13. The Historical Jesus

Well, we have already talked about the problems of the

historical

use of these texts, if you remember at the beginning of the semester we talked about Galatians 1 and 2 and Acts and we tried to compare exactly when Paul went and where with respect to Jerusalem Damascus Antioch and we saw that it is very , very difficult to harmonize Galatians 1 and 2 with the account of Acts and Paul's movements through Jerusalem. We also have many other situations where this would be very difficult. I mentioned the difference between Matthew and Luke regarding the birth. narratives according to just trying to figure out how this would work if you took the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, it would be very, very difficult to figure out

historical

ly what happened, so, for example, if you take just Matthew, as I said before his la family seems to just be in Bethlehem it doesn't say they are from Galilee it doesn't say they are originally from Nazareth they are just in Bethlehem and they are in Bethlehem long before Jesus was born because the wise men in the east see the star and it takes them enough time to travel from Persia, we are supposed to understand from the narrative because they are called Magi and those are wise men from Persia to Jerusalem, they meet King Herod the Great.

He has his wise men consult and then they find out that they are supposed to go to Bethlehem, they travel to Bethlehem and then they arrive there shortly after the birth of Jesus, so, according to Matthew, you don't have time. in fact, in Matthew's narrative for the entire narrative of the transfer from Nazareth to Bethlehem that appears in the Gospel of Luke, you just don't have time in Matthew, they are just there and then the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him. says to Herod. he's going to kill all the babies so Joseph takes the family they move to Egypt for a while he has another dream years later how many years who knows but he says Herod the Great is already dead so they go back they start going back to Bethlehem because he says That's their home, right, they come home, they're going to Bethlehem, instead they move to Galilee to avoid Herod's son, who according to Matthew is ruling in Judea, that's the kind of narrative that tells you. comes to Lucas, it's very different there. from Nazareth, which is a kind of hometown of Mary, is Nazareth, Jesus' entire pregnancy takes place with Mary and Nazareth, he even goes to Judea to visit his cousin Elizabeth, who is the mother of John the Baptist according to the Gospel of Lucas, and then returns. to Nazareth and then it is according to this census the world census that they go to Bethlehem and that is why they are in Bethlehem in the stable because you don't have a stable in Matthew, it can simply be in a home or according to a In many traditions, Jesus was, There was a cave somewhere and Jesus was born in it, but in Luke the whole story is found, but the Christmas journey, but the stable in which Jesus is born because in the end there is no place, they stay at that. area for a month we know that because it says that they first circumcise Jesus on the eighth day after his birth and at the time of purification it is carried out according to Leviticus, which lasts about a month that they take to use for the presentation in the temple. in Jerusalem and it is after that, about a month after his birth, that they then move back to Nazareth.

Now there's no way you can basically make these two narratives fit together in a historically respectable way. Does that mean no one has tried to do it? No, of course, there are all kinds of very, very intelligent fundamentalists who believe that the New Testament has to be accurate in every historical and scientific detail or they believe that it is not, it cannot be Scripture and they will find some way to try to make sure. that both narratives can fit, but what I'm telling you is that no reputable historian will accept this because you simply have to manipulate these things too much, you have to manipulate the data, so what do most of us believe about the birth of Jesus? we think we know nothing about the birth of Jesus all the Christmas stories are later traditions probably the only thing most of us would say is that Jesus was probably from Nazareth his family was just from Nazareth because his name is Jesus of Nazareth and the traditions that they brought him to Bethlehem for his birth are probably later pietistic traditions that Matthew and Luke developed later for different reasons, but for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for the fulfillment of prophecy, so if we take the births of Jesus' birth as in Luke and Matthew, from a historical point of view it's really impossible to harmonize them without finding fantastic, incredible conjugations of Jesus coming and going to Egypt in the Holy Family and all this kind of stuff that we get.

There are many other types of things about this as well. What are some obvious historical problems with a historical Jesus? Well, one of the things is the trial of Jesus. There are different versions of the trial of Jesus in the Gospels and unfortunately, basically, most scholars will say that We don't really know what happened with the trial of Jesus, we don't even know for sure if there was any kind of official trial, it may have been that They just arrested him in the middle of the night, he was right at that moment. I gave permission to be crucified and he was crucified the next day.

That would be the sensible way to do things that weren't necessary. The Romans did not need elaborate evidence to crucify the Jews who were troublemakers in the first century. They did it all the time, but if you look at some of the details of the trial, notice how they are very different. mark 14, get out your Bibles today, we're talking about the historical Jesus, but I'm not going to tell you just what. I believe or what scholars believe about the historical Jesus. I'm going to try to show you why scholars come up with ideas that we have, how we get there, what our method is for arriving at discussions about the historical Jesus, so look at Mark 14, verse 53. evils brought Jesus before the high priest and all the chief priests gathered together the elders and the scribes Peter had followed him from afar to the courtyard of the high priest and he was sitting with the guards warming themselves by the fire now the chief priests and the entire council sought testimony against Jesus to kill him but they did not find any because many gave false testimony against him and their testimony did not agree some rose up and gave false testimony against him saying we had heard him say I will destroy this temple that is made by hands and in three days I will build another that is not made by hand, but even on this point their testimonies did not agree so the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, you have no answer, what is it? who testify against you but he remained silent and did not answer any more.

The high priest asked him, are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed Jesus? He said, I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven. it's a quote from Daniel, so Jesus basically says "I am" and then quotes Daniel and then says that the high priest accused him of prophecy and then looks at chapter 15 at the beginning of chapter 15 as soon as the chief dawned. The priests consulted with the elders and the scribes and the whole council bound him. Jesus took him and handed him over to Pilate.

Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He answered what you say, then the chief priests accused him of many things. Pilate asked me again: Don't you have an answer? Look how many charges they bring against you, but Jesus did not answer, so Pilate was amazed. He now notices everything Jesus says at his trial. According to the oldest of our written testimonies: I am and a quote. from the Scriptures in one moment and then you say that and the next trial for Pilate now compares that with what happens in the Gospel of John. I mentioned this a little in my lecture on the Gospel of John how its narrative details are very different from the synoptics.

Gospels one of the places where this is really different is the judgment of Jesus John 18 verse 19 I'm not going to read all of this because it's too long. This is part of what is interesting is that the trial of Jesus continues. For a long time in the Gospel of John the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples about his teachings Jesus responded I have spoken openly to the world I have always taught in the synagogues in the temple where all the Jews gather I have not said anything in secret Why what are you asking me now?

Jesus has said many more things now than he said in the other gospels at his trial, but then he continues. He said a few more things when he said this. One of the police officers who were nearby hit Jesus. The thing is that how you respond to the high priest Jesus responded if I have spoken evil he testified of evil but if I have spoken well why are you hitting me then an ascendant linked to Caiaphas the high priest like this according to John Anna and Caiaphas or relatives and both are members of the high priestly family, so you can go on and on in verse 28, 28, it's the tribal because they took Jesus to Pilate.

Pilate went out into the street and asked: what accusation do you bring against this man? The answer to this man was not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you. Pilate told them to take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. The Jews responded that we are not allowed blah-blah-blah-blah-blah Pilate talks to Jesus Are you the King of the Jews Jesus answered questions this on your own there is no or others told you about Pilate said I am not a Jew I am your own nation of the chief priests handed you over to me what do you have? fact

jesus

said My kingdom is

jesus

has a whole conversation with Pilate that leads to that wonderfully quotable phrase that everyone knows where finally Jesus speaks the truth and Pilate says in a phrase that could be sincere or many people responded as cynical What is the TRUE?

A very famous quote from the Gospel of John and then of course there is a whole passage in Have You Seen Jesus Christ Superstar, the play or the movie? There's a whole scene where Herod, he's actually the son of Herod the Great now, but there's a trial before Herod also in the Gospel of John, not really in Mark, but in the Gospel of John you have this whole trial before Herod. and of course in Jesus Christ Superstar, this is when Herod dances on this raft and has backup singers. and everyone does this so you're the Christ, you're the great Jesus Christ, you know, prove to me you're not a fool, cross my pool and all that kind of stuff, so there's a whole scene and Jesus Christ Superstar, everything This scene wouldn't be possible without the Gospel of John because it is not in the other Gospels, so this is a famous scene, everything that is different in John, so what is historical?

How do scholars decide that you have these very different ones? Jesus was completely silent at his trial as it appears to be in the Gospel of Mark, did he not offer any reason for what he did or did he have theological and philosophical discussions with Pilate about his message? What is historical? In that case, basically, most historians will say that none of it is historical. You can't be sure that any of the things from the judgment would be historical, on the one hand we just have these differences, but there is a very uninteresting piece of evidence about this, according to all the Gospels, where were the disciples after Jesus was arrested?

Does anyone remember? The gospels say that the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, so maybe, according to some traditions, according to these divisions, maybe Peter was there in a courtyard away from the judgment, but none of Jesus' disciples would have done it. They would have been allowed to be present at any trial, whether of their high priest or Pilate. They would not have been allowed to enter. These were peasants from Galilee. They are fishermen. They don't walk to the pilots' headquarters. So who would have been there to There are no stenographers in the ancient world who sat down to take notes of these trials.

There are no court records. There are no journalists. There was no one there that the Christians would later have access to in order to find out what happened at the trial. According to most historians, we simply say that this whole trial thing was largely invented by later Christians, because they thought you had to have a trial if you wanted to condemn Jesus and then they realized what would have happened these writers. from the gospels or maybe they're using traditions that developed before them, they're using traditions that developed because people just say right what would have happened at Jesus' trial, what probably would have happened and then they make up that probability and do it.

They put it into history now, so we have a couple of different situations where we historians are very, very skeptical about some of the basic aspects of the Gospel accounts in terms of what they tell us about the Jesus. historical, the birth narratives, we just raise our hands. pants before Pilate no, probably none of this rises to the level of the story, but this leads to a couple of different problems, the first one we talked about is so what? and I say this because once he arrives, critical scholars start talking about the historical Jesus. We immediately start to fall into sand traps, on the one hand, we have good Christians who are a little conflicted, a little afraid that if you start questioning the historical reliability of the Gospels, then you are going to undermine every aspect of the Christian faith.

If the birth narratives are not what they say they are in the Gospels, then,how can you trust any of that to be true? and if none of that is true, how do you even know that Jesus really existed or even if he existed? I know that he was not a liar or a magician or just a vagabond as you know and if that is true, why have faith, why not just give up everything. On the one hand, we have Christians who are very threatened by the use of typical historical tools about the Gospels and the very question of the historical Jesus, on the other hand, we have just noticed that many people who are anti-Christian and want to grab onto this and say AHA How reputable scholars like Dale Martin Wolsey, professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, point out that not everything in the Gospels is reliable history, well, that means that's it. a lot of nonsense and all the Christians in the world base their faith on things that scholars know are lies, well that's not exactly right either, is it like that on both sides, but on both sides there are some people who say who holds on to anything?

One kind of idea is that historians would say that these are the discrepancies in the Gospels or that these are places where we have no historical evidence to support us and they want to continue with that precisely to impunize the faith of Christians now. scholars have to be very careful about what we basically mean, there were actually one or two scholars in the 19th century, reputable scholars, bruno bauer was one of them, a german scholar who denied that Jesus ever existed, he just said that It was everything, even the person. of Jesus was a myth created by the church and every once in a while you will find someone on what you know and on the web or the Internet or something or on some crazy blog you know saying that Jesus never existed, but they are all accredited historical scholars. admitting that jesus of nazareth existed there was a man there jesus of nazareth there is too much evidence that he existed and it is simply not controversial when it comes to reliable historical evidence but that is a big difference between saying yes we believe he existed and there are some things What we think we can say about him too, accepting all the gospel materials is reliable, so scholars are basically stuck in the middle of saying we believe there was a Jesus of Nazareth, we think we could even say some things as historians about him. he. who he was, what he said, what he did, why he might have been executed and that kind of thing, but that means we have to use critical historical tools to analyze these faith-based texts, these theological texts, what they actually are. , in some cases, mythological texts that we read. theological texts to try to discover what we can say historically and that leads to the other topic.

I keep saying the historical Jesus because a lot of people have the idea that once I give you the historical Jesus, then you have the real Jesus. you have Jesus as he really was and thought of Jesus as he really is now. The problem with that is that theologians and I get to put on my historical hat most of the time because I actually have a job as a historian. I don't really have a job as a theologian, so I sometimes call myself a theology buff, but if I want to put on my amateur theologian hat, I can explain to you why the historical Jesus is not a very good basis for the Christian faith. it is not reliable as a foundation of the Christian faith it is not sufficient as a foundation of the Christian faith the theological Jesus the Jesus of the Christian confession is not the historical Jesus the Jesus of the theological confession is the Jesus who coincides with what the church has believed traditionally about Jesus for example, Jesus who matches the Creed is a Jesus who matches the Christian confession of Shen, so one of the most important things for the Christian confession, for example, is free, would you lose your faith if you put a point?

If you believe that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, most Christians will probably say well, no, that's not really that important. What is most central to most Christians about the Christian faith? Do you believe that somehow God was in Jesus Christ reconciling the world to himself, to quote the apostle Paul, or do you believe that Jesus Christ is divine? Do you believe Jesus is God? Do you believe that Jesus is God incarnate in the flesh? That is a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith for most Christians, but note that it is not something that historians can pronounce one way or another on.

There is no possible way for me to practice history. The normal historiographical tools of history could tell you if God was in Jesus Christ, is he there? I mean, just think about it, how would he prove it? How would he solve it? What would count is a positive test. Which would count as a non-convertible negative truth. There is no such thing, so when I talk about the historical Jesus I have to overcome several obstacles, one of the obstacles is trying to show you that the historical Jesus is a construction made by historians who practice the typical craft of modern historians, it is like for example, If I say what the historical Socrates is, we do not have direct access to Socrates.

Socrates left no writings. All we know about Socrates are many of the things that Plato and his disciples said about him or Zenit in another. of his disciples said about him and some other things and you know what Plato and Xenophon do not give the same image of Socrates, so finding out who the historical Socrates is is also a difficult historical question that historians debate about, so that It's the One thing is just to use typical historical data, so, for example, if I say we're going to talk about George Washington and we're going to talk about the George Washington who hid from history the judgments that historians will make, that's a different George. .

Washington then say, let's talk about the George Washington of American popular piety the George Washington of American popular piety threw a dollar across the Potomac no historian believes that George Washington threw a dollar across the Potomac, at least not at Mount Vernon If you've been to Mount Vernon you know it's a superhuman feat, historians know American popular piety. George Washington is a boy who cut down the cherry tree and when his father approached me he told me: I can't lie, father, it's me, that's a George Washington. from American folklore and it's important to know about that about George Washington, no historian believes that George Washington is a child, he actually logged the land and that happened and that happened, and mainly because we find the preacher who made up the story for a sermon .

It was a good point for the sermon. Remember my motto. What is the motto of the school day? Omni Blues beats strong, especially when you listen to preachers or teachers. So, the historical Jesus is not the same as the theological Jesus. That is a point to keep in mind. remember another, this is another theoretical question and this is very confusing for some people when you start to think about it, we often use the word history in two different ways in common English, we often use the word history to simply refer to things in the past, so for example, the Civil War is historical, that just means it happened in the past, that's one way we do our history, but it's a bit of a sloppy way because if I want to say the history of the Civil War, actually I'm not talking in that case about the entire Civil War, a historical account of the Civil War is something that is a narrative that will be constructed by a historian to represent a story about what happened in the past, but it cannot replicate the past, right?

In the Civil War, you would have to have the full four years, wasn't it four years? No matter how long it took to fight the Civil War, you would have to have the time because every little detail, every action, every person, every word, every letter, everything. said that every little battle every ant that crawled over a decomposing corpse is part of the past of the Civil War that is not the history of the Civil War that is the Civil War as it happened in the past the history of the Civil War is an account of anything that has happened in the past that a historian constructs and then tells you.

When we use the word history in that more professional sense, we're not talking about the past, we're talking about an account of the past, so often philosophers of history like to separate these two words and they will use the word past for the event that occurred in the past they will use the word story for an account of the event that occurred in the past now look at what that means, stories are accessible to us right, you can go to the store and buy a Civil War story, you can buy a story of George Washington and you can buy a story of Jesus Christ, does the Civil War story you buy at the store give you the Civil War?

No, it gives you an account of the Civil War. The real Civil War is radically inaccessible to you. It is inaccessible. You can't understand it. Think about this. How would you actually recover the real past of the Civil War? How would you do it? You can't time travel like on TV, let's say hypothetically the Civil War exists somewhere in space where the light it emitted is still flying somewhere in the universe and if you could fly faster than the speed of light. As for that, you could actually experience the Civil War as it happened, perhaps in theory, but for any of us sitting here in this room that is not possible.

In other words, this is a radical thought for some people, but the past no longer exists. for you and me the past has radically disappeared it does not exist as far as our experiences are concerned all we can experience are different accounts of the past we can experience different constructions of the past we cannot experience the past itself it is gone it is lost we to always that means that the historical Jesus as Jesus really existed in history is inaccessible to you you will not find him you cannot find him you will never find him what you can do is use the trades that the tricks of the trade of modern historiography you can If you follow the rules of modern historiography, you will be able to construct a historical Jesus, that is, a Jesus of Nazareth, constructed using the same type of historical tools that historians would use to construct the historical George Washington, the historical Socrates, the historical Plato, the historical Abraham Lincoln. , that's a However, those theoretical points are very important because when I talk about the historical Jesus you can't think like most people think that what I'm talking about is the real Jesus, the Jesus as he really was or certainly not the Jesus of the Christian faith.

What I am giving you is an account of Jesus that modern historians construct using the typical tools of modern historiography. There is a lot of theoretical philosophy of history that I tried to summarize and in simple language. Are there any questions or comments about this before we begin? However, continuing with all of that is necessary because people, especially when they turn to objects of faith, start asking historical questions, people's minds start to turn to clay, right now, let's jump right into what we could say about the Historical Jesus as historians of today. I can't give you everything if you want everything: all the answers to life, well, I'm not going to give you cooking recipes and that kind of thing if you want all the answers to the historical things about Jesus as they come from the expert. moi, you can take my seminar in the fall that I will teach on the historical Jesus for a whole semester just on the question of the historical Jesus, so I will do that in the fall.

I will give you in the next 20 minutes a small version of the results. I'll show you some of the results I would say about the historical Jesus and I would also say that Bart Ehrman, the author of your textbook, will agree with most of this in his chapter in your textbook if you want more of that Bart Ehrman has a book on the historical Jesus called I Think He's Called Jesus of Nazareth or Apocalyptic Prophet of a New Millennium it's also published by Oxford with a presence of several years but he and I agree on a large To what extent is this about kind of stuff, so if you want more of this, you can check out Bart's book and he'll pretty much agree with a lot of the things I'm going to say, or you can attend my seminar next fall, so here's some stuff on the ones that I think we can agree on most historians could agree on the historical Jesus and then I'll tell you how we got there so we're going to talk about the first fruits and the results and then some methodology first the sign on the cross Does anyone remember what the sign on the cross says when Jesus is crucified? sorry, repeat it Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews someone else you said no lies here but there is a verse that says this is another Jesus and it is because the four different Gospels have a slightly different wording, but they all have some version of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, which is why you sometimes see this abbreviated from the Latin rite if you've seen it in churches INRI, have you ever seen that on a cross? or something like that in a church Jace of Nazareth in Latin rex king your Dome of the Jews so notice thatalthough it's a little different let's look if you have your Bibles it's the mark 15 26 if you have a parallel version through I I'm going to look at Throckmorton because it has synoptic parallels in paragraph 249 of Throckmorton, but someone put their finger on Mark 15 26, too It is Matthew 27 37, it is also Luke 23 38 and it is also John 19 19, now in Mark 15 26 it says. the inscription of the charge against him said King of the Jews, that's all, then he continues with this look right next to Matthews as on his head they put the charge Mercy, this is Jesus, the King of the Jews, so it's slightly different Luke 23 what it says 38 there is uh, there was also an inscription about him this is the King of the Jews and who has the version of John John 19 19 did anyone put their finger on John 19 19 Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews And doesn't it say in John that it was in different languages ​​or am I forgetting that it's correct, Hebrew, Latin and Greek in the Gospel of John, so that's what we have, one of the things that most scholars will say is What do we think is historical?

And why do we think it is historical? Well, for starters, it comes from at least two independent sources. What are the two independent sources it comes from? It's in the four gospels, but the four gospels are not independent sources, right? Because we believe. that Matthew and Luke used the mark, so if Matthew and Luke copied it from Mark, that makes the mark a source, did the author of John use the Gospel of Mark not according to the theory we are using in this class? Some people might say yes, some scholars might say yes, but in this class we are going to follow the theory that the Gospel of John probably did not use Mark as one of its sources, so you have the Gospel of John as a source for this.

You have the Gospel of Mark. there is another source for this, so you have two that scholars are willing to treat as independent sources, both of which have this nice little tidbit: Dedham is there now. The other thing is that it might be interesting to pair him up so he knows King of the. Jews is not a Christological title that early Christians used about Jesus. Remember that in the Gospels we have seen and we have seen many different titles for Jesus, he is the teacher, he is the son of God, he is the Messiah, he is the Holy One of Israel.

I just saw that he has many things and these things are obviously things, the Christians called him Lord, they called him the son of God but they did not call him King of the Jews, it was one of the titles of Jesus that apparently are the first followers of Jesus didn't hold on to that, so we don't see it in Paul's letters and we don't see it anywhere else in the Gospels, so what scholars have said is look at this thing the King of the Jews doesn't do. It does not seem like a Christological confessional title that Christians invented and then put in the gospel, it goes against the tendency of Christian writers themselves because it is not one of their titles if they had said this is Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord of heaven and of the earth, then.

Scholars would say well, that sounds like a Christian confession, but saying Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, doesn't sound like a Christian confession, so it goes against the trend of the writers themselves and we say, well, maybe so be historical, maybe it's a little glimpse. of history sitting there, so that's one thing that the sign on the cross, most scholars say it's historical, now they talk about why it's important, it's a very small detail, but it could be very important, yeah , sir, could you have exactly, in other words, in the Sun the The question was: did not this come from the mocking terms at the trial?

That's exactly right for Christians, if you notice, it's the people who mock Jesus who call him King of the Jews, so how come you know this isn't something Christian writers want? make up and then include exactly the story that supports that point, so it's a nice little touch. Another thing that scholars often say may well be historical. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Now notice why scholars would say this is historic. There is no complete agreement on how it happened. The Gospel of John doesn't exactly tell you about Jesus' baptism by John, but it has Jesus and his disciples also baptized in the Jordan and it has Jesus very connected to John the Baptist.

At the beginning of the gospel, the other gospels have Jesus baptized by John, but notice how the story progresses. All the writers that have the Gospel of John, that have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist, they have Jesus come to John the Baptist and they say I want to be baptized and John Bettis says oh no, I shouldn't baptize you you're the Big Kahuna you're more great that I you should know that I'm not worthy to untie your sandals so I should be baptized by you you shouldn't I should be baptized and Jesus says no no it's not okay baptize me and so he does and then you have the confession and the voice from heaven and that guy of things look what is happening here the gospel writers are very concerned because they know that John baptizing Jesus could be interpreted as making John superior to Jesus and making Jesus a disciple of John and they are not comfortable with that because They, of course, believe that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore superior to John the Baptist and John the Baptist was only a prophet or a forerunner of Jesus, so the story is told to downplay this baptism a little and make Jesus insist on baptism and want to do it for the right reasons, but doing Jesus was a disciple of John and also this tradition about the baptism of Jesus is found in different sources and in different ways, so again the scholars They say that the baptism of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus does not seem like something that the early Christians would invent, in fact, it may even be Let's see that they try to tone down its implications so that it is not something that they would probably invent, it goes against their tradition of resurrect Jesus completely and therefore may be historical.

Notice what we have, so we have two very small ones. Details that many scholars would say are probably historical because they seem to be attested by more than one source and also seem to go against the theological trend of the documents in which the gospel of Jesus' baptism is found and framed. of Jesus the beginning of his ministry and the carrying on the cross at the end of his ministry and now I'm going to support those two events, let's just say that I'm going to argue that those two are certain historical events in the life of Jesus and then we'll fill in some of the other details later, but now let's talk about the method, how I got here, first method, first little rule, and this is something that many people use when researching the story of Jesus.

It took the entire 20th century for people to develop these rules and explain them in detail in studies, but this is where we are now at the first rule of multiple attestation, that is, when you have more than one independent source that has a saying. or an event about Jesus, now you tend to give it a little more weight, of course, which are independent sources? If you have something in Matthew and Luke that doesn't count as two independent sources, because both Matthew and Luke could have gotten it from Mark. or they could have gotten it from Q, but if you have something in Mark and something in John, well, those are two independent sources, if you also have something in the Gospel of Thomas, then most of us scholars would say they have something.

People say that the Gospel of Thomas may have known the other Gospels, but most of us would say that we are going to treat it as an independent source because it does not quote verbatim from the other Gospels most of the time, so if you have an event or One can say that this happens in Mark and John and Q is in Thomas, those are three independent sources, what if it also happens in Paul's letters? Oh, there is another independent source and I also see that there are some places where Paul gives us a little clue about something and then obviously you can take Q as one of those sources, so if something is in both Matthew and Luke, but not is on the mark, you can say it's on Q and sometimes people would even say you have a form of parabola that seems to have occurred in Q and you have a different form of that parable that appears to have occurred in Mark and then you can say , okay, we have this parable in two separate sources, one is Q and the other is Mark, but that's a little complicated because of course. the very definition of what is in Q is something that is in both Matthew and Luke, but usually not in Mark, but if something is in more than one source, it fits this criterion.

Now remember that the criterion is a plural criterion is a singular. Okay, second. Actually, let me illustrate it. This again is one of the things that the sign of the Cross is one of the things because it has the sayings of divorce it is another situation according to Mark 10 and Matthew 19 you have this saying what God has joined together let no man separate and then I have some others things clearly: Jesus in this passage is teaching no divorce for his disciples there is no divorce at all and no point against the rule of getting divorced, but then Matthew 5:32 has a parallel with Luke 16:18 which makes it seem like a line. source and which has this wording vert: every man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from her husband commits adultery in other words, there is another teaching about divorce here , which also prohibit divorce and remarriage, but it is not the same wording as in Mark, so scholars say it looks like a sign about divorce in which Jesus still prohibits divorce and remarriage, but not it's the same wording as Mark's saying so we have two separate sayings in different words but both have Jesus forbidding divorce and at least divorce and remarriage one in question 1 in Mark two independent sources is really interesting, then we find that Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10 to 11 says this, so this is Paul, a quote from Paul for those who are married.

I order him to be Paul and then he says not I but the Lord, ah, so Paul even knows that he is quoting a saying of the Lord Jesus, so he goes on to say that a woman should not separate from her husband, if she really separates, let her stay. unmarried or reconcile with her husband and a man should not put away his wife now most of us believe that is Paul's wording because you can see the way he is manipulating some of the details of it but at least Paul gives a testimony. that he knows of a saying against divorce by Jesus also three separate independent witnesses that Jesus taught against divorce one from Mark that Matthew copies one from Q that both Matthew and Luke have and one from Paul so that it passes the rule of multiple testimony station but also passes the next rule which is dissimilarity when you find something in a source (a kinky Christian source) that seems to go against the very inclinations of that source or of early Christianity;

It is more likely to be something historical than to swim against the grain of the early Christian expectation now, what divorce says, is multiplied, witnessed, and also passes the difference because almost all of these authors, except Mark, both seem to know that Jesus forbade divorce completely, but then they modify the rule a little bit because I. I mean, let's face it, people get divorced, the early Christians got divorced, so Paul says okay, well, you're a good job too, but if you get divorced, then you need to do this so that the writers who convey a saying against divorce also modify the saying just a little. little that shows that the saying is more radical than their own ethics, in other words, the saying against divorce is different from the very practices of these first Christians, it is more radical than what they themselves practiced and that is a clue of that what they say says in itself.

Let's go back to the historical Jesus according to this method, so dissimilarity is any kind of thing that does not conform to early Christian tendencies. the sign on the cross that he had talked about, which was not a confession of Jesus, the baptism of John, is not something that they probably would have invented that there is another sword with which Jesus was arrested and according to Mark 1447 and Matthew followed him and Luke someone had a sword when Jesus was arrested in the garden and someone used it according to different traditions, it was Peter according to John and someone did there, no name, someone removed the exaggeration from the ear of the slave high priest, but there are these different stories about Jesus, someone in Jesus' entourage was armed and in some of the sources, one of the sources, there are two of them there. they are two swords others are one sword now I think this is historical why because all the Gospel writers want to go out of their way to say that Jesus was not mounting a violent revolution he was not a criminal he was not this was not a armed rebellion he is completely innocent of any political charge of insurrection, but if Paul, if the disciples of Jesus were armed with swords at his arrest in the middle of the night at Passover in Jerusalem, that is insurrection, friends, the Romans did not allow that the Jews walkedout there in the middle of the night. and gardens carrying swords so that a Jew would be armed at Passover, an especially dangerous time that greatly worried the Romans that a Jew would be armed following a guy who some people said was the King of the Jews, so they may be arrested.

They can crucify you for it, so I don't think the early Christians invented it. I think some of these other Christians knew that at least one and possibly more of Jesus' disciples were armed at the time of his arrest, so that's another reason I see that, because it's not something they would make up. In fact, it goes against its trend. There is another passage mark 10:18 mark 10:18 which is also in luke 18 19 you may have come across this, the man comes and asks Jesus what should I do to have eternal life what is the good thing I can do and Jesus says why are you calling why are you asking me about the good there is no one good but God now apparently marks scripture that didn't have any theological setbacks but now let me know I'm a good Episcopalian, why should you ask Jesus about the good God?

He is the only one who is good. It sounds weird, if Jesus is actually God, then you wouldn't say it like that. In other words, this sounds like whoever it says sounds like Jesus. he himself is denying that he is God don't ask me about good the only one who knows about good is God and then Jesus continues that is the question I think this saying was actually something like what the historical Jesus said why because the first followers of Jesus believed that Jesus was God in some sense, I don't think this is something they would make up, it goes against their confession, it goes against their theology, so it's one of those cases where it's different than their faith and, therefore, us.

They tend to give it a higher rating when it comes to historic city. A couple more criteria are a little weaker. These are the two strongest social coherence. This is when you say you see something that is anachronistic and doesn't seem to fit. with the life of Jesus or fits very well with the life of Jesus if I decide, for example, on many other different sayings that I have decided are historical because of these other reasons and then something that looks like a saying of Jesus seems to be apocalyptic and I have already established that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet so I am going to say well, it is consistent with the social situation of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet in Galilee or take a negative example in Matthew 18, there are many rules about what to do in the church uses the same word church almost all of us scholars would say many of those things in Matthew 18 about the church the church governs the leadership of the church that is not historical why because the church did not exist in life of Jesus Jesus sounds like he's giving rules and a constitution for a church, but we think that's anachronistic.

The church is something that developed after the death of Jesus when his followers came to believe that he had risen from the dead and that they should then continue. doing things in his name but in Jesus' own life traveling through Galilee talking about now when you have church you should meet on Sundays I think for Easter you should wear white you know Jesus didn't do these kinds of things so that everyone Those things in Matthew 18 that look very similar to a later church life we ​​believe were read in the life of Jesus by the author of Matthew or other people and then the last thing is that the last criterion is quite weak, it is called coherent of coherence. and this basically says that if you establish that something is being historical about Jesus by these other stronger criteria and then something else seems consistent with that, then you can throw it in the trash, but it's a very lazy kind of criteria to use in historical situations. purposes now, so where are we?

That is the methodology if we are going to propose some basic ideas about Jesus, this is where I would say he would end up and there is some of this, it is very controversial, although I would say that Jesus was an apocalyptic. prophet an apocalyptic Jewish prophet one of the reasons Jesus' life was framed by two apocalyptic events if Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and John the Baptist clearly appears to have been preaching some kind of apocalyptic message about the coming kingdom that means I believe Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist, although later Gospel writers downplayed that.

If Jesus was a follower of an apocalyptic Jewish prophet, I think that at least means that the beginning of his own ministry was wrapped up in that kind of apocalyptic Jewish prophecy. of the world and was executed on a charge of sedition for being the King of the Jews against the law, only the Roman Senate could make kings and if Jesus was going around claiming and I'm not saying he was claiming, but if other people were claiming that he was a King of the Jews the only way to understand that I think in this situation is that he believed he was going to be the Messiah who would come at the end of time and overthrow the Romans so his death was also apocalyptic.

From the temple incident, we could talk about where Jesus came in, he drove out the money changers and cleansed the temple, as he says. I think that's historic, it goes against the tendency of the Gospels to portray Jesus as non-violent and non-confrontational in that last week. I think he therefore he did it, what does it mean? I think if this is more debatable, I think it was a prophecy meant to enact what he saw coming: God's future destruction of the temple in some kind of apocalyptic event at the end of This Time I Believe Jesus Was There for a Peasant Lower-class Jew who spoke mainly Aramaic.

I think he had a disciple group of 12. I won't go into some of these but I think he actually formed twelve of his disciples it would be an internal core group I think even that is apocalyptic why would he have 12 disciples why did he choose the number 12 because there were 12 tribes of Israel that would be constant Greeks at the end of time according to Jewish expectations. I think there are women too. part of her inner circle and this is because women later in early Christianity were marginalized from leadership positions, but there is all kinds of evidence, from resurrection narratives to Mary Magdalene's presence before other women, of They were part of his inner circle of disciples, I believe. that he never taught the end of Jewish law, but I think he did teach what was a kind of liberalizing version of Jewish law; in other words, that the ethical treatment of other human beings is considered more important than the actual details. of observing Jewish law, such as keeping kosher, washing hands, keeping the Sabbath, what did Jesus think the Messiah was?

I think this is a really big problem. I don't know, it seems like there are places where he doesn't make any overt claim to be the Messiah in his ministry except in the members of the Gospel of John, so the Gospel of John we actually tend to treat as less historically reliable on these things because It seems much more like a Christian theological confession, but in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus makes no overt claims to be one. The Messiah, on the other hand, was executed for being king of the Jews, so the Romans at least thought he was laying claim to the Messiah or they thought other people were laying claim to him, but what he himself thought is very difficult, one of the things.

I can think that we can say with certainty that we are all in the present day. Jesus himself. I don't think he ever saw himself as the founder of Christianity. He did not think of himself as starting a new religion. I believe he saw himself preparing the people of Israel. to prepare them for the apocalyptic breaking of God that was going to happen at the end of time or the end of our time and the establishment of a new time of the kingdom of God the kingdom of Israel that would incorporate the entire world. So the way I would do this is that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who was executed because the Romans at least believed that he or his disciples were making dangerous claims that he was the King of the Jews, that's all there is to it. obtained from the historical Jesus.

Sorry next time we start with Paul, see you next time.