Role
Jesus taught that an apocalyptic figure, the "Son of Man", would soon come on clouds of glory to gather the elect, or chosen ones.[392] He referred to himself as a "son of man" in the colloquial sense of "a person", but scholars do not know whether he also meant himself when he referred to the heavenly "Son of Man". Paul the Apostle and other early Christians interpreted the "Son of Man" as the risen Jesus.[24]
The Gospels refer to Jesus not only as a messiah but in the absolute form as "the Messiah" or, equivalently, "the Christ". In early Judaism, this absolute form of the title is not found, but only phrases such as "his messiah". The tradition is ambiguous enough to leave room for debate as to whether Jesus defined his eschatological role as that of the messiah.[393] The Jewish messianic tradition included many different forms, some of them focused on a messiah figure and others not.[394] Based on the Christian tradition, Gerd Theissen advances the hypothesis that Jesus saw himself in messianic terms but did not claim the title "Messiah".[394] Bart Ehrman argues that Jesus did consider himself to be the messiah, albeit in the sense that he would be the king of the new political order that God would usher in,[395] not in the sense that most people today think of the term.[396]
Passover and crucifixion in Jerusalem
Around AD 30, Jesus and his followers travelled from Galilee to Jerusalem to observe Passover.[386] Jesus caused a disturbance in the Second Temple,[20] which was the center of Jewish religious and civil authority. Sanders associates it with Jesus' prophecy that the Temple would be totally demolished.[397] Jesus held a last meal with his disciples, which is the origin of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. His words as recorded in the Synoptic gospels and Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians do not entirely agree, but this meal appears to have pointed to Jesus' place in the coming Kingdom of God when very probably Jesus knew he was about to be killed, although he may have still hoped that God might yet intervene.[398]
The Gospels say that Jesus was betrayed to the authorities by a disciple, and many scholars consider this report to be highly reliable.[144] He was executed on the orders of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judaea.[20] Pilate most likely saw Jesus' reference to the Kingdom of God as a threat to Roman authority and worked with the Temple elites to have Jesus executed.[399] The Sadducean high-priestly leaders of the Temple more plausibly had Jesus executed for political reasons than for his teaching.[144] They may have regarded him as a threat to stability, especially after he caused a disturbance at the Second Temple.[144][400] Other factors, such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, may have contributed to this decision.[401] Most scholars consider Jesus' crucifixion to be factual, because early Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[2][402]
After crucifixion
_Cropped.jpg)
After Jesus' death, his followers said he was restored to life, although exact details of their experiences are unclear. The gospel reports contradict each other, possibly suggesting competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.[403] On the other hand, L. Michael White suggests that inconsistencies in the Gospels reflect differences in the agendas of their unknown authors.[358] The followers of Jesus formed a community to wait for his return and the founding of his kingdom.[20]
Portraits of Jesus
Modern research on the historical Jesus has not led to a unified picture of the historical figure, partly because of the variety of academic traditions represented by the scholars.[404] Given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.[65][66] The portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests often differ from each other, and from the image portrayed in the Gospels.[308][405]
Jesus is seen as the founder of, in the words of Sanders, a "renewal movement within Judaism". One of the criteria used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is the criterion of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity. A disagreement in contemporary research is whether Jesus was apocalyptic. Most scholars conclude that he was an apocalyptic preacher, like John the Baptist and Paul the Apostle. In contrast, certain prominent North American scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[406] In addition to portraying Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, a charismatic healer or a cynic philosopher, some scholars portray him as the true messiah or an egalitarian prophet of social change.[407][408] However, the attributes described in the portraits sometimes overlap, and scholars who differ on some attributes sometimes agree on others.[409]
Since the 18th century, scholars have occasionally put forth that Jesus was a political national messiah, but the evidence for this portrait is negligible. Likewise, the proposal that Jesus was a Zealot does not fit with the earliest strata of the Synoptic tradition.[144]
Language, ethnicity, and appearance
Jesus grew up in Galilee and much of his ministry took place there.[412] The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the 1st century AD include Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, with Aramaic being predominant.[413][414] There is substantial consensus that Jesus gave most of his teachings in Aramaic[415] in the Galilean dialect.[416][417] Other than Aramaic and Hebrew, it is likely that he was also able to speak in Koine Greek.[418][419][420]
Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Judea.[421] Ioudaios in New Testament Greek[q] is a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both.[423][424][425] In a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine writes that the entire question of ethnicity is "fraught with difficulty", and that "beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish', rarely does the scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means".[426]
The New Testament gives no description of the physical appearance of Jesus before his death—it is generally indifferent to racial appearances and does not refer to the features of the people it mentions.[427][428][429] Jesus probably looked like a typical Jewish man of his time and place; standing around 166 cm (5 ft 5 in) tall with a thin but fit build, olive-brown skin, brown eyes and short, dark hair. He also likely had a beard that was not particularly long or heavy.[430] His clothing may have suggested poverty, consisting of a mantle (shawl) with tassels, a knee-length basic tunic and sandals.[431]
Christ myth theory
The Christ myth theory is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[r] Stories of Jesus' birth, along with other key events, have so many mythic elements that some scholars have suggested that Jesus himself was a myth.[433]
Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) taught that the first Gospel was a work of literature that produced history rather than described it.[434] According to Albert Kalthoff (1850–1906), a social movement produced Jesus when it encountered Jewish messianic expectations.[434] Arthur Drews (1865–1935) saw Jesus as the concrete form of a myth that predated Christianity.[434]
Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of a historical Jesus, virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure and consider Christ myth theory fringe.[435][436][437][438][439][440][441]