect, he is cited as an authority by those making an argument for Jesus as a "subversive wisdom" sage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are a lot of factors guiding my judgement in favour of the apocalyptic and social change schools of thought.

Apparently, none involved a study of the 2nd Temple Period per se.

In any event, while Kirby's list offers various streams of speculation, I'm somewhat partial to Meier (even though Maccoby is more fun).

 

[Estro Felino]

Where is "Jesus the Zealot"?

I mean, it's historically impossible that a Roman authority applied the penalty of crucifixion to a sort of healer/philosopher/prophet.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Where is "Jesus the Zealot"?

Zealot or the Zealous ___________
True, Jesus was far different from the weak and passive person many portray him as being.
The Gospel accounts present Jesus as a strong, vigorous man.
I find, twice ( two times ) Jesus with zeal drove out those corrupted merchants with their goods from the temple.
Once at the beginning of his ministry and secondly toward the end.
- Mark 11:15-17; John 2:14-17
When a mob came to arrest Jesus, Jesus with courage and zeal stepped forward to identify himself at John 18:4-9.
So, it should be No wonder that Pilate saw Jesus as brave and manly when under arrest with bad treatment when Pilate said at John 19:4-5, " Look! The man ! " Jesus was No Zealot but was Zealous for righteousness - John 2:17

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe that Jesus thought he was centrally involved in bringing in the apocalyptic Kingdom of God on earth through his charismatic healing and miracle ministries and his final cleansing of the Temple so that God can once again reign there. His social and moral teachings were based on his expectations of the kind of world this new Kingdom ruled directly by God was going to be.
He was walking up and down the Judean region so that it can be "cleansed" and prepared for God... both the people and the land. When he finished this circuit, he went to Jerusalem for the final act of cleansing the temple so that God would enter.

I'd like to add that Jesus was centrally involved about God's kingdom government according to Luke 4:43.
That is God's Kingdom of Daniel 2:44.
Jesus, as King of God's Kingdom, while on Earth gave us a small-scale preview, a coming attraction, of what he will be doing on a grand-global scale during his coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth.
Mankind, according to Revelation 22:2, will once again see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for the healing of earth's nations when even ' enemy death ' will be No more on Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8.

 

[Vouthon]

Apparently, none involved a study of the 2nd Temple Period per se.

Are you of the opinion that eschatological fervour (as a critical component in many, if not most, apocalyptic frameworks), within the context of Jewish restoration movements, wasn't a feature of the religious scene in first century Palestine?

Many scholarly treatments, even those which opine that Jesus wasn't an apocalypticist, concur in emphasizing the prevalence of eschatological expectations among a number of Jewish circles of the late Second Temple period (notwithstanding the rich diversity of the era, which obviously involved a diverse range of perspectives). This has long been considered a particularly important matrix for the evolution of early Christian ideas, alongside the wisdom tradition.

i.e.

Second Temple Judaism - Biblical Studies - Oxford Bibliographies

Studies of the relationship between sapiential and apocalyptic traditions in the Second Temple time have been significant in shaping discussions of the Jewish contexts of Jesus and early Christianity (e.g., Wills and Wright 2005) and in situating Second Temple Judaism in its broader Near Eastern and Hellenistic cultural contexts (e.g., Smith 1983, Collins 1997).​

Jesus himself started out his career as a disciple of John the Baptist, a Jewish preacher in an eschatological mould who predicted a coming divine judgement.

In any event, while Kirby's list offers various streams of speculation, I'm somewhat partial to Meier (even though Maccoby is more fun).

What in Meier's theses do you find most compelling? (Maccoby I won't touch upon since his views are not endorsed by mainstream experts).

 

[Vouthon]

Where is "Jesus the Zealot"?

I mean, it's historically impossible that a Roman authority applied the penalty of crucifixion to a sort of healer/philosopher/prophet.

The purported association between Jesus and "Zealotism" is a fringe idea (chiefly promoted by people like Reza Aslan), which is not considered to be credible or consistent with the available evidence by the vast majority of scholars. As such, I didn't think it belonged in an overview of the mainstream interpretations since there are so few proponents of this paradigm.

Martin Hengel's, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Fortress Press, 1971) is the classic scholarly rebuke of this concept:

As a summary, there are the “six theses” that Hengel published separately: (1) Any theory of Jesus as revolutionist is based on a highly selective use of the sources; (2) There was a Jewish revolutionary movement in Jesus’ time; (3) There are some similarities between Jesus’ position and that of these revolutionaries but also major points of difference; (4) The fundamental differences between Jesus and these revolutionaries were more numerous and major; (5) The evidence suggest that Jesus was hated by these revolutionaries as much as by the Jerusalem authorities; (6) Both “right-wing” and “left-wing” extremes in the ancient Jewish setting likely viewed Jesus’ teaching and actions as provocative.​

i.e. Professor Larry Hurtado:


“Zombie Claims” and Jesus the “Zealot”

One of the things variously amusing and annoying is the re-appearance of ideas and claims in my own area of expertise as if something new, something suppressed (e.g., by us scholars supposedly) and reeeeally racy and sensationally important but that are in fact simply re-hashings (or re-packagings) of previous claims that were quite adequately and convincingly discredited years (or even decades) ago. I call these “zombie claims”: No matter how often you kill ’em off with the facts, they come back again, typically after sufficient years have passed that the news media will have forgotten the previous appearance(s) (and the memory of today’s news media is impressively short).​

Indeed, in today’s world of internet and e-communication, such zombie claims get a new life rather quickly, and get buzzed around the world almost overnight. The latest zombie claim to come to my attention (at least in my field) is pushed in Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, by Reza Aslan.

So, before people get too lathered up about Aslan’s book, let’s all just take a breath. It isn’t new in its thesis. That thesis has been tried out a number of times previously, and it’s been judged in each case fatally flawed. The current controversy will sell Aslan’s book, and perhaps even generate a program (likely on Discovery Channel), and will certainly prompt lots of comment in news media, cocktail parties, and in other social settings of “the chattering classes,” largely because most won’t realize that they’re being sold a “zombie claim” (an unacknowedged re-tread). But those acquainted with the field know that “we’ve been there and done that” and it’s not worth the lather.

(If you’re seriously interested in Jewish revolutionary movements in Jesus’ time, the “daddy” study remains Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. (T&T Clark, 1989; latest German edition, Die Zeloten, Mohr-Siebeck, 2011; original edition, 1961).
​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus himself started out his career as a disciple of John the Baptist, a Jewish preacher in an mould eschatological who predicted a coming divine judgement.

If you say so ...

 

[Vouthon]

If you say so ...

I'm perplexed by your meaning.

The baptism of Jesus by John, courtesy of the criterion of embarassment, is considered by most scholars in the field to be one of the three most probable facts about Jesus' life alongside the crucifixion and the temple incident.

The gospel accounts wax lyrical to try and diminish the extent to which this act of baptism isn't a subjection of Jesus to John, and so it's unlikely to be ahistorical because it was obviously bothering them. As such, most accept that Jesus was originally a follower of John, as inconvenient or unpalatable as this idea might have been for later Christians.

And John was by most reckonings eschatologically focused, and since the Jesus Movement emerged from the Baptist movement.....well, it isn't hard to make a claim for influence.

What's the issue?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And John was by most reckonings eschatologically focused, and since the Jesus Movement emerged from the Baptist movement.....

Yep; it doesn't get more substantive than that.

What's the issue?

I like Meier, primarily because he's serious about historiography, but threading three 'most probable facts' together does not a substantive history make.

 

[Vouthon]

Yep; it doesn't get more substantive than that.

Could you provide me with an explanation of your understanding of eschatological expectations, or lack thereof, in Second Temple Judaism?

I like Meier, primarily because he's serious about historiography, but threading three 'most probable facts' together does not a substantive history make.

I admire his rigorous historical-critical approach as well, and particularly his useful "five primary criteria" for discerning historical plausibility i.e. 1 discontinuity 2. coherence 3. multiple attestation 4. embarrassment and 5. rejection and execution (he also outlines additional secondary criteria).

Which is precisely why I employed Meier's criterion of embarrassment above in relation to the baptism of Jesus by John.

E.P. Sanders employs a similar methodology of judging something as potentially historically reliable if it goes directly against what the evangelists wised to be so, which is what John's baptism of Jesus does. (The early church had a desire to see Jesus as John’s superior.)

Ironically, Meier develops the idea that Jesus was probably part of the Baptist's early circle and that his apocalyptic theology was a constant in Jesus' own ministry. So he is one of the scholars most insistent regarding the tremendous influence exerted by the Baptist over Jesus, thereby supporting my contention here.

i.e.


Religion Book Review: Mentor, Message, and Miracles by John P. Meier, Author Anchor Bible $55 (1136p) ISBN 978-0-385-46992-0

Using historical and literary criticism, Meier reveals a Jesus who, after his encounter with the apocalyptic activities of John the Baptist, develops his own message about a coming kingdom of God and then reveals it through a variety of miracles from healings to exorcisms.

​

Meier is thus an odd scholarly choice for you to use in questioning my opinion that the historical Jesus is to be situated in the context of apocalyptic strains within late Second Temple Judaism, since he has amassed evidence in support of this very argument. Do you agree with him?

Other examples include Jesus negative attitude to his family, Jesus befriending sinners and his ‘threat to the temple’. These seem to be against the redactional tendency of the sacred authors and may therefore be deemed authentic for that reason.

But I'm not trying to present a "substantive history" (and certainly not in a short forum post in response to your earlier comment) of my own anyway, because I am not a NT scholar. I merely seek to discuss the different paradigms of a historical Jesus offered by notable experts in the field and see which ones people find the most convincing, and why.

I'm interested in what those who have expertise in New Testament studies and have spent years researching the historical Jesus using a consistent methodology (unlike myself), are saying and which of the mainstream interpretations people agree with.

Is this a forum or a peer-reviewed journal?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The purpose of this thread is explore some of the theories put forward by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus. There are roughly five "mainstream" perspectives, which can be laid out as follows (with the names of some prominent scholars advocating this viewpoint):


Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

• Bart Ehrman
• Paula Fredriksen
• Gerd Lüdemann
• John P. Meier
• E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

• Richard Horsley
• Elisabeth Fiorenza
  
• Gerd Theissen
• David Kaylor

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

• John Dominic Crossan
• Robert Funk
• Burton Mack
• Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit (Charismatic Healer/Hasid)

• Marcus Borg
• Stevan Davies
• Geza Vermes

Jesus the Messiah claimant

• Luke Timothy Johnson
• Robert H. Stein
• N. T. Wright
• Markus Bockmuehl
  
• Peter Stuhlmacher

Folks may have other opinions but these are the only ones generally deemed "historically plausible" by experts in the field of New Testament scholarship.

I should note that one need not limit themselves to one 'model'. These portraits often include overlapping elements. I, for instance, can see things I agree with in each perspective but veer more towards a combination of the "apocalyptic prophet" and "prophet of social change" paradigms based upon my own reading of the gospels in their Second Temple Jewish context.

Although not a widely accepted theory, I tend to think Jesus was for greater part a creation of the Roman government.

 

[Vouthon]

Although not a widely accepted theory, I tend to think Jesus was for greater part a creation of the Roman government.

Thanks for contributing @Nowhere Man

What leads you towards this conclusion, if I may ask?

 

[Vouthon]

FYI @Jayhawker Soule see:

Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume II | Yale University Press

Now, in this volume, Meier focuses on the Jesus of our memory and the development of his ministry. To begin, Meier identifies Jesus's mentor, the one person who had the greatest single influence on him, John the Baptist. All of the Baptist's fiery talk about the end of time had a powerful effect on the young Jesus and the formulation of his key symbol of the coming of the "kingdom of God."​