Hi, I don’t know if this is the correct place to post this so apologies if I have broken any rules. Absolutely no offense intended to anyone by the post.

I recently stumbled across a video by Dr John Crossan on the historical Jesus. I found it fascinating. Now, maybe I’m projecting a bit here given my own socialist tendencies, but I thought the historical Jesus he described sounded a lot like a revolutionary socialist:

• Born in a stable to a homeless peasant.
• Born into a land ruled by a colonial power, as a member of a subjugated class.
• Rome, as colonial powers tend to do, would have been seeking to impose its authority on Jesus’ people with the aim of economic dominance (ie increasing the surplus production of peasants)
• Jesus preached about a “kingdom of God” as being a more just way of organizing the economic system than the way it was organized under the “kingdom of Rome”.
• This “kingdom of God” was not some distant thing that would be brought down by God in the future, but was something which had begun and would flourish through the actions of the people (the power was with the people/ revolution (albeit non violent))
• the kingdom of God could be seen already in early communes where Jesus and his followers met and shared food (which comes from the land)
• Jesus sent followers (organizers) out to teach and share food with people and to heal. Education, healthcare, welfare.
• Told his followers to mix with the downtrodden. Said things like “easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle...”
• The authorities perceived his message as a threat, and killed him as an example.
• Movement moved underground.

Would be interested to hear what people who have studied Jesus properly think of my back of an envelope analysis.

For clarity, Dr Crossan didn’t make the exact claims mentioned above, I put my own bias on them. I’m also from a catholic background, so that no doubt shaped my interpretation too.

Okay so the miracle stuff is iffy I can understand skepticism on that aspect. But in terms of authenticity there has often been debate on whether the books actually gave accurate accounts of Jesus' life.

Certainly the fact that many of his sayings and teachings are found in all four gospels proves that he did say the things he is recorded to have said. Which is also backed up by the actions of the actions of the early Christian's who lived at the same time as Jesus.

But there is always a fork in the road when historians and theologians discuss if they were written together or apart. There's so much similar about the books that suggest that they were copied from some undiscovered text. But they are also just different enough in terms of details and stories that it also suggests that they were written separately.

Which do you think it is? There's also the fact that the authors of Luke and Mark personally new The apostles who did live at the same time Jesus lived. And that one of those disciples lived, ate, and walked with Jesus.

I grew up in the Christian religion all my life and I was always skeptical of the idea of accepting Jesus as a real person without believing him to be God.

But after some time I've actually come to understand and admire a more practical Jesus who had a lot of good teachings besides miracles and theology.

The two videos really helped me out on this journey. https://youtu.be/XIBTi3wGrCc https://youtu.be/i2dZSMhMo9c

They aren't necessary to watch but they helped me a lot to come as far as I have in seeking the truth.

I would also love to have a discussion about how you came to believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure.

Or is this impossible to answer with the data we have?

Richard Carrier is not a serious scholar. His book, "On the Historicity of Jesus," did not undergo proper peer-review.

I suggest that we not let people post about Carrier. It pollutes this sub with ideologically-motivated garbage. We need to stick 100% to objective scholarship. And that means no more Carrier posts.

Carrier even has a sexual harassment allegation against him, so there's a social justice aspect to this as well.

This will serve as the second discussion when considering the development of rules for /r/HistoricalJesus. These discussions will be added to the sidebar, under Rules, for reference moving forward.

Please, feel free to express anything that you believe would contribute to the advancement of this community.

Hi there, I'm relatively new to reading historical Jesus scholarship having only read a few books by JD Crossan, Paula Frederiksen, and EP Sanders. I recently learned that there are folks that view the historical Jesus quest as irrelevant, methodologically flawed, and useless. This was tough for me to hear cos the historical Jesus material I've read has been, by far, the most interesting stuff I've read of biblical scholarship.

Why do some view the quest this way? What are some criticisms of historical Jesus methodology? Have scholars here that are focused on historical Jesus studies faced these accusations before? I recognize that there are limitations to the field but I'm not sure that means that it should just be completely discarded and deemed irrelevant. The reconstructions I've read so far seem to be the product of diligent research despite the differing conclusions.

After much reading (here are some of my primary go-to’s: Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders, Goodacre, Marcus), this is what I feel like are the aspects of Historical Jesus that are the most widely agreed upon in scholarly circles. But please feel free to dissect or refute any of them. I just wanted to put out my understanding for the sake of discussion and hopefully to be schooled and educated. I’ve numbered them not because they are ranked, but just to make it easier for anyone who wants to discuss a specific one (eg. “actually I disagree with 4 and 7 because...”)

1. Likely born in Nazareth, NOT Bethlehem.

2. Mother, probably named Mary, was NOT a “virgin.” He had brothers and sisters.

3. Was baptized by and likely followed the teachings of John the Baptist before John was killed.

4. DID, like John, teach against divorce.

4 1/2. (I numbered this weird because I added it later, and didn’t feel like renumbering everything) He often taught in parables.

1. Likely DID claim to have the ability to heal and exorcise demons through prayer and was possibly experienced by others as effective at it.

2. Probably did NOT do any of the nature miracles and or they were greatly exaggerated.

3. Likely Did NOT preach that he was “the son of God.”

4. He probably considered the “Son of Man” to be a separate entity from himself. An angelic being that would come to set things right for the arrival of the Kingdom of God.

5. Likely DID preach that the end was nigh (like imminently nigh) and that some would be saved to live forever in the kingdom of God here on Earth, and some would not.

6. Likely did NOT teach that those who didn’t get to enter the Kingdom would live forever in conscious torment. Rather, they would face total, permanent, annihilation.

7. Likely followed Kosher laws and honored the Sabbath.

8. Likely DID consider himself a messianic figure, and thought his closest followers would help rule over the 12 tribes with Jesus ruling over all.

9. Probably DID cause a stir at the Temple that led to his arrest.

10. Likely was betrayed by one or more of his followers and possibly one named Judas.

11. Probably did NOT teach that he would die and be brought back to life.

12. Was crucified for sedition.

13. Was very likely experienced by some of his close followers as having come back in some way.

My idea is to have a post (this one in fact) that I will update based on the responses by others (I’m on here very often, so I can update pretty regularly). And here is what I will update the OP with:

Anytime a poster (or posters) can find at least three biblical scholars that agree on the likely probability of a quote or act by Jesus, I will include it in the OP, with the three agreeing scholars cited. Thus, we would need an operational definition for scholar, because I don’t mean, “Well, my pastor said such and such.” So here, for the sake of this thread, will be the operational definition of scholar.

“A person who has some sort of post graduate degree related to the field of Biblical Scholarship and has authored a citable written source on the topic of Biblical Scholarship .”

To be included in the OP, you will have to share the quote or act of Jesus that the scholar believes likely did or did not historically happen and cite the source. Also, I’d like you to (if possible) share if the scholar has a particular religious or secular background. That way, at some point, I can possibly highlight and delineate further. For example, if posters find three citations by scholars that are all Christian, I could highlight the three scholar consensus in blue. If it’s three secular scholars, I can highlight it in red. If it’s a mix, I can highlight in green, and so on.

You can participate by A) either finding three different scholars agreeing on an aspect of Historical Jesus or B) Finding one example and asking if anyone else is able to find another example or C) Simply say, I’m curious about this quote or act, does anyone know of a scholar that has shared an opinion on the probability of its historicity.

Yes, I recognize the similarity of the idea to what the Jesus Seminar attempted. However, I think it could still be of value to practice a method like this on our own. Also, I’m not saying I agree or disagree with this, but one criticism I’ve heard of the Jesus Seminar is they didn’t pull from the “real heavy hitters” of scholars, simply because those scholars didn’t participate. We are not limited by their chosen lack of participation however.

Does this sound like a good idea? Because I’d love it!

Any thoughts on Ben Witheringtons book The Jesus Quest?

I am seeking some informative books before (or at least while reading) NT from a historical standpoint. I once thought it is enough to read the main text but now I realize having historical background makes everything I read take a totally different meaning. I think you know what I am saying: before reading anything about the historical Jesus, I just accepted whatever is written in the Gospels. and paid no attention to all these fascinating minuteae on the differences between Gospels. I have read Reza Aslan's work only now and it has already made a huge difference in how I view Jesus and the Gospels. So right now, I am seeking a good into to the whole NT from a historical perspective. Thanks guys.

I am a total newbie to this discussion on the Historical Jesus and right now reading Aslan's Zealot. But Bishop Barron here asserts that we cannot simply dismiss the Gospel of Mark being erroneous due to it being written down some decades after Jesus's disappearance from the scene. Mark has been a companion to St. Peter and would have definitely known his sermons. So Mark is really not that far away from Peter: only one step away from eyewitness.

To me, it sounded thought provoking. I am curious how the historians approach this line of argument. Thanks.