A couple of days ago, I finished reading The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders. Sanders is a former professor in the religious studies department at McMaster University, where I took some of my courses for my Master of Theology, although he was long gone by the time I studied there. Sanders is considered a pioneer in what is known as the third quest for the historical Jesus. Unlike the second quest which gave up on any chance of solid historical truth to be found in the Gospels, the third quest has a renewed confidence that we can put together a very good picture of what Jesus was like. I need to warn people who are considering reading this book, it is not from a faith perspective and he does consider some parts of the Gospels to be inventions of the early church rather than things done or said by the historical Jesus. In this, I believe that he is overly skeptical, discounting things because they just don't sound right, rather than based on solid evidence. For a response, see Studying the Historical Jesus by Darrell Bock, that I recently reviewed. Having said that, I find it remarkable that a scholar, not coming from a faith perspective, not interested in inspiration or inerrancy, and coming with a fairly skeptical point of view, could conclude the following things as being historically reliable:
- Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
- he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
- he was baptized by John the Baptist;
- he called disciples;
- he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
- he preached 'the kingdom of God';
- about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
- he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
- he had a final meal with the disciples;
- he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
- he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate;
- his disciples at first fled;
- they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death;
- as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom;
- they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God's Messiah.
These conclusions, by a scholar such as E.P. Sanders, should cause anyone who doubts the historical existence of Jesus to reconsider. This book is not for the average Christian who just wants to learn more about Jesus. But for anyone studying what scholars are saying about the historical Jesus, as I am, this book is an important part of that study.
1 comments:
"Historical J....."!?!
The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.
While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.
There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.
What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.
To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?
Post a Comment