241 227
242 228
243 229
244 230
245 231
246 232
247 233
248 234
249 235
250 236
251 237
252 238
253 239
254 240
255 241
256 242
257 243
258 244
259 245
260 246
261 247
262 248
263 249
264 250
265 251
266 252
267 253
268 254
269 255
270 256
271 257
272 258
273 259
274 260
275 261
276 262
277 263
278 264
279 265
280 266
281 267
282 268
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks so much for their help and patience to my husband Jim, my daughter Rachael (and PJ), and my grandchildren, Madison, John, and Wyatt. And a special thanks to Benjamin Davis Gordon, PhD, colleague and source, for helping me understand Second Temple Judaism.
PREFACE
The phrase “the Quest for the Historical Jesus” has become popular through hundreds of new books. If you subscribe to cable you will find documentaries on History, Discovery, Smithsonian, and National Geographic Channels. New archaeological discoveries often make headlines (especially those in the Galilee), and “deconstructionist histories” are often designed to shock.
For many lay Christians, a new fascination with the study of Jesus is confusing. We have the gospels, the letters of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament that told the story. And these stories are re-enacted in the liturgy at Christmas and Easter. Priests and ministers are trained in Seminaries to elucidate the “meaning” of the texts, updating them for modern Christians. Why does any of this need “revision?” And what is meant by “the historical Jesus?” Is he different from the Jesus of the New Testament?
The simple answer is “yes,” if we mean that the Jesus who was an apocalyptic prophet in the first century is different from the “Christ” of the churches (divine) and eventually the second member of “The Trinity,” co-equal with God (325 ce). Centuries of later Christian Theology and traditions are constantly read back into the gospels, where they are historically out of place. For example, Jesus was not the founder of Christianity; all our evidence demonstrates that he and his early followers were not interested in starting a new religion. Jesus was not “the first Christian.”
This surprises most people. In the first century, there was no such thing as “Christianity” as a separate religious system. It was only formulated in the second century when Christian leaders known as the Church Fathers argued for a different system from Judaism. The term “Christian” (a follower of Christ) only appears a few times in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, written toward the end of the first century. It is not his preferred term. He most often refers to believers as “followers of the way,” or “brothers” (as does Paul in his letters). Scholars of the New Testament refer to these people as “Christians” to distinguish them from other Jewish groups at the time (and it is simply convenient).
The other surprising aspect of the gospels is that they all present four different portraits of Jesus and what he was doing. We combine Matthew and Luke together under the Christmas tree although the two nativity stories are vastly different. The great Hollywood productions of the 1950s and 1960s of “Jesus” movies did the same by picking and choosing various parts of the gospels and presenting one huge epic. Most Hollywood productions preferred Luke’s Jesus, but often added John’s speeches.
As we will see, each of the four gospels has a defined historical context. As events and issues in the communities of his followers changed over time, their “story” of Jesus changed as well.
Jesus the Jew
There is probably no other element that motivates newer approaches to the study of Jesus more than the rediscovery of “Jesus the Jew” that occurred in the past 100 years or so. We say “rediscovery,” because everyone in the first century knew this. The ethnic and religious background of Jesus became buried in the centuries of Christian tradition and teaching. The rediscovery has resulted in a newfound importance for understanding Jews and Judaism in the time of Jesus. This period was known for the emergence of various sects of Jews. What kind of Jew was Jesus?
At the same time, “Jesus the Jew” remains the focus of post-Holocaust studies. A central tenet of Christianity is found in Mark’s story of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. The origins of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism began with this story (blaming the Jews for the crucifixion), and it still resonates in the modern world.
Origins
The purpose of this book is to introduce lay readers (whether Christians or participants in other religious and nonreligious systems) to the origins of the movement that became Christianity. It can also serve as a secondary text for academic courses in the origins of Christianity. The study of “origins” is crucially important, not only to study the past, but to understand what gave rise to concepts and beliefs that remain a major aspect of our modern heritage. Many Christians learn the ritual formulas, but without the historical background of what gave rise to those formulas.
Although some Christians believe that Christianity was simply “revealed,” it did not arise in a vacuum. The immediate historical context is Second Temple Judaism (c. 450 bce – 70 ce) in the province of Judea in the Roman Empire with its cultural inclusion of Greco-Roman society. An exploration of the people and societies at that time elucidates the contribution of both in the origins of the movement.
The analysis of the ancient world relies on primary documents when available – the literature that was produced at the time. In the study of the origins of Christianity, the primary documents