lesson 6 stuff Flashcards
PROBLEMS
WITH SOURCES
- Most of our sources for the past are literary, that is, they are texts written by authors who refer to the person’s words and deeds
–> sources of this kind are not always reliable
–> eyewitness accounts are often contradictory, and contemporary observers not infrequently get the facts wrong
- most historical sources, for the distant past at least, do not derive from eyewitnesses but from later authors reporting the rumors and traditions they have heard
criteria for determining which sources can be trusted and which ones cannot
sources that (a) are numerous, so they can be compared to one another
(b) derive from a time near the event itself, so that they are less likely to have been based on hearsay or legend
(c) were produced independently of one another, so that their authors were not in collusion
(d) do not contradict one another so that one or more of them is not necessarily in error
(e) are internally consistent, suggesting a basic concern for reliability
(f) are not biased toward the subject matter
Jesus’ impact on society in the first century?
was practically nil, less like a comet striking the planet than a stone being tossed in the ocean
How many times is Jesus mentioned among the hundreds of documents by pagan writers in the 1st century
what does this mean
almost never
–> There are no birth records, official correspondence, philosophical rebuttals, literary discussions, or personal reflections
it means Jesus didn’t have clout
the first bit of historical information about Jesus from a pagan author
from Tacitus in same context than when Nero was blaming christians
“Christus, from whom their [the Christians’] name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius”
Tacitus goes on to indicate that the “superstition” that emerged in Jesus’ wake first appeared in Judea
–> scholars have noted that even this bit of knowledge is not altogether reliable
why did Tacitus called Christianity a “superstition,” as did a number of our later Roman sources?
Authors in the Greco-Roman world used this term to describe any set of religious beliefs and practices that were antisocial, irrational, and motivated by raw fear of divine vengeance
Such beliefs and practices were antisocial in that they involved religious acts that were not sanctioned by the recognized cults and so were out of bounds from the point of view of society at large
They were irrational in that they could not be justified in terms of the prevailing modes of logic
They were motivated by fear, rather than the more “noble” virtues of love, truth, and honor, in that they maintained that the gods were bent on punishing those who did not perform their prescribed religious acts regularly and scrupulously
Jewish author who both wrote during our time period (before 130 C.E.) and mentioned Jesus
The Jewish historian Josephus
–> wrote his insider’s perspective on the Jewish War against Rome in 66–73 C.E.
–> wrote his twenty-volume history of the Jewish people from Adam and Eve up to the time of the Jewish War, a book that he titled The Antiquities of the Jews
—-> One reference to Jesus occurs in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus
—-> Jesus has a brother named James
the second passage indicates that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and as a consequence found a following among both Jews and Greeks
–> it states that he was accused by Jewish leaders before Pilate, who condemned him to be crucified; and it points out that his followers remained devoted to him even afterwards
We might conclude that he was considered important enough for Josephus to mention, though not as important as, say, John the Baptist or many other Palestinian Jews who were thought to be prophets at the time
No other non-Christian Jewish source written before 130 C.E. mentions Jesus.
Why would Josephus, a devout Jew who never became a Christian, profess faith in Jesus by suggesting that he was something more than a man, calling him the messiah (rather than merely saying that others thought he was), and claiming that he was raised from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy?
writings were not preserved by Jews, many of whom considered him to be a traitor because of his conduct during and after the war with Rome
it was Christians who copied Josephus’s writings through the ages
–> Is it possible that this reference to Jesus has been beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the “true faith”?
problems with christian sources outside of the gospels
little information about the historical Jesus can be gleaned from the New Testament writings that fall outside of the four Gospels
The apostle Paul, who was not personally acquainted with Jesus but who may have known some of his disciples, provides us with the most detail
–> it is not much tho
–> Paul says almost nothing about the life and teachings of Jesus, even though he has a lot to say about the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection and his expected return in glory
The other New Testament authors tell us even less
To what extent are these New Testament documents reliable for the historian, and how can they be used to answer historical questions about Jesus?
the earliest surviving Gospels were produced thirty-five to sixty-five years after the events they narrate
–> In modern terms, this would be like having written records of John F. Kennedy or Albert Einstein or Babe Ruth appear for the first time 20 years ago
these Gospels were likely not among the earliest followers of Jesus
–> they themselves do not claim to be disciples; the books are all anonymous, and they give no solid information as to their authors’ identity
all of this doesn’t make it necessarily bad tho
What is more telling is the lack of consistency among these earliest accounts of the life of Jesus
–> all of the early Christian authors had perspectives on who Jesus was and on how he was significant
–> These perspectives affected the ways they told stories about him
–> each author inherited a number of his stories from earlier written sources. and each of these sources had its own perspective
rules of thumb regarding credibility of the sources (not the same as the first question)
- The Earlier the Better
- Theological Merits / Historical Demerits
- Accounts of Jesus that are clearly imbued with a highly developed theology are less likely to be historically accurate
–> later sources tend to be more theologically oriented than earlier ones (similar to first one)
- Beware the Bias
–> we should see if other authors share the same bias towards emoting or someone
the most religiously significant and theologically powerful account of Jesus’ life has been which Gospel?
whats the degree of credibility?
Gospel of John
John says things about Jesus found nowhere else in Scripture
–> why do they never occur in sources that were written earlier than John? Nothing like them can be found in Mark, Q, M, or L—let alone Paul or Josephus
–>i t is difficult to think that they represent things he really said to his disciples
three criteria to make a case for what actually happened during Jesus’ life
The Criterion of Independent Attestation
The Criterion of Dissimilarity
The Criterion of Contextual Credibility
The Criterion of Independent Attestation
A strong case will be supported by several witnesses who independently agree on a point at issue
–> So too with history
–> An event mentioned in several independent documents is more likely to be historical than an event mentioned in only one
For the life of Jesus, we do in fact have a number of independent sources
–> would not work for the stories shared in Mark, Matthew, and Luke
the most we know of Jesus’ stories that have been written by different authors independently
stories in which John the Baptist encounters Jesus
Jesus is said to have brothers
–> Mark, Paul, and Josephus all identify one of his brothers as James
Jesus tells parables in which he likens the kingdom of God to seeds
Aramaisms as a Criterion of Authenticity
if a saying of Jesus can be translated back from the Greek of the Gospels into Jesus’ own language, Aramaic, and if it appears to make even better sense there than in Greek, then it is likely to be authentic
The Criterion of Dissimilarity
Authors from the ancient world were not under oath to tell the historical facts, and nothing but the facts
The criterion is rooted in the fact that early Christians modified and invented stories about Jesus
How can we know which stories were made up and which ones are historically accurate?
–> The surest way is to determine the sorts of things Christians were saying about Jesus in other sources and then assert whether the stories told about his sayings and deeds clearly support these Christian views
limitations of the Dissimilarity criterion
Just because a saying or deed of Jesus happens to conform to what Christians were saying about him does not mean that it is accurate
The Criterion of Contextual Credibility
For the testimony of a witness in a court of law to be judged trustworthy, it has to conform with what is otherwise known about the facts of the case
For ancient documents, reliable traditions must conform with the historical and social contexts to which they relate
used to argue against a tradition, on the grounds that it does not conform to what we know about the historical and social context of Jesus’ life
the traditions that we can most rely on as historically accurate are those that are:
independently attested in a number of sources
that do not appear to have been created to fulfill a need in the early Christian community
that make sense in light of a first century Palestinian context
is there a consensus among scholars about the credibility of the New Testament?
nah
the context of Jesus’ adult life in the 20s of the Common Era in the Palestinian territory
In a nutshell, the political history of the land had not been happy for some 800 years
–> it experienced periodic wars and virtually permanent foreign domination
–> The northern part of the land, the kingdom of Israel, was overthrown by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.E.; then, about a century and a half later, in 587–86 B.C.E.
–> the southern kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians
etc etc
what did Jews think of Herdo the Great? why?
Many Jews castigated Herod as an opportunistic collaborator with the Romans, a traitorous half-Jew at best
the largest Jewish sect at the time of Jesus
the Pharisees
did most jews belong to the four main jewish sects?
nah boy
The Pharisees
the best-known and least understood Jewish sect
insisted on knowing and obeying the Law of their own God to the fullest extent possible
The rules and regulations that developed among the Pharisees came to have a status of their own and were known in some circles as the “oral” Law, which was set alongside the “written” Law of Moses
–> Pharisees generally believed that anyone who kept the oral law would be almost certain to keep the written law as a consequence
had no real power
kind of isolated
did the Pharisees have power in Jesus’ day?
no
Pharisees were not the “power players” in Palestine in Jesus’ day
–> no real political clout
the Sadducees
the Sadducees were evidently the real power players in Palestine
Jewish aristocracy in Jerusalem who were closely connected with the Jewish priesthood in charge of the Temple cult
Sadducees appear to have been conciliatory toward the civil authorities, that is, cooperative with the Roman governor
Jesus roused their anger by predicting that God would soon destroy the locus of their social and religious authority, their beloved Temple
how many Saduccees literary works do we have?
none
the real power players in Palestine in Jesus’ day
the Sadducees
The Essenes
Essenes started their own monastic like community, with strict rules for admission and membership
The Essenes are important for understanding the historical Jesus, in part because Jesus appears to have shared many of their apocalyptic views, even though he did not belong to their sect
did jewish scribes reliably recopy their texts?
for the most part, they did
Two kinds of writing found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that are of particular interest to historians of early Christianity
what jewish sect is the most relevant in them?
The Biblical Commentaries
The War Scroll
–> Both have to do with the Essenes’ belief that God had revealed to members of the community the course of historical events
The Biblical Commentaries from Essenes
the Essenes believed that the prophets of Scripture had spoken about events that came to transpire in their own day, centuries later
The Essenes had developed a particular method of interpretation to explain these secret revelations of God’s divine purpose
–> pesher
the history can be read from their own interpretations of the ancient prophecies
The War Scroll
details the final war between the forces of good and evil that will take place at the end of time
sketches the course of the battles, gives regulations for the soldiers who fight, and describes the outcome that is assured by God as the “children of light” (the members of the Essene communities) overcome the “children of darkness” (the Romans, the apostate Jews, and everyone else)
This document, then, provides an apocalyptic vision of the final struggle between good and evil, between the forces of God and those of his enemies
The “Fourth Philosophy”
were very much supportive of violent overthrow of any outsider governing the land of Moses
–> assassinations and kidnappings of high ranking Jewish officials who were thought to be in league with the Roman authorities
includes the Zealots that took back Jerusalem in a coup and urged the revolt against romans
–> ended in them getting roasted
POPULAR MODES OF
RESISTANCE TO OPPRESSION
Silent Protests
Nonviolent Uprisings
Prophetic Proclamations
Violent Insurrections
Silent Protests examples
Jews celebrating the Passover
–> they were looking to the future, when God would save them yet again, this time from their present overlords, the Romans
–> Roman officials appear to have understood full well the potentially subversive nature of the celebration
Nonviolent Uprisings
It appears that for most of the first century the protests were nonviolent
Prophetic Proclamations
prophets predicting the imminent intervention of God on behalf of his people
–> This intervention was modeled on earlier acts of salvation as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures
–> Some of these prophets gathered a large following among the Jewish masses
For obvious reasons, they were not well-received by the Romans
Violent Insurrections
In Palestine during the first century, there were also violent insurrections in which Jews with forethought and intent engaged in armed revolt against the Romans
–> These were isolated rather than everyday occurrences
jews who subscribed to the apocalypsis worldview
maintained that God had revealed to them the future, in which he would soon overthrow the forces of evil and establish his kingdom on earth
apocalypticism
God was still in control of this world in some ultimate sense, but for unknown and mysterious reasons he had temporarily relinquished his control to the forces of evil that opposed him
–> God was not making his people suffer; his enemy, Satan, was
–> This state of affairs, however, was not to last forever
God would reassert himself, destroying the forces of evil and establishing his people as rulers over the earth
When this new kingdom came, God would fulfill his promises to his people
Dualism in apocalypticism
how were Jewish apocalypticists dualists?
there were two fundamental components to all of reality: the forces of good and the forces of evil
All of history could be divided into two ages, the present age and the age to come
–> The present age was the age of sin and evil
——–> those who sided with God were made to suffer by those in control of this world
–> At the end of this age, however, God would reassert himself, intervening in history and destroying the forces of evil
Pessimism in apocalypticism
Jewish apocalypticists maintained that those who sided with God were going to suffer in this age, and there was nothing they could do to stop it
Vindication in apocalypticism
At the end, when the suffering of God’s people was at its height, God would finally intervene on their behalf and vindicate his name
–> God was not only the creator of this world but also its redeemer
Imminence in apocalypticism
According to Jewish apocalypticists, this vindication of God was going to happen very soon
Jesus the Jewish apocalypticist
responded to the political and social crises of his day, including the domination of his nation by a foreign power by proclaiming that his generation was living at the end of the age
–> that God would soon intervene on behalf of his people
–> He would send a cosmic judge, the Son of Man, who would destroy the forces of evil and set up God’s kingdom
how is Jesus’ perception of being an apocalyptic prophet change over time?
the message begins to be toned down in our later sources, before disappearing altogether
Sources closest to Jesus himself portray him as an apocalypticist; as time passes, the portrayal is increasingly modified, so that by the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, this view is either passed over or explicitly rejected
criteria to judge Jesus’ apocalypseness?
Contextual Credibility
Dissimilarity
Independent Attestation
Contextual Credibility regarding Jesus’ apocalypseness
There is absolutely no trouble seeing Jesus as an apocalypticist in terms of contextual credibility
–> We know that there were apocalyptic Jews—in fact lots and lots of apocalyptic Jews—in first-century Palestine
Dissimilarity regarding Jesus’ apocalypseness
Most of his followers, as I’ve already pointed out, were his followers precisely because they agreed with him
some of the ways Jesus talks about the coming end do not coincide with the way his followers later talked about it, suggesting that these particular sayings are not ones they would have invented
Independent Attestation regarding Jesus’ apocalypseness
Not only are these traditions early, they permeate our independent sources
all of the synoptic gospels were independent of one another
–> they portray Jesus apocalyptically
the first story of Jesus everyone agrees that actually happened
Baptism by John
was John apocalyptic?
ye
how did Jesus’ ministry begin?
at his baptism by John
The only connection between the apocalyptic John and the apocalyptic Christian church
Jesus himself
THE APOCALYPTIC
DEEDS OF JESUS
The Crucifixion
The Temple Incident
Jesus’ Associations
Jesus Reputation as an Exorcist and Healer
The most certain element of the tradition about Jesus
he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate
why was John the Baptist imprisoned and executed
because of his preaching
–> according to the Gospels he directed his words against Herod Antipas, appointed to rule over the Promised Land
The Temple Incidents
we know Jesus claimed that the Temple was soon to be destroyed by God
Moreover, it is virtually certain that some days before his death Jesus entered the Temple, overturned some of the tables that were set up inside, and generally caused a disturbance
it is possible that Jesus, like the Essenes, believed that the worship of God in the Temple had gotten out of hand and that the Sadducees in control had abused their power and privileges to their own end
How, though, did Jesus’ prediction that the Temple would be destroyed fit into his broader apocalyptic message?
- It may be that he believed that in the new age there would be a new Temple, totally sanctified for the worship of God
- it may be that Jesus believed there would be no need for a temple at all in the kingdom that was coming, since there would no longer be any evil or sin, and therefore no need for the cultic sacrifice of animals to bring atonement
the most plausible scenario for explaining Jesus’ death
Jesus’ apocalyptic message, including its enactment in the Temple, angered some of the chief priests on the scene
–> These priests recognized how explosive the situation could become during the Passover feast, given the tendency of the celebration to become a silent protest that might erupt into something much worse
Jesus’ Associations
With whom did Jesus associate?
There is little doubt that he had twelve followers whom he chose as his special disciples
We know that Jesus also associated with two other groups of people, whom early sources designate as “tax collectors” and “sinners”
–> We can accept this tradition as authentic because references to these groups are scattered throughout our sources
Jesus chilled a lot with women too
why 12 disciples?
The number twelve makes sense from an apocalyptic perspective
–> The present age was coming to an end
–> God was bringing in his new kingdom for his people
just as Israel had started out as twelve tribes headed by twelve patriarchs, so the new people of God would emerge from old Israel with twelve leaders at their head
–> the disciples represented the new people of God, those who had repented in anticipation of the kingdom that would come soon, on the day of judgment
who are the tax collectors with whom Jesus would chill?
Tax collectors” refers to local Jews employed by regional tax corporations to collect the Roman taxes
–> These persons were unpopular in first-century Palestine because they supported Roman rule and sometimes grew rich through their association with the imperial government
who are the sinners with whom Jesus would chill?
“Sinners” refers simply to those who were not scrupulous about observing the law of God
what were the roles of women that chilled with Jesus?
women provided Jesus with financial support during his ministry, evidently serving as his patrons
Jesus is said to have engaged in public dialogue and debate with women who were not among his immediate followers
women are said to have accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem during the last week of his life, to have been present at his crucifixion, and to have been the first to believe that Jesus’ body was no longer in the tomb
Parables
simple stories that are invested with deeper spiritual meaning
An enacted parable is a simple action that carries a symbolic, spiritual significance
Jesus Reputation as an Exorcist and Healer
there are numerous reports of miracles performed by Jesus
In particular, he is said to have performed exorcisms and to have healed the sick
–> Jesus’ exorcisms are interpreted apocalyptically
is it possible for the historian who sticks to the canons of historical inquiry to demonstrate that miracles have been performed in the past??
no, it is impossible
–> to acknowledge that a miracle occurred requires belief in a supernatural realm to which the historian, as a historian, has no direct access
–> This does not mean, though, that the historian cannot talk about the reports of miracles that have been handed down from the past
according to pretty much all of Jesus’ followers and opponents, is he the only one with exorcist powers?
no
everyone (Jesus and his opponents together) admits not only that Jesus can cast out demons, but that other Jewish exorcists can do so as well
what do the miracles of Jesus seem to be based on? show examples
the Hebrew Bible
–> The prophet Elijah, for example, had to engage in some real personal theatrics to raise a child from the dead while Jesus could do it with just a word
–> Elisha, allegedly fed 100 people with just twenty barley loaves while Jesus fed over 5,000 (not counting the women and children!) with just five
–> Elisha was able to make an axehead float on the water while Jesus could himself walk on the water
why are Jesus’ miracles not enough to confirm he is the Son of God ?
They were the sorts of things that Jewish prophets did
–> Jesus simply did them better than anyone else
how are Jesus’ miracles apocalyptic’
In the coming Kingdom of God there would be no more disease or death
–> Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead
–> In a small way, then, the Kingdom was already becoming manifest
what can historians be sure about Jesus
he was baptized
he associated with tax collectors and sinners
he chose twelve disciples to be his closest companions
he caused a disturbance in the Temple near the end of his life
this disturbance eventuated in his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate
in the wake of his death his followers established vibrant Christian communities
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who anticipated the imminent end of the age, an end that would involve the destruction of Israel, including the Temple and its cult, prior to the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth
do we know for sure what Jesus said?
nah
all the authors say something similar, but still different about what Jesus said
–> not independently attested
While we cannot assume that every saying in the Gospels that has any tint of apocalypticism in it is authentic, many of the apocalyptic sayings must have come from Jesus himself
which were the majority of Jesus’ teachings?
the imminent arrival of the Son of Man
the appearance of the kingdom of God
the coming day of judgment
the need to repent and live in preparation for that day, the climax of history as we know it
Jesus believed that the suffering would be the ones entering the new kingdom because they sided with God, while the current rulers would be rejected because they sided with Evil
was Jesus a teacher of ethics?
no
he was preaching in a broken society awaiting the end, not a healthy one
For Jesus, the end was coming soon, within his own generation
–> The motivation for ethical behavior, then, sprang from the imminent arrival of the kingdom, to be brought by the Son of Man in judgment
did teacher preach loving our family like we do in our society?
nah boy
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:26; Matt 10:37)
“The one who does not hate his father and mother will not be worthy to be my disciple” (Gosp. Thom. 55)
–> Parents, siblings, spouses, and even one’s own children were to be of no importance in comparison with the coming Kingdom
did Jesus’ family accept his message?
there are clear signs not only that Jesus’ family rejected his message during his public ministry, but that he in turn spurned them publicly
“anti-family” traditions are too widely attested in our sources to be ignored (they are found in Mark, Q, and Thomas, for example), and suggest that Jesus did not support what we today might think of as family values
why was Jesus in Jerusalem when he was about to die in the first place?
why is it weird?
It is possible that Jesus simply wanted to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem, as did so many thousands of other Jews every year
–> but it is weird because Jesus’ actions there appear to have been well thought out
—-> he entered the Temple and caused a disturbance
—-> he evidently spent several days in and out of the Temple, teaching his message of the coming kingdom
Did Jesus realize that he was about to be arrested and executed?
there is simply no way to know for certain what Jesus thought
–> It is not hard to imagine, though, that anyone with any knowledge at all of how prophets of doom were generally received, both in ancient times and more recently, might anticipate receiving similar treatment
Jesus would probably have known that the leaders in Jerusalem did not take kindly to his message, and he certainly would have known about their civil power
what was Jesus accused of?
who killed him in the end?
of giving himself of the title of the King of Jews
-> the romans killed him, not the Jews in power
describe the crucifixion process
Crucifixion was reserved for the worst offenders of the lowest classes: slaves, common thieves, and insurrectionists
It was a death by suffocation
When did Christianity begin?
name all the different possibilities
- We might say that it began with Jesus’ ministry
- Christianity is a religion rooted in a belief in the death of Jesus for sin and in his resurrection from the dead
–> This does not appear to have been the religion that Jesus preached to the Jews of Galilee and Judea
–> Christianity is not so much the religion of Jesus (the religion that he himself proclaimed) as the religion about Jesus (the religion that is based on his death and resurrection)
- Did Christianity begin with Jesus’ resurrection?
when does christianity begin according to historians?
for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection
the first persons to believe in Jesus’ resurrection
apocalyptically minded Jews
–> For them, Jesus’ resurrection was not a miracle that some other holy person had performed on his behalf
–> Jesus had been raised from the dead never to die again
–> In a distinctive way, for them, he was the Son of God. He was a close acquaintance to God
–> thought the kingdom promised was already put in place and people had to already act accordingly
were the Christian communities that sprang up around the Mediterranean completely unified in the ways they understood their belief in Jesus as the one who had died for the sins of the world?
ye
vicarious suffering
The idea that someone would suffer and die in order to save other
Which two Christologies are mentioned in the Gospel of John?
Son of God
Son of Man
Pagan Sources writings about Jesus
have no acknowledgements of jesus in birth records, official correspondence, philosophical rebuttals, literary discussions, or personal reflections
The most controversial criterion that historians use and often misuse when looking at the credibility of a source
The Criterion of Dissimilarity
what did christians think of the pharisees?
they wrongly thought they were hypocrites
–> evidence of this in the way they are attacked in parts of the New Testament, especially in Matthew
why is it difficult to reconstruct exactly what the Sadducees stood for?
because not a single literary work survives from the pen of a Sadducee
the one Jewish sect not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament
The Essenes
The Jewish sect about which we are best informed
The Essenes
pesher
particular method of interpretation to explain the secret revelations of God’s divine purpose created by the Essenes
If Jesus was an apocalypticist expecting a cataclysmic break in history to be brought by God, did he stand out?
nope
–> Scores of other people (teachers, prophets, and just regular folk) thought something similar
Do the traditions of exorcism pass the criterion of dissimilarity? why or why not?
No because Christians who thought that Jesus had overcome the powers of evil might well have wanted to tell stories to show that he did
are the traditions of exorcism contextually credible? why or why not?
yes because both some pagan and Jewish individuals, said that he had power over demons
