Gospel of Thomas 77

77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."...............................

The God Who Wasn't There

The God Who Wasn't There is a 2005 independent documentary written and directed by Brian Flemming. The documentary questions the existence of Jesus, examining evidence that supports the Jesus Myth argument against the existence of a historical Jesus, as well as other aspects of Christianity.[1] Critics of the film argue that the Jesus Myth is rejected by virtually all professional historians and Biblical scholars.[2]
Contents[hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Jesus myth hypothesis
1.2 Other criticisms of Christianity
2 Interviewees and commentators
3 The Blasphemy Challenge
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
//

[edit] Overview

[edit] Jesus myth hypothesis
Most of the film is a defense of the Jesus myth hypothesis. Claims made by Flemming and interviewees in the film include the following:
According to Flemming, the divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" - such as Thor, Balder, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus - and argues that these figures shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc.
Flemming accuses Christian leaders of being reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks, the idea that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic person.
Non-Christians believe that Christianity's global success is based on its claim to historical accuracy, as compared to most other mythologies, which exist in the realm of metaphor and moral parable, such as those of the ancient Greeks, who did not claim that Zeus walked the earth thousands of years ago, or the followers of Mithras or Osiris, who never claimed to have documentary proof of the physical existence of their gods. Flemming argues that Christianity bases its claim to moral authority on the assertion that God placed his own essence on Earth at a particular time and place, which can be documented, and that the evidence typically offered for this does not withstand close scrutiny.
Flemming argues that the Epistles of Paul, which were written before the Gospels, omit most of the events from the traditional life of Jesus which, Flemming argues, Paul would never have omitted from his arguments unless he had never heard of them. Flemming asserts that Paul mentions only the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension and presents them as having occurred in a mythic realm rather than an earthly one.
Flemming asserts that Jesus's life as a living person can be disproven because Paul, according to Flemming, seemed unaware of Jesus's life despite writing shortly after Jesus was supposed to have died. An interviewer for Christianity Today suggested that Paul refers several times to meeting members of Jesus's family, and so he apparently believed Jesus to be a real person; Flemming disputed this interpretation.[3]

[edit] Other criticisms of Christianity
Besides defending the Jesus myth, the film criticizes some other features of Christianity:
Flemming argues that moderate Christianity makes even less sense than a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian doctrine, asserting that the Bible contains many messages incompatible with toleration of non-Christians, particularly Jews, who reject Jesus as the Savior of Christian doctrine and (in Flemming's view) must therefore be regarded by Christians as damned.
Flemming sees God's demand that people believe in him or be damned as essentially mind control. He interprets Mark 3:29 and similar passages as damning anyone who doubts the existence of the Holy Spirit. He is appalled by the notion that Jesus will forgive murder, theft, and any other sin but not this type of disbelief.
Because Jesus knows peoples' innermost thoughts, and that therefore one must police one's thoughts to avoid any doubt, Flemming summarizes this idea with the statement that the greatest sin in Christianity is "to think."
Flemming illustrates his viewpoint that Mel Gibson deliberately emphasized the graphic violence and suffering in his film, The Passion of the Christ. Flemming quotes a number of scenes from the film, and a running tally of depictions of violence, suffering or bloodshed is shown, and sees the success of The Passion Of The Christ as evidence that Christian audiences do not deplore, but rather revel, in the bloody, violent or even sadistic undertones of the Jesus myth.
The film asserts that nearly half of Americans believe, to some degree, that the Rapture, or the End of Days, will occur in their lifetime (the next 30 or 40 years), and that this sort of thinking is not conducive to long-term governmental policies.

[edit] Interviewees and commentators
Several notable personalities make appearances in the documentary:
Scott Butcher is the creator of the Rapture Letters.com website.
Richard Carrier is a philosopher and historian who holds a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University, New York.
Alan Dundes was an anthropologist and folklorist. Until his death shortly after being interviewed for the documentary, he was Professor of Folklore and Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Sam Harris is a researcher into the neurology of religious belief, and author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
Barbara Mikkelson and David P. Mikkelson are the founders of Snopes.com.
Robert M. Price is Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute.
Ronald Sipus, principal of Village Christian School, which Brian Flemming attended as a youth. Sipus walked out of the interview, accusing Flemming of misrepresenting himself and his reasons for the interview.
The following only appear on the DVD's commentary track:
Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist and popular science writer.
Earl Doherty is a contemporary advocate of the Jesus Myth theory and author of The Jesus Puzzle.
The Raving Atheist is a lawyer and former atheist blogger, who has since converted to Christianity.
Among the Christians shown in the film were attendees at a Billy Graham Crusade event at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California on November 18, 2004.

[edit] The Blasphemy Challenge
Free copies of the film were given to the first 1,001 people who participated in the Blasphemy Challenge, an Internet-based project initiated in December 2006 by the atheist organization Rational Response Squad, which aims to encourage atheists to declare themselves publicly.[4][5]

[edit] Criticism

The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page. (January 2009)Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Film critic Keith Breeze accuses the film of "cross[ing] over into sheer propaganda" and characterizes it as "a self-referential slice of post-modern documentary filmmaking.... so ironic it’s painful, so hip it’s almost passé."[6]
New Testament historian Michael R. Licona observed that "no major or well-known scholars are interviewed" and argues that mainstream historians and Biblical scholars have firmly rejected the Jesus myth hypothesis, citing Günther Bornkamm, Rudolf Bultmann, Michael Grant, Paul Maier, Michael Martin, and Robert Van Voorst. He concludes that "[the] film is a rehashing of the same hypercritical skepticism that has failed to convince even most skeptical scholars for decades."[2]
Cliff Vaughn of the Baptist Center for Ethics criticized Flemming for characterizing all Christians by associating them with extremists who burn books, likening his approach to that of filmmaker Michael Moore and accusing Flemming of "relying on oversimplification for cheap laughs." Vaughn disputes Flemming's claim that the Inquisition was not a perversion of Christianity, but an expression of it. Vaughn also criticizes Flemming for characterizing Jesus through a quote in Luke 19:27, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me," by pointing out that the passage in question is spoken by a character in a parable.[7] Flemming has responded to this criticism by claiming that Jesus often used parables to illustrate his own beliefs, and that in the parable in question, the King is obviously meant to be a stand-in for Jesus himself, in order to illustrate his view of those who disagree with him. Flemming has responded to other criticisms on the FAQ page of the film's official website.[8]

Historical Jesus

The historical Jesus is the figure of the first-century Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by scholars using historical methods that include critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, and non-biblical sources for the the historical and cultural context in which he lived. Use of the term "the historical Jesus" implies that the figure thus reconstructed differs from that presented in the teaching of the ecumenical councils ("the dogmatic Christ") and in other Christian accounts ("the Christ of faith").[1]
Though the reconstructions vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher[2] who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of preaching, was crucified by the Romans in Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.[3]
The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations. He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, Jesus began his own movement in Galilee. He preached the Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery and was renowned as a teacher and a healer. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations that the Gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. Later, he traveled through Samaria to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem. Apparently the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his brother James the Just and the other apostles. It developed into Early Christianity, see also List of events in early Christianity.
The quest for the historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.[4]
A series of articles on
Jesus Christ and ChristianityChronology • Virgin BirthMinistry • Miracles • ParablesDeath • ResurrectionSecond Coming • ChristologyNames and titles • Relics • Active obedience
Cultural and historical backgroundLanguage spoken • RaceGenealogy
Perspectives on JesusJesus and historyBiblical Jesus • ReligiousChristian • Jewish • IslamicAhmadi • ScientologyHistoricity • In mythHistorical Jesus • Research
Jesus in cultureDepiction • Sexuality
This box: view • talk • edit
Contents[hide]
1 Scholarly methods
2 Theories of the Historical Jesus
2.1 Apocalyptic prophet
2.2 Wisdom Sage
2.3 Same as the Christ of Faith
2.4 Other views
3 Jesus' Jewish background
4 Personal Background
4.1 Birth
4.2 Linguistic proficiency
4.3 Literacy
4.4 Socioeconomic status
4.5 Ethnicity
4.6 Family background and childhood
4.6.1 Joseph
4.6.2 Mary
4.6.3 Jesus' siblings
5 Ministry of Jesus
5.1 Works and miracles
5.2 Jesus as divine
5.2.1 Priestly and kingly messiahs
5.3 Jesus and John the Baptist
5.4 Ministry and teachings
5.4.1 Length of ministry
5.4.2 Parables and paradoxes
5.4.3 Eschatology
5.4.4 Laconic sage
5.4.5 Table fellowship
5.4.6 Commission of disciples
5.4.7 Asceticism
5.5 Jerusalem
5.5.1 Entrance to Jerusalem
5.5.2 Temple disturbance
5.6 Crucifixion
5.7 Empty tomb
5.8 Resurrection appearances
6 Quest for the historical Jesus
7 Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus
7.1 Christian criticism
7.2 Criticism as myth
8 See also
9 References
10 Notes
11 External links
//

[edit] Scholarly methods

Location of Nazareth within modern day Israel
Scholars of the historical Jesus analyze the four canonical Gospels and other early documents, sorting elements that seem more historical from those that seem more likely to have been invented. Historians have developed a number of methods to critically analyze historical sources:
Criterion of dissimilarity
More narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment, statements contrary or dissimilar to the author's agenda are likely to be more reliable. For example, a Christian source would be unlikely to claim that Jesus was from Nazareth (rather than from Bethlehem), unless his family was actually from Nazareth, as this was a cause of embarrassment[citation needed].
Criterion of multiple attestation
When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is at least certain that the tradition pre-dates the sources. See the Historicity of Jesus for a list of sources pertaining to this question.
Cultural congruencey
A source is more credible if the account makes sense in the context of what is known about the culture in which the events unfolds.
Linguistic criteria
There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the Gospels. For example, if a dialogue works only in Greek (the language of its written source), it is quite likely the author is reporting something different from the original historical facts.
Author's Agenda
This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When the presented material serves the perceived purpose of the author or redactor, it is suspect.[5] For example, various sections of the Gospels, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, portray Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in the view of many scholars, reflect the agenda of the gospel authors rather than historical events.
However, N.T. Wright, following Ben Meyer, rejects a criteria-based approach to authenticity.[citation needed]

[edit] Theories of the Historical Jesus

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (February 2009)

[edit] Apocalyptic prophet
Beginning with Albert Schweitzer, one of the most prominent views of Jesus is that he was an apocalyptic prophet, preparing his fellow Jews for the imminent end of the world. This broad perspective is defended by many historians, most notably Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, and John P. Meier.

[edit] Wisdom Sage
Historians associated with the Jesus Seminar, such as John Dominic Crossan, are often associated with this view. The reject the view that Jesus was apocalyptic, but that the kingdom was present and accessible for all Jews.

[edit] Same as the Christ of Faith
Some scholars, most notably N. T. Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson defend the historicity of traditional view of Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins. They demand scholars to be more cautious about what can claim to know about the ancient period and when miraculous evens, such as the resurrection, is beyond the historical method to either prove or disprove, these scholars see no problem in accepting traditional accounts.

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

[edit] Jesus' Jewish background
See also: Cultural and historical background of Jesus
Jesus preached in Galilee and Judea (modern-day Israel, Palestinian territories, and Jordan) for one to three years[citation needed] in the first half of the first century.

The so-called "Sea of Galilee", which is actually a freshwater lake.
Following the fall of earlier Jewish kingdoms, the partially-Hellenized territory was under Roman imperial rule, but there were ongoing hopes of a revival of independent sovereignty. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but although the land was mostly peaceful, there was a continued risk of rebellion, riots, banditry, and violent resistance (see also Zealotry). Four decades after Jesus’ death, the tensions caused by Jewish hopes for a restoration of the kingdom of David culminated in the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
In Judaic religion of Jesus' day, the Pharisees were a powerful party, espousing (like the first Christians) belief in the resurrection, retribution in the next world, angels, human freedom, and Divine Providence.[6] The more conservative Sadducees held power in the Temple. The Essenes lived ascetically and looked for an imminent apocalypse. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus does not seem to have belonged to any particular party or movement.
Jesus' repeated declarations that the kingdom of God was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views. According to Geza Vermes and others, the use of the terms "messiah" and "son of God" by Jesus' followers indicate that they believed he would assume the monarchy upon the restoration of the kingdom (see Names and titles of Jesus).

[edit] Personal Background

[edit] Birth
Most historians consider that Jesus was born around 4 BC or slightly earlier,[7] and probably in Nazareth.[8][9][10][11] Many modern scholars view the different accounts of Jesus' birth given in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as "pious fictions".[12] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels".[13] The Gospels associate Jesus' birth with the reign of Herod the Great. This first Herod, an Idumaean whom the Roman Senate elected King of the Jews[14] over Idumea, Galilee, Judea, Samaria and neighboring lands, ruled from 37 to 4 BCE.[15] Herod's sons divided his lands, and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee but not Judea (which became part of Iudaea province after Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE) when Jesus was a man.[16]

[edit] Linguistic proficiency
See also: Aramaic of Jesus
Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic. The Gospels record him using metaphors unknown in Hebrew or Greek but common in Aramaic. Some scholars speculate that because the lingua franca under Roman occupation was Greek, which was replacing Aramaic, Jesus might have known at least some Koine Greek.[17]

[edit] Literacy
It is unclear whether Jesus was able to read or write.[18][19] In the view of John Dominic Crossan, as a Galilean peasant he would not have been literate.[20] Jesus, however, is described not as a peasant but as a carpenter, the son of a carpenter,[21] and was called a rabbi.[22] The Jesus Seminar says references in the Gospels to Jesus reading and writing may well be fictions.[18] On the other hand, James Dunn observes that, given the emphasis of the importance of reading the Torah in Jewish culture of the time, it was possible that a Galilean villager such as Jesus might have learnt to read.[23] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz cite a number of passages from the Gospels which, they say, make it very probable that Jesus could at least read,[24] while John P. Meier concludes that the literacy of Jesus probably extended to the ability to read and comment on sophisticated theological and literary works.[25]

[edit] Socioeconomic status

View of Nazareth
Jesus is identified in Mark as a tekton, or carpenter, (Mark 6:3) and in Matthew as the son of a carpenter (Matthew 13:55). John Dominic Crossan puts tekton into a historical context more resembling an Irish itinerant traveller than a union-card holding artisan, emphasizing his marginality in a population in which a peasant who owns land could become quite prosperous.

[edit] Ethnicity
Jesus lived in Galilee, north of Judea on the other side of Samaria (which was hostile to Judeans). Judeans did not hold Galileans in high regard as they were often of mixed blood and open to foreign influence.[18] The Galilean dialect was clearly distinguishable from the Judean dialect.[26]

[edit] Family background and childhood
See also: Names of Jesus and his family and Nativity of Jesus#Paternity

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

[edit] Mary
Jesus' mother was named Mary[27], a common name at the time. Beyond the accounts in the Gospels and a few other early Christian sources,[28] there is no independent or verifiable information about any aspect of Mary's life.

[edit] Jesus' siblings
Main article: Desposyni
Jesus had brothers and sisters, as reported in Mark[27] 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. The Gospels name four brothers, but only James is known to history. After Jesus' death, James, "the Lord's brother",[29] was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem[27] and Jesus' relatives seem to have held positions of authority in the surrounding area.[30] As the doctrine of Perpetual virginity of Mary developed, predominantly in the East, Christians began to regard the siblings of Jesus as children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, and Jerome went on to argue that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to were actually cousins.[31] The terms "brother" and "sister" as used in this context are open to different interpretations.[32] The most natural conclusion from what is written in the New Testament is that Jesus' siblings were children of Mary and Joseph, as accepted by some early Christian writers; but when Helvidius proposed this idea in the fourth century, Jerome, who seems to have expressed the general opinion of the Church, maintained that Mary remained always a virgin, and held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of Clopas, a brother-in-law of Mary.[33] The "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus have thus been interpreted as children of Joseph by a previous marriage, as Mary's sister's children, or as Joseph's sister's children.[33] Certain critical scholars, on the other hand, hold that the doctrine of perpetual virginity has long obscured the recognition that Jesus had siblings.[34] Their confidence in this opinion is not shared by all critical scholars. For instance, Raymond E. Brown says that the words used about the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the New Testament, which nowhere calls them children of Mary, do not necessarily mean that they were full siblings; he also mentions that the tradition that Mary had no children but Jesus already existed by the early second century, and refers to evidence within the New Testament itself that suggests that at least two of the named "brothers" were sons of another woman.[35]

[edit] Ministry of Jesus
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and then led a began healing and preaching in Galilee, proclaiming the Kingdom of God. He and his followers traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple and was executed.

[edit] Works and miracles

Early Christian image of Christ as the Good Shepherd. Fourth century.
Jesus, like many holy men throughout history, is said to have performed various miracles in the course of his ministry. These mostly consist of cures and exorcisms, but some appear to show a dominion over nature.
As Albert Schweitzer showed in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, in the early 19th century, debate about the "Historical Jesus" centered on the credibility of the miracle reports. Early 19th century scholars offered three types of explanation for these miracle stories: they were regarded as supernatural events, or were rationalized (e.g. by Paulus), or were regarded as mythical (e.g. by Strauss).
Scholars in both Christian and secular traditions continue to debate how the miracles reports about Jesus should be construed. The Christian Gospels claim that Jesus wielded supernatural power, but naturalistic historians, following Strauss, generally choose either to see these stories as legend or allegory, or, for some of the miracles they follow the rationalizing method. For example the healings and exorcisms are sometimes attributed to the placebo effect.

[edit] Jesus as divine
Historians are divided over Jesus' claims about himself. New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any implicit claims to be God.[36] Some see him as a humble holy man who made no messianic claims, while others portray him as claiming a divine role in God's imminent apocalypse.
The Jews of Jesus' time waited expectantly for a divine redeemer who would restore Israel, which suffered under Roman rule. John the Baptist was apparently waiting for one greater than himself, an apocalyptic figure.[37] Christian scripture and faith acclaim Jesus as this "Messiah" ("anointed one," "Christ").
Some scholars, such as James Tabor, hold that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and took an apocalyptic role. Others, such as those of the Jesus Seminar, discount the apocalyptic message of Jesus and consider him not to have made any such claims for himself.
In the synoptic Gospels, the being of Jesus as "Son of God" corresponds exactly to the typical Hasidean from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by God's intervention performs miracles and exorcisms.[38][39] Identification of Jesus with the divine Logos is of a later date.
Raymond E. Brown concluded that the earliest Christians did not call Jesus God.[40] Similarly, Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.
The Jesus Seminar, in their Acts of Jesus, claim that Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified in Jerusalem as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

[edit] Priestly and kingly messiahs
The Jewish term Messiah ("anointed") traditionally referred both to the King of Israel, epitomized in David, and to the High Priest, beginning with Aaron. The two meanings are made explicit in the Hebrew Bible, where King and High Priest are both anointed, and are also symbolized in the twin pillars of the temple and their bridging arch which unified them.
Though Messianic expectations in general centred on the King Messiah, the Essenes expected both a kingly and a priestly figure in their eschatology.

[edit] Jesus and John the Baptist
Main article: John the Baptist

Judean hills of Israel
Jesus began preaching, teaching, and healing after he was baptized by John the Baptist, an apocalyptic ascetic preacher who called on Jews to repent.
Jesus was apparently a follower of John, a populist and activist prophet who looked forward to divine deliverance of the Jewish homeland from the Romans.[41] John was a major religious figure,[42] whose movement was probably larger than Jesus' own. Herod Antipas had John executed as a threat to his power. In a saying originally recorded in Q,[43] the historical Jesus defended John shortly after John's death.[44]
John's followers formed a movement that continued after his death alongside Jesus' own following.[42] John's followers apparently believed that John might have risen from the dead,[45] an expectation that may have influenced the expectations of Jesus' followers after his own execution.[42] Some of Jesus' followers were former followers of John the Baptist.[42] Fasting and baptism, elements of John's preaching, may have entered early Christian practice as John's followers joined the movement.[42]
John Dominic Crossan portrays Jesus as rejecting John's apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a sapiential eschatology, in which cultural transformation results from humans' actions rather than from God's intervention.[46]
Historians consider Jesus' baptism by John to be historical, an event that early Christians would not have included in their Gospels in the absence of a "firm report."[47] Like Jesus, John and his execution are mentioned by Josephus.[42]
John the Baptist's prominence in both the Gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus' mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus' death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the Gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way Fredriksen believes this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).
Many scholars posit that Jesus may have been a direct follower in John the Baptist's movement. Prominent Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan suggests that John the Baptist may have been killed for political reasons, not necessarily the personal grudge given in Mark's gospel.[48] Going into the desert and baptising in the Jordan suggests that John and his followers were purifying themselves for what they believed was God's imminent deliverance. This was reminiscent of such a crossing of the Jordan after the Exodus (see Book of Joshua), leading into the promised land of their deliverance from oppression. Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted; according to Ehrman or Sanders apocalyptic vision was the core of Jesus' teaching) which warned of "the wrath to come," as "the axe is laid to the root of the trees" and those who do not bear "good fruit" are "cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9) Though John's teachings remained visible in those of Jesus, Jesus would emphasize the Kingdom of God not as imminent, but as already present and manifest through the movement's communal commitment to a relationship of equality among all members, and living by the laws of divine justice. All four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and this fact is consistent with Jewish accounts of Roman cruelty in general and Pilate's cruelty in particular. Crucifixion was the penalty for political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority; those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated.

[edit] Ministry and teachings
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet John (Yohannan) the Baptist, and shortly after began healing and preaching to villagers and fishermen around the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a freshwater lake). Although there were many Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is only one account of Jesus healing someone in the region of the Gadarenes found in the three synoptic Gospels (the demon called Legion), and another when he healed a Syro-Phoenician girl in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7:24-30). Otherwise, there is no record of Jesus having spent any significant amount of time in Gentile towns.[citation needed] The center of his work was Capernaum, a small town (about 500 by 350 meters, with a population of 1,500-2,000) where, according to the Gospels, he appeared at the town's synagogue (a non-sacred meeting house[citation needed] where Jews would often gather on the Sabbath to study the Torah), healed a paralytic, and continued seeking disciples.[citation needed]
Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers), he moved towards the Davidic capital of the United Monarchy, the city of Jerusalem.

[edit] Length of ministry
Historians do not know how long Jesus preached for. The synoptic Gospels suggest a period of up to one year.[49] The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers,[50] so Jesus' ministry is traditionally said to have been three years long.[51][52] In the view of Paul N. Anderson, John's presentation is more plausible historically than that of the Synoptics.[53]

[edit] Parables and paradoxes
Main article: Parables of Jesus
Jesus taught in parables and aphorisms. A parable is a figurative image with a single message (sometimes mistaken for an analogy, in which each element has a metaphoric meaning). An aphorism is a short, memorable turn of phrase. In Jesus' case, aphorisms often involve some paradox or reversal. Authentic parables probably include the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Authentic aphorisms include "turn the other cheek", "go the second mile", and "love your enemies."
Crossan writes that Jesus' parables worked on multiple levels at the same time, provoking discussions with his peasant audience.[46]
Jesus' parables and aphorisms circulated orally among his followers for a years before they were written down and later incorporated into the Gospels. They represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus.[27]

[edit] Eschatology
Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.
A great many -- if not a majority -- of critical Biblical scholars, going as far back as Albert Schweitzer, hold that Jesus believed that the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.[54]
The evidence for this thesis comes from several verses, including the following:
In Mark 8:38-9:1, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come "in the glory of the Father with the holy angels" during "this adulterous generation." Indeed, he says, "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power."
In Luke 21:35-36, Jesus urges constant, unremitting preparedness on the part of his followers in light of the imminence of the end of history and the final intervention of God. "Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man."
In Mark 13:24-27, 30, Jesus describes what will happen when the end comes, saying that "the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and ... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory." He gives a timeline for this event: "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."
The Apostle Paul also seems to have shared this expectation. Toward the end of 1 Corinthians 7, he counsels Christians to avoid getting married if they can since the end of history was imminent. Speaking to the unmarried, he writes, "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as your are." "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short ... For the present form of this world is passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 31) In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Paul also seems to believe that he will live to witness the return of Jesus and the end of history.
According to Geza Vermes, Jesus' announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church." [55] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish," as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[56]
Robert W. Funk and colleagues, on the other hand, wrote that beginning in the 1970s, some scholars have come to reject the view of Jesus as eschatological, pointing out that he rejected the asceticism of John the Baptist and his eschatological message. In this view, the Kingdom of God is not a future state, but rather a contemporary, mysterious presence. John Dominic Crossan describes Jesus' eschatology as based on establishing a new, holy way of life rather than on God's redeeming intervention in history.[46]
Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[57]
In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one won't be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."
In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.
Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.
The Jesus Seminar concludes that apocalyptic statements attributed to Jesus could have originated from early Christians, as apocalyptic ideas were common, but the statements about God's Kingdom being mysteriously present cut against the common view and could have originated only with Jesus himself.[57]

[edit] Laconic sage
The sage of the ancient Near East was a self-effacing man of few words who did not provoke encounters.[58] A holy man offers cures and exorcisms only when petitioned, and even then may be reluctant.[58] Jesus seems to have displayed a similar style.[58]
The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent "question and answer" religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jesus Seminar believes the debates about scripture and doctrine are rabbinic in style and not characteristic of Jesus.[59] They believe these "conflict stories" represent the conflicts between the early Christian community and those around them: the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. The group believes these sometimes include genuine sayings or concepts but are largely the product of the early Christian community.

[edit] Table fellowship
Open table fellowship with outsiders was central to Jesus' ministry.[46] His practice of eating with the lowly people that he healed defied the expectations of traditional Jewish society.[46] He presumably taught at the meal, as would be expected in a symposium.[27] His conduct caused enough of a scandal that he was accused of being a glutton and a drunk.[27]
John Dominic Crossan identifies this table practice as part of Jesus' radical egalitarian program.[46] The importance of table fellowship is seen in the prevalence of meal scenes in early Christian art[46] and in the Eucharist, the Christian ritual of bread and wine.[27]

[edit] Commission of disciples
Main article: Great Commission
See also: Disciple (Christianity) and Apostle (Christian)
The Gospels recount Jesus commissioning disciples to spread the word, sometimes during his life (e.g., Mark 6:7-12) and sometimes during a resurrection appearance (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20). These accounts reflect early Christian practice as well as Jesus' original instructions, though some scholars contend that historical Jesus issued no such missionary commission.[60]
According to John Dominic Crossan, Jesus sent his disciples out to heal and to proclaim the Kingdom of God. They were to eat with those they healed rather than with higher status people who might well be honored to host a healer, and Jesus directed them to eat whatever was offered them. This implicit challenge to the social hierarchy was part of Jesus' program of radical egalitarianism. These themes of healing and eating are common in early Christian art.[61]
First-century missionaries of the counter-cultural Cynic movement were urban and individualistic. They carried staves to symbolize their homelessness and knapsacks to indicate self-sufficiency. Jesus' missionaries, on the other hand, were rural and communal. They carried neither a staff nor a purse, emphasizing their dependence on those to whom they preached.[62]
Jesus' instructions to the missionaries appear in the synoptic Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas.[63] These instructions are distinct from the commission that the resurrected Jesus gives to his followers, text rated as black (inauthentic) by the Jesus Seminar.[64]

[edit] Asceticism
The fellows of the Jesus Seminar mostly held that Jesus was not an ascetic, and that he probably drank wine and didn't fast.[65] He did, however, promote a simple life and the renunciation of wealth.
Jesus said that some made themselves "eunuchs" for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12). This aphorism might have been meant to establish solidarity with eunuchs, who were considered "incomplete" in Jewish society.[66] Alternatively, he may have been promoting celibacy.
Some suggest that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or that he probably had a special relationship with her,[67] or that he was married to Mary the sister of Lazarus.
John the Baptist was an ascetic and perhaps a Nazirite, so he promoted celibacy like the Essenes.[68]Ascetic elements, such as fasting, appeared in Early Christianity and are mentioned by Matthew during Jesus' discourse on ostentation.

[edit] Jerusalem

The narrow streets of Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem.
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
Jesus and his followers left Galilee and traveled to Jerusalem in Judea. They may have traveled through Samaria, as reported in Luke and John, or around Samaria, as was common practice for Jews avoiding hostile Samaritans.

[edit] Entrance to Jerusalem
Jesus might have entered Jerusalem on a donkey as a symbolic act, possibly to contrast with the triumphant entry that a Roman conqueror would make, or to enact a prophecy in Zechariah. Christian scripture makes the reference to Zechariah explicit, perhaps because the scene was invented as scribes looked to scripture to help them flesh out the details of the gospel narratives.[27]

[edit] Temple disturbance
Main article: Jesus and the Money Changers
Jesus taught in Jerusalem, and he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[27] In response, the temple authorities arrested him and turned him over to the Roman authorities for execution.[27] He might have been betrayed into the hands of the temple police, or the authorities might have arrested him with no need for a traitor.[27]

[edit] Crucifixion

Antonio Ciseri's 1862 depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate delivers Jesus to the crowd.
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Iudaea province (26 AD to 36 AD). Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.[27] E. P. Sanders argued that the cleansing of the Temple was an act that seriously offended his Jewish audience and eventually led to his death,[69][70][71] while Bart D. Ehrman argued that Jesus' actions would have been considered treasonous and thus a capital offense by the Romans.[72] The claim that the Sadducee high-priestly leaders and their associates handed Jesus over to the Romans is strongly attested.[73] Historians debate whether Jesus intended to be crucified.[74]
Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, commonly used for criminals during the time of Jesus. Crucifixion was a miserable, shameful death. Historians credit early Christian accounts of Jesus' crucifixion because Christian scribes would have little reason to invent such a detail.
The assertions made in the Bible that Pilate held a trial for an alleged troublemaker and ended up crucifying Jesus because the local population insisted upon it is considered historically dubious.[75] Christian scribes seem to have drawn on scripture in order to flesh out the passion narrative, such as inventing Jesus' trial.[27] However, scholars are split on the historicity of the underlying events.[76]
John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have put Jesus on the radar of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers. As the balance shifted in the early Church from the Jewish community to Gentile converts, it may have sought to distance itself from rebellious Jews (those who rose up against the Roman occupation). There was also a schism developing within the Jewish community as these believers in Jesus were pushed out of the synagogues after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, see Council of Jamnia. The divergent accounts of Jewish involvement in the trial of Jesus suggest some of the unfavorable sentiments between such Jews that resulted. See also List of events in early Christianity.

Pietro Perugino, Crucifixion of Christ, 1494-1496, Florence.
Aside from the fact that the Gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the Gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response, it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood [77], and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or to their own.[78] Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.
Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation [found at 1 Thes 2:14-16] were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.[79]
However, Paul's preaching of the Gospel and its radical social practices were by their very definition a direct affront on the social hierarchy of Greco-Roman society itself, and thus these new teachings undermined the Empire, ultimately leading to full scale Roman persecution of Christians aimed at stamping out the new faith.
[edit] Empty tomb
Scholars are split on whether Jesus was buried, and if so, whether or not the tomb was found empty. After crucifixion, bodies would have normally been exhibited for some time as a warning to the myriad other antagonists in Jerusalem, and eventually left in a shallow mass grave, exposed to wild dogs and other scavengers.[citation needed] Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contend that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[80] His position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[81] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[82] to Koester critique of it as "seriously flawed".[83] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[84] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the first century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in first century Palestine.[85] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be for the most part historically probable,[86] and some have gone on to argue that the tomb was thereafter discovered empty;[87] Michael Grant wrote:
[I]f we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.
—[88]
However, Marcus Borg notes:
the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known
—[89]

[edit] Resurrection appearances
Main article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.
Peter, Paul, and Mary apparently had visionary experiences of a risen Jesus.[27] Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. The original Mark reports Jesus' empty tomb, and the later Gospels and later endings to Mark narrate various resurrection appearances.
The two oldest manuscripts (4th century) of Mark, the earliest Gospel, break off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid". (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) was added only later, and the hypothetical original ending was lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "In the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[90] E.P. Sanders argues for the difficulty to accuse the early witnesses of any deliberate fraud:
It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.
—[91]
Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question.[92] What is agreed upon is that Jesus' followers at the very least claimed they saw the risen Jesus.[citation needed]

[edit] Quest for the historical Jesus
Main article: Quest for the historical Jesus
Traditionally, Western scholars considered the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be authoritative and inspired by God, but starting in the late 1700s scholars began to submit the Gospels to historical scrutiny. From 1744 to 1767, Hermann Samuel Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but did not publish his findings.[93] Gotthold Lessing published Reimarus's conclusions in the Wolfenbuettel fragments.[1] D.F.Strauss's biography of Jesus set Gospel criticism on its modern course.[1] Strauss explained gospel miracles as natural events misunderstood and misrepresented.[94] Joseph Renan was the first of many to portray Jesus simply as a human person.[1] Albrecht Ritschl had reservations about this project, but it became central to liberal Protestantism in Germany and to the Social Gospel movement in America.[1] Martin Kaehler protested, arguing that the true Christ is the one preached by the whole Bible, not a historical hypothesis.[1] William Wrede questioned the historical reliability of Mark.[1] Albert Schweitzer showed how histories of Jesus had reflected the historians' bias.[1] Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann repudiated the quest for historical Jesus, suppressing any real interest in the topic from c 1920 to c 1970.[58] There was a brief New Quest movement in the 50s.[1] Today, historical efforts to construct a biography of Jesus are as strong as ever.[1]

[edit] Criticism of reconstructing a historical Jesus
Critics variously attack the historical reconstruction of Jesus as either a monumental distortion of Jesus' true identity or as ascribing historical status to a fictional character.

[edit] Christian criticism
In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis had a demon explain: "The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true".[95] Professor C. Stephen Evans[96] writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".[97]

[edit] Criticism as myth
Main article: Jesus myth hypothesis
Some writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells, and Robert M. Price[98] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the Gospels to reconstruct his life give the Gospels too much credit. This position, popularised by popular works such as the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Bible scholars.[99][100][101][102] In later years, especially with the arrival of the Internet, Bible scholars were put to doubt and accused of intellectual dishonesty by critics.[103][104][105]