Historical Jesus
[33][34] Since the 1970s, various scholars such as Joachim Jeremias, E. P. Sanders and Gerd Theissen have traced elements of Christianity to currents in first-century Judaism and have discarded nineteenth-century minority views that Jesus was based on previous pagan deities.
[52] Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.
"[49][36]: 24–26 The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.
[60][note 3] Paul states that he personally knew and interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus such as his most intimate disciples (Peter and John) and family members (his brother James) starting around 35 or 36 AD, within just a few years after the crucifixion, and got some direct information about his life from them.
[62][63][64] From Paul's writings alone, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus can be found: his descent from Abraham and David, his upbringing in the Jewish Law, gathering together disciples, including Cephas (Peter) and John, having a brother named James, living an exemplary life, the Last Supper and betrayal, numerous details surrounding his death and resurrection (e.g. crucifixion, Jewish involvement in putting him to death, burial, resurrection, seen by Peter, James, the twelve and others) along with numerous quotations referring to notable teachings and events found in the Gospels.
[68][69] There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities,[70] and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic.
[77][16] Biblical scholar Frederick Fyvie Bruce says the earliest mention of Jesus outside the New Testament occurs c. 55 AD from a historian named Thallos.
[96][97][98][99][100][101][excessive citations] Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis by differentiating authentic, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.
Conventionally since the 18th century, three scholarly quests for the historical Jesus are distinguished, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase.
While textual analysis of biblical sources had taken place for centuries, these quests introduced new methods and specific techniques in the attempt to establish the historical validity of their conclusions.
[106] The threefold terminology uses the literature selectively, poses an incorrect periodization of research, and fails to note that the quest did not begin with Reimarus, as Albert Schweitzer had claimed, but started earlier, with critical questions regarding the Christian origins narrative.
[111] Bible scholar Gerd Theissen explains that "It was concerned with presenting a historically true life of Jesus that functioned theologically as a critical force over against [established Roman Catholic] Christology.
Reimarus' writings had already made lasting changes by making it clear criticism could exist independently of theology and faith, and by founding historical Jesus studies within that non-sectarian view.
According to Homer W. Smith, the work of Lessing and others culminated in the Protestant theologian David Strauss's Das Leben Jesu ('The Life of Jesus', 1835), in which Strauss expresses his conclusion that Jesus existed, but that his godship is the result of "a historic nucleus [being] worked over and reshaped into an ideal form by the first Christians under the influence of Old Testament models and the idea of the messiah found in Daniel.
After Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede was translated and published in English as The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1910, the book's title provided the label for the field of study for eighty years.
[125][126][127][128] By the end of the twentieth century, scholar Tom Holmén writes that Enlightenment skepticism had given way to a more "trustful attitude toward the historical reliability of the sources ... [Currently] the conviction of Sanders, (we know quite a lot about Jesus) characterizes the majority of contemporary studies.
The actual problem is arguably that critics use them inappropriately, trying to describe the history of minute portions of the Gospel text, rather than a true flaw in the historical logic of the criteria.
[154][156][157][158] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.
[162] On the other hand, Maurice Casey and John P. Meier state that Jesus did predict his death, and this actually strengthened his followers' belief in his Resurrection.
[22] A primary criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is that of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity.
In contrast to the Schweitzerian view, certain North American scholars, such as Burton Mack, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.
[210][211]: 169–204 [212]: 199–235 Bart D. Ehrman aligns himself with Schweitzer's view that Jesus expected an apocalypse during his own generation, and he bases some of his views on the argument that the earliest gospel sources (for which he assumes Markan priority) and the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapters 4 and 5, probably written by the end of AD 52, present Jesus as far more apocalyptic than other Christian sources produced towards the end of the 1st century, contending that the apocalyptic messages were progressively toned down.
[224] Borg sees Jesus as a non-eschatological figure who did not intend to start a new religion, but his message set him at odds with the Jewish powers of his time based on the "politics of holiness".
[30][225] In John Dominic Crossan's view Jesus was crucified not for religious reasons but because his social teachings challenged the seat of power held by the Jewish authorities.
[225] Crossan believes Galilee was a place where Greek and Jewish culture heavily interacted,[226] with Gadara, a day's walk from Nazareth, being a center of Cynic philosophy.
[225] Like Wright, Markus Bockmuehl, Peter Stuhlmacher and Brant J. Pitre support the view that Jesus came to announce the end of the Jewish spiritual exile and usher in a new messianic era in which God would improve this world through the faith of his people.
[231] Gerd Theissen sees three main elements to the activities of Jesus as he effected social change: his positioning as the Son of man, the core group of disciples that followed him, and his localized supporters as he journeyed through Galilee and Judea.
[232] David Kaylor's ideas are close to those of Horsley, but have a more religious focus and base the actions of Jesus on covenant theology and his desire for justice.
[225][233] James Crossley and Robert J. Myles advocate a nuanced historical materialist perspective of Jesus as a religious organizer who responded to the intersecting material conditions of Galilee and Judea in culturally credible ways such as through intra-Jewish legal debate and a revolutionary millenarian proclamation.
[2] S. G. F. Brandon, Fernando Bermejo Rubio, and Reza Aslan argue that Jesus was an anti-Roman revolutionary that tried to overthrow Roman rule in Palestine and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel.
