|
Prior to the Enlightenment, the gospels were usually regarded as accurate historical accounts, but since then scholars have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels and draw a distinction between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Jesus of history.[219] Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during the quest that applied them.[220][221] Scholars have studied and debated a number of issues concerning the historical Jesus, such as his existence, the origins and historical reliability of the gospels and other sources, and the precise portrait of the historical figure. Existence Main articles: Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory See also: Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Jesus A 1640 edition of the works of Josephus, a 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian who referred to Jesus[222] The Christ myth theory, which questions the existence of Jesus, appeared in the 18th century. Some of its supporters contend that Jesus is a myth invented by early Christians.[223][224][225] Supporters of the theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and to the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, which they use to challenge the veracity of the existing accounts of him.[226] Beginning in the 20th century, scholars such as G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie have presented various arguments to support the Christ myth theory.[227][228][229] However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[7][230][231] Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[17][18] In response to the argument that the lack of the contemporary references implies that Jesus did not exist, Van Voorst has stated that, "as every good student of history knows", such arguments from silence are "specially perilous".[232] Arguments from silence generally fail unless a fact is known to the author and is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned in the context of a document.[233][234] Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.[235] Ehrman says that arguments based on the lack of physical or archeological evidence of Jesus and of any writings from him are poor, as there is no such evidence of "nearly anyone who lived in the first century".[29] Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[236] A number of scholars caution against the use of such arguments from ignorance and consider them generally inconclusive or fallacious.[237][238][239] Douglas Walton states that arguments from ignorance can only lead to sound conclusions in cases where we can assume that our "knowledge-base is complete".[240] Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[241][222][242] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[243][244] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[245] Historicity of events Main article: Historicity of Jesus See also: Cultural and historical background of Jesus, History of the Jews in the Roman Empire, Higher criticism, Textual criticism, and Historical reliability of the Gospels A white statue of a man An apparently old document Roman senator and historian Tacitus wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals, a history of the Roman Empire during the first century. Approaches to the historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus have varied from the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century, in which the gospel accounts were accepted as reliable evidence wherever it is possible, to the "minimalist" approaches of the early 20th century, where hardly anything about Jesus was accepted as historical.[246] In the 1950s, as the second quest for the historical Jesus gathered pace, the minimalist approaches faded away, and in the 21st century, minimalists such as Price are a very small minority.[247][248] Although a belief in the inerrancy of the gospels cannot be supported historically, many scholars since the 1980s have held that, beyond the few facts considered to be historically certain, certain other elements of Jesus' life are "historically probable".[247][249][250] Modern scholarly research on the historical Jesus thus focuses on identifying the most probable elements.[251][252] Most modern scholars consider Jesus' baptism and crucifixion to be definite historical facts.[7] James D.G. Dunn states that they "command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[7] Scholars adduce the criterion of embarrassment, saying that early Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader,[253] or a baptism that might imply that Jesus committed sins and wanted to repent.[254][255] Scholars use a number of criteria, such as the criterion of multiple attestation, the criterion of coherence, and the criterion of discontinuity to judge the historicity of events.[256] The historicity of an event also depends on the reliability of the source. Mark, the earliest written gospel, is usually considered the most historically reliable.[257] John, the latest written gospel, differs considerably from the Synoptic Gospels, and thus is generally considered less reliable. For example, many scholars do not consider the Raising of Lazarus to be historical, partly because it appears only in John.[258] Amy-Jill Levine states that there is "a consensus of sorts" on the basic outline of Jesus' life, in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated with Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, taught in parables, gathered followers, and was crucified on Pilate's orders.[21] Portraits of Jesus Main article: Historical 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.[259] Ben Witherington states that "there are now as many portraits of the historical Jesus as there are scholarly painters".[260] Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that 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.[261][262] The portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests often differ from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospels.[263][264] The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped according to whether they portray Jesus primarily as an apocalyptic prophet, a charismatic healer, a cynic philosopher, the true Messiah, or an egalitarian prophet of social change.[265][22] Each of these types has a number of variants, and some scholars reject the basic elements of some portraits.[266] However, the attributes described in the portraits sometimes overlap, and scholars who differ on some attributes sometimes agree on others.[267] Language, ethnicity, and appearance Further information: Aramaic of Jesus and Race and appearance of Jesus Twelve depictions of Jesus from around the world The representation of the ethnicity of Jesus has been influenced by cultural settings.[268][269] Jesus grew up in Galilee and much of his ministry took place there.[270] The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century AD include Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, with Aramaic being predominant.[271][272] Most scholars agree that in the early first century, Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all women in Galilee and Judea.[273] Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and may also have spoken Hebrew and Greek.[271][272][274] Dunn states that there is "substantial consensus" that Jesus gave most of his teachings in Aramaic.[275] Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of first-century Palestine.[276][277][278] The term Jew (Ioudaios in New Testament Greek),[i] in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both.[280] However, 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".[281] 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.[282][283][284] The Book of Revelation describes the features of a glorified Jesus in a vision (1:13–16), but the vision refers to Jesus in heavenly form, after his death and resurrection.[285][286] Jesus probably looked like a typical Jew of his time and according to some scholars was likely to have had a sinewy appearance due to his ascetic and itinerant lifestyle.[287] James H. Charlesworth states Jesus' face was "most likely dark brown and sun-tanned", and his stature "may have been between five feet five [1.65 m] and five feet seven [1.70 m]".[288] Archaeology Main article: Jesus and archaeology An archaeological site. Several columns are still intact. The ancient synagogue at Capernaum, by the Sea of Galilee Despite the lack of specific archaeological remains unambiguously associated with Jesus, 21st-century scholars have become increasingly interested in using archaeology to seek greater understanding of the socio-economic and political background to Jesus' life.[289][290][291] Charlesworth states that few modern scholars would now ignore the archaeological discoveries that cast light on life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[291] Jonathan Reed states that the chief contribution of archaeology to the study of the historical Jesus is the reconstruction of his social world.[292] David Gowler states that an interdisciplinary scholarly study of archaeology, textual analysis and historical context can shed light on Jesus and his teachings.[293] An example is the archaeological studies at Capernaum. Despite the frequent references to Capernaum in the New Testament, little is said about it.[294] However, recent archaeological evidence shows that, contrary to earlier beliefs, Capernaum was poor and small, without even a forum or an agora.[293][295] This archaeological discovery resonates well with the scholarly view that Jesus advocated reciprocal sharing among the destitute in that area of Galilee.[293] |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 21:59 , Processed in 0.156587 second(s), 16 queries .
