Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hen 32(2/2010)
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 251
who have looked at the issue from very different perspectives and
according to different methodologies. A side effect of this otherwise very
enriching pluralism has been the difficulty (if not the impossibility) to
reach any kind of consensus on almost every point under discussion.
As a result, the scholar’s interest in the search for the Historical Jesus
faces today two major problems: (a) the enormous amount of scholarly
and non-scholarly literature continually produced on this topic, especially
in the last decades, and (b) the great diversity of approaches and proposed
solutions, which has resulted into an increasing fragmentation of the field
into separated schools.
The processes of democratization and globalization of research and the
irruption of the web as a new, powerful means of expression have only
exacerbated an existing situation. Besides, the fortune of pseudo-historical
theories out of any control from the scholarly community has added
skepticism and cynicism, as every theory seems able today to receive easy
legitimacy, while serious work struggles to stay afloat in the mare
magnum of untested hypotheses.
The recognition of this complex situation prompted our project of
presenting together, in the synthetic form provided by an open forum, the
variety of voices active today in scholarship. The goal was not to single out
one approach or school over against the others, or to reach any possible
compromise but to foster dialogue, mutual understanding, and open channels
of communication. Although diverse, scholarly research on the Historical
Jesus stands firmly on the established foundation of literary criticism and
critical analysis of historical evidence, and on the rejection of a-priori
assumptions and double standards in the reading of ancient sources.
We summoned a group of distinguished specialists in the field, from
different countries and different scholarly traditions. The group had to be
large enough as to be representative of the geographical and methodological
diversity of contemporary scholarship. Each scholar had to be given the
opportunity to express him or herself, while their contributions as a whole
had to be shaped in a format that could facilitate interaction and comparison
by the reader. We therefore asked all participants in the forum to focus their
attention on the following three questions:
1. The last three decades of the 20th and the first of the 21st century
have seen the explosion of new interest in the Historical Jesus. The record
of such interest is commonly known in the academic environment as the
Old Quest, the New Quest, and the Third Quest or Jesus Research. Do you
think that this phase is now over? What are the most interesting and
promising future perspectives in the field? What are the specific problems
that you think more than others deserve or require further analysis?
2. Every scholar today would agree on Jesus Jewishness. However,
when it comes to defining in more detail what this acknowledgement
actually entails, scholarly opinions tend to diverge greatly. How would
you define the specificity of Jesus’ cultural background? What kind of
252 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
Judaism was the one in which Jesus grew up? To what group or
ideological stream, if any, did his family, and the people who influenced
him the most, belong? In short, what kind of Jew was Jesus?
3. Every scholar would agree that Jesus was an original thinker and he
was deeply engaged in the religious debate of his age. How did Jesus
personally rework the cultural features that he inherited? Which are the
most original elements of his thought?
The first question required an assessment upon the past, present and
future of research in the field and an effort by each contributor to locate
his or her work within the provided framework. The second and third
questions went directly to the core of the inquiry on the historical Jesus.
As every person, Jesus both was influenced by, and influenced, the world
in which he lived and operated. Defining his Jewishness means
delineating how he re-elaborated, in a personal and distinctive way, his
culture and religion, how he reacted to the events of his life and tried to
cope with them, and what kind of relationships he established with his
contemporaries.
Consistent with the goals and stated rules of engagement of the forum,
no summary or conclusion was added to the received answers (which are
listed according to the alphabetical order of their authors). Yet the result
goes far beyond a mere survey of the wide variety of contemporary
research. The authors were asked to look ahead and did not hesitated to
provide new perspectives and fresh suggestions. Now and then we see
some common and solid ground for future research emerge behind the
diversity of approaches and conclusions. Common and solid ground is the
consciousness to which research on the historical Jesus should be
sensitive, but not dictated by theological concerns. Moreover, the history
(and periodization) of past research also should be rewritten outside of the
theological frames in which it has been constrained. Common and solid
ground is the strength with which the Jewishness of Jesus is confirmed as
the central key of interpretation of his thought and historical role. This
calls for a better interaction between New Testament and Second Temple
specialists and a closer look at interdisciplinary contributions from social
sciences and archaeology. Common and solid ground is the new emphasis
that the search for the distinctive features of Jesus should not be
understood as the search for an abstract uniqueness that would separate
Jesus from his environment, but on the contrary, as evidence of the deep
involvement of Jesus in the cultural and religious debate of his time.
Common and solid ground is finally the desire for a new model of
scholarship in the field in which different approaches may coexist and
flourish by listening and contributing to each other.
We hope and believe that this scholarly conversation will contribute to
facilitating the difficult task of identifying convergences and divergences
among the many reconstructions of the historical Jesus, thus improving
the mutual understanding as well as the probability of finding some
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 253
synthesis. We thank the distinguished scholars who have taken part in this
forum, from Europe, America, Australia, and Israel.
The Editors
1. The standard typology – old quest, new quest, third quest – distorts
much more than it illumines, and so it is best abandoned. Moreover, the
current books and articles on Jesus, as well as the books and articles of the
last several decades, exhibit such a wide range of diverse interests,
methods, and conclusions that I can make no enlightening generalizations
about them. All of which is to say: I do not view the present moment and
recent past as constituting a well-defined phase or period of research, and I
cannot contemplate the end of a period or phase whose existence I do not
recognize.
As for interesting and promising directions for future scholarship, I see
at least three possibilities. First, we have learned a great deal about human
memory, individual and social, in the past forty or fifty years, how it works
and how it fails to work. New Testament scholarship is only beginning to
apply the findings to its work. I suspect serious attention to the scientific
literature on memory will have major implications both for methodological
issues and for our conceptions of history. Second, critical scholarship needs
to rewrite its own history. The old – new – third quest scheme needs to give
way to a more informed and nuanced history that gives credit to work
before Reimarus, recognizes the foundational importance of the first half of
the twentieth century for all subsequent scholarship, and abandons every
simplistic characterization about the present. Third, the field will continue
to progress above all as NT specialists learn more and more from the ever-
burgeoning study of early Judaism and its texts, especially the Dead Sea
Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and early rabbinic sources. Most of the lasting
advances in the study of Jesus over the last fifty years have been by-
products of major advances in the study of Judaism, and much more of
significance will undoubtedly come to light as the extant Jewish sources are
subjected to more and more detailed analysis.
youth do not take us very far because they remain very broad
generalizations, such as that Jesus’ immediate family members spoke
Aramaic, that they were well-acquainted with significant portions of the
Tanak, which they accepted as revelation, that they gathered for religious
services on the sabbath, that they reverenced the temple, that they used
miqva’ot, that they attended, at least on occasion, festivals in Jerusalem,
and that they expected God, in the latter days, to bring to pass the scriptural
prophecies of blessing and judgment.
We can say, however, that Jesus and the early traditions about him
reflect a Judaism in which God was at the center of everything, in which
Scripture was the lingua franca, and in which eschatological ideas were
very much in the air. To what extent all this reflects the personal
contributions of Jesus and his followers and the extent to which it rather
reflects the religious environment in which Jesus grew up we cannot know.
But these three elements were, its seems, part and parcel of John the
Baptist’s movement, and I am convinced that, if somehow we could learn
more, we would see that the Judaism of Jesus was in great measure the
Judaism of John the Baptist, and indeed that Jesus continued to be heavily
indebted to John throughout his ministry.
rather involved the large claim that he and his movement were at the center
of the end-time scenario. I indeed believe that he thought of himself as
Israel’s eschatological king in waiting. In this he likely resembled some of
the sign prophets that we learn something of through Josephus.
Finally, I should like to add that the question concerns the most original
element in Jesus’ thought. But I wonder whether this does not put undue
emphasis upon the content of his proclamation. One should also recognize
the importance of form. Jesus was rhetorically interesting: he composed
memorable aphorisms and parables, he made provocative statements about
the Torah, he employed counter-intuitive illustrations, he was fond of
startling hyperbole, and he may even have created some idiosyncratic
idioms (for example, prefatory “amen”). Moreover, my sense is that, for his
contemporaries, Jesus was as much miracle-worker as teacher. He attracted
attention and people not just because of what he had to say but because he
was a very charismatic individual. In particular, he was known as a
compassionate healer and exorcist – this must have won him a large and
sympathetic following in Galilee – and clearly many believed that, in his
presence, they experienced the presence of Israel’s God.
1. The third Quest is not over, unless one assumes that its purpose was
merely to prove that the historical Jesus should be studied against a
Palestinian Jewish background. Demonstration of this necessity is by itself
a great achievement. However, the Palestinian Jewish context itself needs to
be refined. The fact that Palestinian Judaism was diverse should not be
ignored. Theories about this diverse reality need to be revisited in the light
of the ever growing understanding of the New Testament literature, the
pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Archeology.
The question of apocalyptic worldviews within Palestinian Judaism
requires further analysis. Terms frequently used to define apocalyptic
elements need theoretical discussions. What do we understand by
apocalyptic? Should we not revisit our definitions? Should we not check
whether we are imposing alien concepts on our sources? Perhaps the
concepts we are advancing are not supported by the written sources. Surely
preconceptions, irrespective of the adopted approaches, require caution.
Besides the studies of Palestinian Judaism, progress in historiography
and literary theories deserve more attention. Confronting archeological
discoveries with the narratives of the Gospels is quite important. For the
study of the historical Jesus, the Gospels own a prominent role as primary
sources whether we like it or not. This implies that the texts need to be
studied further and that exegesis can not be neglected. Given that the
256 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
gospels have been studied throughout centuries, the history of their exegesis
still maintains a prominent and precious place as secondary sources.
Historical approaches need not to be opposed to literary theories. It
seems that more researches need to be done in terms of how a gospel, a
narrative which does not belong to the genre of pure historiography, refers
to historical persons and events. It does not mean that studies have not been
carried out in this area. Literary critics and philosophers, among others,
have dealt with these issues. The question is one of taking into
consideration the results of such researches in the analysis of sources
appropriate to the study of the historical Jesus.
It may be useful to examine how the gospels and archeological data are
interpreted in order to reach conclusions on the historical Jesus. For one
thing, it would remind scholars that both archeological and textual data hold
topics that are far from being exhausted. For another, it would enable us to
assess affirmations on the historical Jesus. On what basis do we build our
hypotheses regarding the historical Jesus? Are we open to critique with
regard to our methods? When we describe the historical Jesus, are we
realizing that we are writing, in our way, a history of Jesus or a story of
Jesus? What is the relationship between history and story, between the
attempt of discovering what really happened and what could have
happened, between historiography and literature? Methods need to be re-
examined keeping the balance between historicism and historical
skepticism. Every description of the historical Jesus includes narratives on
Jesus. Now the “narrative” written by the searcher of the historical Jesus
should be exposed to “historical critical” analysis. Historical studies should
be aware also of their limitations.
Perhaps, the Quest needs some “pause” for the sake of appreciating its
achievement, assessing its methods, and recognizing its shortcomings. The
criteria of authenticity can be checked and revised. Besides, the Quest
should not ignore previous and current studies that may not fit into the
categories of “Quests”.
If scholars approach the same source material differently, no approach
can claim the monopoly of the interpretation. No approach may exhaust the
issues. Approaches that are complementary imply humility and openness to
other approaches.
some respects Jesus was close to the Pharisees and in others to the Essenes.
On the one hand, the announcing of judgment and the imminence of the
Kingdom of God are reminiscent of apocalyptic world views. In so far as
his kingdom does not have a social or political solution it is transcendental,
otherworldly. Yet, Jesus’ kingdom of God has a distinctive element. Jesus
does not limit his focus on the otherworld or the future time only. What is
expected through the Kingdom of God has also the characteristic of being
already fulfilled. The Kingdom of God concerns this World too. Moreover,
the kingdom of God is not depicted by Jesus the same way as the
otherworldly is described in apocalypses.
With regard to the genre of the apocalypse, there is a paradox. Neither the
mediator of the revelation disclosed in apocalyptic literature, nor the recipient
of the revelation do claim much authority. Jesus, on the other hand, identifies
himself with the revealed mystery and claims authority higher than the angels
who are the ordinary mediators of apocalyptic messages.
the term is original. In the world described by the Gospels, that is, the
World of the text, the phrase “Son of Man” becomes one of the elements
that make Jesus peculiar. The “Son of Man” described in the Gospels is
much more variegated than in the Book of the Parables. Even if we admit a
dependence on the Book of the Parables, we can not ignore the fact that
there is more than mere borrowing from the Enochic writing.
Now the real meaning of the expression “Son of Man” in the Gospels is
still much debated. Some scholars link it to Jesus’ messianic role while
others contend that the expression has no particular eschatological
connotation. Apart from the much debated sentence in 1 Enoch 71: 14
concerning which scholars speculate on whether Enoch himself may have
been identified with the “Son of Man”, no human person is identified with
the Son of Man taken as a particular individual. The case of Abel, son of
Adam, in the Testament of Abraham, is more a reaction than a sign of
influence on the Gospels. For one thing, the identification of the Son of
Man with Enoch is highly problematic. For another, in Second Temple
Judaism, nowhere is he identified with the Son of Man. If Jesus identifies
himself with the Son of Man, that is something original anyway.
Even if the Son of Man were not understood as a particular individual
and if that expression did not have any special connotation, Jesus would
still be original by “creating” a peculiar meaning for that phrase.
Finally, Jesus proposes a new way of understanding his Jewish tradition,
whether apocalyptic or non apocalyptic, whether Essene or Pharisaic. He
claims to hold an extraordinary intimacy with God and special authority
with regard to the Law. Love of enemies figures among the distinctive
elements promoted by Jesus.
1. The distinction among First Quest, New Quest and Third Quest is
only one possible way to look at the history of research and provides only a
partial picture. I find more useful a periodization that would follow the
debate of the Jewish vs. the Christian Jesus. It has the advantage of being a
very old paradigm and including in the picture the entire history of research
without creating an artificial watershed before and after Reimarus. This
debate is at the center of the historical controversy since antiquity. Yaqub
al-Qirqisani already claimed that Jesus was a Jew (not a Christian), and
Christianity was the invention of Paul of Tarsus. Yaqub al-Qirqsani was a
Karaite, expressing a minority position. In the heat of the controversy, the
Christians and the Rabbis had already came very soon to agree that Jesus
was not a Jew or only accidentally a Jew and definitively the one who
wanted to destroy Judaism as it was.
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 259
The search for the Historical Jesus has long followed the same path of
al-Qirqisani in rediscovering the Jewishness of Jesus while separating him
from his own movement. Christian theologians like Rudolf Bultmann came
to agree on this position by claiming that after all Christianity was not
based in the historical Jesus (the Jewish Jesus) but on the risen Christ (the
Christian Jesus of faith). More recently, some scholarly reconstructions of
the historical Jesus have offered us the image of a “marginal” Jesus who is
equally detached from his Jewish world and from the movement that arose
in his name.
In my opinion, the gulf that separates the historical Jesus from the Christ
of faith, i.e. the Jewish Jesus from the Christian Jesus, can be reconciled
without going back to uncritical fundamentalist or theological approaches.
The emphasis on the diversity of Second Temple Judaism allows scholars
to rediscover fully the Jewishness of Jesus without downplaying his role as
the founder of a reform movement, that would later develop into the
religion we now call Christianity. The crucial historical problem is not
whether Jesus was “a Jew or a Christian,” or even whether he claimed to be
the Messiah. There were in fact many different ways of being a Jew in the
first century and many competing ideas about the Messiah. Continuity as
well as discontinuity are both part of the experience of the early Jesus
movement, a movement that was far from being the totally “new”
revelation it claimed to be. On the contrary, the birth of Christianity was the
ultimate outcome of ancient Jewish controversies – an inner-Jewish
struggle that started centuries before Jesus was born. By combining the
results of research on the diversity of ancient Judaisms and the diversity of
early Christianities, it is possible to recover a “Jewish and Christian” Jesus
who belonged fully to Judaism of his own time and at the same time started
a new trajectory which after the destruction of the Temple gradually parted
from other parallel Jewish trajectories, yet never parted from its roots in
Second Temple Judaism.
2. The problem of the kind of Judaism from which the Jesus movement
was born is inescapable. In history there is no such thing as an individual or
a social group that suddenly emerges coming from nowhere, taking a little
from everywhere. The problem of Jesus origins cannot be easily dismissed
simply by arguing multiple and (equally relevant) influences. Origins and
influences are not coincidental. Obviously if we compare the gospels with
what we know about any of the Jewish movements of the Second Temple
period we can only reach the conclusion that Jesus was influenced by all of
them and did not belong to any. Jesus was neither a Sadducee, nor a
Pharisee, nor a Zealot, nor an Essene, nor an Enochian… But the gospels
testify to a stage in which Jesus and his movement had already reached a
distinctive identity within the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism.
The problem is simply ill-posed. When we ask the question about which
kind of Jew Jesus was, in reality we inquire about the kind of Judaism from
260 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
1. The third quest continues because people still try to balance the
growing appreciation of the Jewishness of Jesus with the use of the criteria
of historical judgment. To this there has come, in the last decade or so, a
growing engagement with the oral features of the tradition in an ancient
context. We are still working out how orality functioned in that time (as
well as analyzing how orality works in a mostly non-literate culture). So the
manner in which the tradition developed, especially in its oral phase, will
continue to be a key question. Our understanding of the complexities of the
relationship of Judaism to Hellenism also complicates matters, making it
harder to assert what is late and early, as has our growing appreciation for
the diversity of Second Temple Judaism and the variety of ways
eschatological hope could be expressed. I think that the traditional claims of
authorship and the roots of that tradition are viewed with too much
skepticism by many historical Jesus scholars today. The names of the
authors of the gospels do not leap out at us as the logical names to have
surfaced from a mere later choice of luminaries from the church. So efforts
to determine how these specific names would come to be attached, as they
have, needs more attention. There may be more to the tradition here than
many think.
have been to promote an integrity in his walk with God, encouraging others
along those lines, but in ways that reached out to those on the fringe and
that highlighted the relational dimensions and ethical implications of
knowing God. This is not a mere ethics, however, because he taught a
strong sense of accountability for each person before God. His more
eschatological orientation about eventual justice also makes this more than
a mere ethic. So this devotion is both ethical and religious, combining
themes of Jewish wisdom, the prophets and eschatological expectation. Any
effort to get rid of any of these elements, presenting one of them as early
and another (or others) as late is misguided, given the mix we have multiply
attested in our sources for Jesus. At the center of all of this stood Jesus’
own claims of personal authority with reference to the kingdom’s coming.
What Jesus preached and offered was a package involving the kingdom and
himself as its catalyst.
1. (a) Since 1980, I have emphasized that we should use the technical
term “Jesus Research.” Scholars do not pursue their research or publish
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 263
2. (a) Well, first I am pleased that my emphasis that Jesus was a Jew and
must be understood “within Judaism” and not only within the history of the
emerging Church, has been influential. Jesus’ cultural background was not
that of a “peasant,” since archaeological work in Yodefat, Capernaum,
Bethsaida, Migdal, and Nazareth do not indicate such a sociological
construct; there is no cultural dichotomy between cities and villages. The
greatest divergence currently arises because of an extreme focus on only
one methodology. Some Jesus Scholars imagine ancient societies in terms
of sociological models; others interpret antiquity only through realia
produced by selective archaeological excavations. While strikingly
different, each methodology needs to be enriched by the other and an
exploratory synthesis of analyses needs to be part of our dialogue.
(b) Only archaeological research can help those of us who have devoted
our lives to studying texts obtain insightful and trustworthy answers
regarding Jesus’ type of Judaism. Many of the Jews living in Lower Galilee
migrated from Judea after the Hasmonean conquests around 100 BCE. In
Lower Galilee, we find mikvaot [Jewish ritual baths] and stone vessels for
the Jewish rites of purification [some of them were manufactured in
Jerusalem]. Excavations at many sites in Lower Galilee indicate a type of
Judaism shared and which helped to define Jesus’ Judaism; among the
common features are ethnicity, dietary restrictions, the importance of purity
(stone vessels and mikvaot), common symbols (as the Menorah in the
Temple and in the Migdal synagogue), shared Scriptures, the rhythm of
sacred festivals celebrated in the home and in Jerusalem’s Temple, belief in
inheritances (esp. the Promised Land), and common confessions (especially
the Shema in Dt 6:4 that articulated belief in only ONE LORD
[monotheism]).
264 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
(c) We cannot be certain, but Jesus and his family may have had deep
cultural ties with Judea and Jerusalem. Jesus was in Jerusalem to celebrate
Passover when he was crucified. Jesus revered the Temple; he worshipped
there and taught there. In many ways, Jesus and his family were defined by
“main-stream Judaism” [but one must be leery of proposals of a putative
orthodox Judaism]. Jews gathered and read Torah scrolls in synagogues.
Jesus is reported to have “preached” in the synagogues throughout Galilee.
New Testament experts and archaeologists have argued that there were no
synagogues in Galilee; their opinion is disproved by the discovery of a pre-
40 CE synagogue in Migdal, less than a one hour boat ride from Jesus’
headquarters in Capernaum.
(d) If we can trust the Evangelists, Jesus shared much with the Essenes,
but he was neither anti-Essene nor an Essene. Jesus’ moral message is
strikingly close to Hillel’s, but it is not certain that Hillel should be
categorized as a pre-70 Pharisee [we have no pre-70 Pharisaic writing].
Unlike Hillel, but similar to the Righteous Teacher, Jesus believed he was
continuing the work of the prophets and shaped his message with
apocalyptic warnings and expectations. But, Jesus was no apocalypticist.
3. (a) Jesus did not seek to establish a new religion. He called his fellow
Jews to return to devotion to God alone and to do God’s will with a radical
commitment. Jesus perceived that a New Age had begun to dawn through
his life, as witnessed by the miracles that validated his clams. A question
that disturbed his fellow Jews was “who is my neighbor” that I might love
him. Jesus answered that all “Jews” [he apparently included Samaritans]
should be considered a neighbor. A second question that perplexed his
contemporaries was: “How can I avoid impurity?” Jesus may have followed
the rigid Jewish laws, but he clearly fought against the “scribes and priests”
that were changing Torah and establishing new legal rules regarding purity.
Purity defined life more profoundly in Judea and Lower Galilee once the
Temple (expanded by Herod) defined city and land after 20 BCE.
(b) In seeking to find what is “original” too many scholars slip into
confession and usually expose an ignorance of Early Judaism [its texts and
its archaeology]. If Jesus chose to associate the concept of the Son of Man
with the Messiah, he may not have been original; that concept is clearly
found in the Parables of Enoch [and most specialists now conclude that this
document is profoundly Jewish, antedates Jesus, and may have been
composed in Galilee]. Jesus did emphasize that we should imagine God as
“Father;” but “Abba” was a well-known term in Jewish language and
liturgy. Moreover, a miracle worker prior to Jesus and in Galilee appealed
to God with these words: “Abba, Abba…” Admittedly, Jesus’ uniqueness is
to be found in the emphases he brought together from many types of
Judaism; these were woven within a morality that absurdly stressed love
and within an apocalyptic perspective that emphasized the “realizing”
dimensions of God’s Rule [the Kingdom of God].
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 265
1. The Third Quest for the historical Jesus has in part been driven by
studies in Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. It has assumed Jesus to be
a synecdoche of his Jewish milieu – that is, a representative part of some
larger Jewish/Judaic context; and on that assumption it has revisited the
question of Jesus’ identity by drawing upon (and rolling over onto Jesus)
work being done in one or another subdiscipline of those fields. If these
once-new pastures now seem grazed to their full, we can reseed them, I
believe, by apprising ourselves of new theoretical and methodological
developments taking place in the very studies of Second Temple and post-
Second Temple Judaism from which the enterprise emerged.
I was struck by this while recently reviewing Lee I. Levine and Daniel
R. Schwartz, eds., Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of
Menahem Stern (TSAJ 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) (for the
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures); and, as a salient example of its prospects, I
268 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
adherence (see the appreciation and concern for this matter expressed,
respectively, by Simon Gathercole and Amy-Jill Levine in this volume);
and, second, by daring us to test the extent to which (if at all) Jesus’
scholarly identity is to be found within a proto-rabbinic trajectory.
1. If the Third Quest or Jesus Research phase has ended its pursuit of the
elusive historical Jesus, those most involved surely know best. But I hope
that New Testament scholars will continue to explain the uncertainties to
outsiders even as they examine new or neglected research avenues. This
journal’s invitation to identify perspectives that would be “the most
interesting and promising” emboldens me to point to an unfinished task.
That, stating it boldly, is to address why the oldest canonical gospel was
written in part as a calculated polemic against the family and close
followers of Jesus. I suspect that the author of Mark meant well despite how
risky it was to denigrate the movement’s earliest authorities. Peter, James,
John, Mary, Salome and Judas, the brother of James and Jesus, were cast as
dim-witted, skeptical and/or self-centered, and at the end as scared-stiff
deserters. By so doing, Mark could cast doubt on the reliability of the Jesus
sayings collections and primitive dialogues featuring the names of these
followers and family. The sayings and dialogues may have legitimately
depicted Jesus as a wisdom teacher in the Jewish tradition, but such texts
were vulnerable to addition of speculative, “secret” teachings. Beyond that,
Mark may have felt that a wisdom orientation fell far short of the broader,
apocalyptic schemas that were becoming orthodox Christianity.
Historians and journalists are only as good as their sources. One
difficulty in seeking the Jesus of history, in my view, has been the
enormous influence of Mark’s “fact-filled” story. It was not only an
engaging narrative (appreciated as such since the 1980s by literary analysts)
but also replete with names, nicknames, places and dramatic events. Few
scholars dispute that the characters closest to Jesus are harshly depicted in
Mark. Luke and Matthew start with nativity stories, end with resurrection
accounts, and make changes in between to soften or offset Mark’s story of
tarnished reputations.
Was Mark’s purpose really to portray flawed followers with whom
believers could identify, conscious of their own shortcomings but knowing
they are forgiven? That apology for “Mark,” I think, is an interpretation the
gospel writer would have rejected. For throughout the gospel appear brave
characters who quickly perceive Jesus’ divine connections (and testify to
his wisdom and mission) whereas the Twelve, identified women followers
and family members are unrelentingly shown to be wrongheaded and
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 271
fearful. Just as the disciples all forsook Jesus, so the three women at 16:8
were frightened into absolute silence.
Werner Kelber, one scholar who took the polemic seriously, has
suggested that believers living after 70 CE would understand the demise of
the Jerusalem church “as a consequence of the abortive discipleship” and
that the written gospel marked “a rebellion against orality and its
authoritative carriers.” Those ideas are close, but more answers may lie in
the contending ideas of the early church.
2. James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester long ago suggested that the
Q and Thomas sayings and primitive dialogues, in their earliest forms, may
have preceded the gospel narratives. If so, Jesus was surely influenced by
Jewish wisdom traditions, which should not rule out eschatological tensions
appearing in his teachings. I am agnostic on what other Jewish ideologies
influenced Jesus’ family, but I welcome the attention to his family. The
canonical Letter of James, attributed to Jesus’ brother who was martyred
before the Jewish war of 66-70 CE, echoes some Jesus sayings and
practical OT morality, and has been described as Christian wisdom
literature. If not written before James’ death, the unknown author wrote at a
time and place where the name of James still held great respect.
Paul had his issues in mid-century with James, Cephas and John – the
“reputed pillars” (Gal. 2:9, RSV) of the Jerusalem church, a trio that
affirmed his work with Gentiles. Paul stayed two weeks with Cephas on
another visit but saw no other apostle then except “James the Lord’s
brother” (Gal. 1-19). He complains to the Corinthians (1 Cor 9:1-7) that he
and coworker Barnabas have to work for a living, unlike the other apostles
and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas. As is well known, Paul mentions
precious little about Jesus’ life, teachings and associates – not even Judas
Iscariot, only an unnamed person who “handed over” Jesus (1 Cor. 11:23).
Several texts from Nag Hammadi, while showing the jumble of later
editing, also reflect a pre-Markan period when identities were apparently
uncomplicated. Just plain “Judas,” plus “Mary” and “Matthew,” question
the Lord in The Dialogue of the Savior. It reflects wisdom themes seen in
Thomas 2 about seeking, finding, marveling, ruling and resting. In a Coptic
translation of The Gospel of Thomas, the incipit introduces “the secret
sayings of the living Jesus which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” But
a Greek fragment of the sayings collection identifies the writer as “Judas
who was called Thomas.” The text was attributed to brother Judas, but after
Mark introduced the nefarious Judas Iscariot, things had to change. Those
who cherished the sayings and their family link to Jesus, it would seem,
found a solution. This Judas was not the betrayer but a “twin” brother of
Jesus – one of the Twelve called “Thomas,” which means twin. Many
Thomas scholars suggest that sayings 11 and 12 were late additions –
naming “James the Just” as the future leader and depicting “Thomas” as the
most insightful disciple.
272 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
sights and sounds because the disciples interrupted them with questions.
This resembles 1st century CE Jewish mysticism, but also is reminiscent of
Paul’s “boast” that he knew someone (himself!) who was caught up into the
third heaven, hearing things no mortal should disclose (2 Cor 12:1-7).
Was Mark acquainted with ApJas? In the latter text, James says he will go
up to Jerusalem, praying he might enlighten the faith of new believers, a faith
even “better than mine, for I would that mine be the lesser.” The Coptic word
means, “be small, less or humble.” In Mk 15:40, among the women
witnessing the crucifixion is “Mary, the mother of James the younger
(mikros) and of Joses.” Some academics doubt that the mother of Jesus is
meant. Yet back at Mk 6:3, townsfolk identified Jesus as “a carpenter, the son
of Mary (a possibly pejorative reference) and brother of James and Joses and
Judas and Simon….” The KJV translated mikros in Mk 15:40 as “the less” –
probably the best choice. Accepting the polemical character of Mark, one
realizes that at the death and burial of Jesus no male member of his family
was present. A “Joseph” buried Jesus’ body, but Mark says that was Joseph
of Arimathea – not the father in lore known to Luke and Matthew.
1. ‛New Quest’ and ‛Third Quest’ designate not simply phases of the
Quest. They are also names for ways of tackling the issues of the Quest
today.
‛New Quest’ focuses on the Jesus- or Synoptic-tradition itself and
attempts to understand better the history of the tradition leading up to its
enduring Synoptic form. Initially that was by means of form-critical
analysis, then supplemented by redaction-critical analysis. As redaction-
criticism has been diverted more towards composition- or narrative-
criticism, to that extent the motivation provided by the Quest itself has
slackened. Form-criticism was also diverted into a quest for the social
contexts in which the tradition was framed – the Sitze im Leben of the
forms, the communities which used the tradition. But as a way of
penetrating behind the enduring forms of the Synoptic tradition, the original
motivation for form-criticism is still a force, and in principle form-criticism
(the New Quest) still provides a way to pursue the Quest.
More recently the original motivation of form-criticism (to explore
behind the written Jesus tradition into its earlier oral forms) has been
revived by a more explicit attempt to understand the processes of oral
communication in the earliest proto-Christian communities. This has been
the focus of my own contribution to the Quest. This is as or more
challenging than analysis of ‛forms’ (not least since the Jesus tradition is
available to us only in written form). But the inability of the modern literary
mindset to think outside the box of literary tradition remains a problem. The
274 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
2. One of the major developments feeding into the Quest in the last two
generations has been the recognition that ‛Judaism’ was a much more
complex phenomenon than had been previously thought. Even into the New
Quest phase the assumption remained strong that our information regarding
the Judaism of Jesus’ time could be read straightforwardly from the
rabbinic traditions. The prestige invested in Strack-Billerbeck by scholars
like Jeremias was immense, even though it should have been obvious that
rabbinic traditions from the third and fourth century were probably as far
removed from the context of Jesus’ time as was Jerome or Augustine.
The problem can be simply expressed, though not easily resolved. It is
that there was no single ‛Judaism’ in the first century; or, more acceptably,
‛Judaism’ covered quite a wide range of religious identity and practice. The
term itself had only been in existence for less than two centuries and had
been coined to express the Maccabean resistence to Syrian attempts to
crush Israel’s distinctiveness. It still had that sense of identifying a national
identity to be defended with zeal in its only occurrences in the NT (Gal.
1.13-14). So ‛Judaism’ is actually a too narrow term for the diversity of
Israel’s religious identity and practice in the first century. We should speak
more properly of Pharisaic Judaism, Essene Judaism, diaspora Judaism, and
so on, with ‛Second Temple Judaism’ as the most convenient blanket term,
or perhaps ‛Common Judaism’ to describe the general practice of Israel’s
religion as distinct from the factional Judaisms of the different ‛sects’.
All this bears directly on the issue of Jesus’ Jewishness. Jesus cannot be
directly associated with any of the factional expressions of Second Temple
Judaism, though it remains highly probable that he engaged with Pharisees
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 275
1. The Third Quest, as defined in the 1980s, is over. The Third Quest
will be remembered as a recovery of the Jewishness of Jesus and his world.
This recovery included important archaeological work and the publication
of the remaining Scrolls from Qumran’s fourth cave. For some of its
contributors, the Third Quest was a reaction to the theologically-driven
New Quest, which was insufficiently historical in perspective and simply
did not take into account adequately the world of Jesus and his first
followers. As the next phase in Jesus research gets under way, I do not
expect this sort of reaction to take place. The New Quest is dead and gone.
There will be little or no interaction with it in future studies. In contrast to
the New Quest phase, the Third Quest laid a foundation on which future
studies will build.
Cultural and contextual studies of first century Jewish Palestine will
continue and will provide the setting in which the next phase of Jesus
research will be undertaken. I say this because archaeological discoveries in
the last two decades of the twentieth century exploded dubious theories –
many of them oriented in a Greco-Roman, minimal-Jewish or non-Jewish
direction. For example, the theory that Jesus was influenced by Cynic
philosophy in nearby Sepphoris, where supposedly Cynicism and other
forms of Hellenistic thought flourished, has been shown, in the light of
excavations in the 1990s, to be very improbable. The physical remains of
culture, dating to the period prior to 70 CE, reveal a Sepphoris that was
Torah observant and a Sepphoris in which there was no significant non-
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 277
Jewish presence. Ongoing publication and study of the many scrolls from
Qumran have led to similar results. The old idea that exalted epithets such
as “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High” applied to Jesus reflect Greco-
Roman thinking, rather than Jewish thinking, has been seriously challenged
by the Aramaic fragment, 4Q246, in which an eschatological figure is
described with these very terms. Moreover, the idea of a Messiah figure,
whose appearance brings healing, resurrection of the dead, and good news
for the poor – concepts that define the identity and ministry of Jesus – is
now attested in 4Q521. Indeed, the idea of a figure who acts in the very
place of Yahweh himself, in fulfillment of Isaiah 61 and an expected
eschatological jubilee, is attested in 11QMelchizedek.
Archaeological and literary discoveries such as these will lead the way
in the future. This work is far from finished. Less than 10 percent of the
sites relevant to the life of Jesus have been excavated and tens of thousands
of papyri, inscriptions, and other ancient texts have yet to be published and
analyzed. The Third Quest moved scholarly discussion in the right
direction. The next phase will build on its success and correct its mistakes.
Jesus was criticized by some Pharisees, mostly for failing to hold fast to
the Oral Torah as it was understood in his time. These “failings” largely
centered on questions of Sabbath and purity. Healing, as well as other
activities, on the Sabbath and eating and associating with “sinners” were the
principal points of debate. Jesus was also criticized by Sadducees and ruling
priests, who probably viewed Jesus and his enthusiastic following as
dangerous. There is no evidence that Jesus had any encounter with Essenes.
In all probability, these men would have ignored Jesus.
There is no indication that Jesus was aligned with any sect. His
interpretation of Scripture and his manner of teaching at points overlap with
the sages of his time, but at many points Jesus’ teaching and behavior are
distinctive. So what kind of Jew was Jesus? He was a pious, charismatic
Jew, who believed himself to be anointed and enabled by the Spirit of God
to proclaim the arrival of God’s rule “on earth, as it is in heaven.” But there
are also important indications that Jesus saw himself and his mission in a
very unique way and not simply as one more prophet and one more
ministry in an unending succession.
3. Most of what Jesus proclaimed and did had precedent and was hardly
controversial, from a pious Jewish perspective. What Jesus proclaimed was
rooted in the Scriptures of Israel. Jesus did not appeal to any authority other
than Israel’s God and what Israel’s God has revealed in the Scriptures. But
Jesus did rework, even subvert some of Israel’s sacred tradition.
In his well known “antitheses” Jesus challenged several points of the
Oral Torah, as taught by the scribes and Pharisees of his day. Jesus did not
challenge Moses, but the interpretation of Moses. But in some cases Jesus
seems to have subverted Scripture itself. For example, whereas Daniel
thanks God for revealing his insights to the wise and learned (Dan 2:21,
23), Jesus thanks God for withholding his revelation from the wise,
disclosing it, instead, to mere “babes” (Matt 11:25-26). Or, for another
example, whereas in Daniel the Son of Man figure will be served by the
nations (Dan 7:13-14), Jesus says that the “Son of Man came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
Jesus’ surprising interpretations of Scripture sometimes grow out of a
conflation of texts. In the last example, the inversion of Dan 7:14 is
accommodated (or necessitated?) by allusion to the Suffering Servant of
Isaiah 53, who suffered and “bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:12).
Sometimes Jesus tempered judgmental aspects of the Law of Moses
with appeals to the prophets or other Scriptures. Mercy, forgiveness, and
reconciliation figured prominently in Jesus’ teachings. The temple and
sacrifice are important, but love and mercy are more important. Similarly,
the Sabbath was not to be given priority over human needs. “The Sabbath
was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark
2:27). Nor were purity concerns to be given priority over human needs.
Hence Jesus was willing to eat with tax collectors and sinners.
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 279
One of the most surprising elements in Jesus’ thought was his teaching
that “sinners” and outsiders (Samaritans and Gentiles) would be included
among the righteous. Gentiles, like the centurion of Capernaum or the
woman of Syro-Phoenicia, can possess more faith than Israelites
themselves. Indeed, even a Samaritan can fulfill the Great Commandments
of love of God and of neighbor (as in the parable of the Good Samaritan).
But perhaps the most original element of all is seen in the words of
institution, where Jesus, faced with the grim reality of his approaching
death, spoke of his death as in some sense bringing about the promised new
covenant. We have in Jewish thought the idea that through the death or
suffering of the righteous divine judgment upon Israel is ended or averted,
but the idea that through the shedding of his blood (and here we have an
allusion to the language of Exod 24:8) Jesus himself brings about the
prophesied new covenant is truly remarkable. This teaching, in combination
with the resurrection, is what gave rise to the distinctive essence of the
Christian movement.
their cooking habits, their ritual observances and burial practices, not just in
the rural village culture, but also in the larger urban environment of
Sepphoris and Tiberias. The more obvious signs of Greco-Roman life that
archaeology has uncovered in these places are to be dated to the second
century c.e. and beyond. Even then, however, the many synagogue remains
now coming to light in the region indicate the continuation of a vibrant
Jewish life well into Byzantine times.
However, the recognition of an observant Jewish culture in Galilee does
not answer the question of Jesus’ Judean identity. Other factors must be
taken into account, particularly Jesus’ association with John the Baptist and
his movement, something that is amply attested in the gospel records.
While appeal to John and his movement might be seen as a case of
explaining the ‛ignotum per ignotious,’ it can clearly be asserted that the
movement which John initiated in the desert did not conform with the
standard of ‛a common Judaism’ such as that which was propagated by the
priestly and scribal classes that represented the Jerusalem elite.
Comparisons with the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls is only
partially informative in view of the very different profiles of John’s and
Jesus’ movements to that of the Qumran group, on the basis of the sectarian
documents in their library. Yet all three, and presumably other groups also,
might be deemed ‛dissident’ in terms of the Jerusalem cult-centre and its
guardians. Despite his admiration for John ‛than whom no one greater has
been born of women,’ Jesus signals his difference from him (and the
Qumran group) in terms both of his strategy of visiting the people in their
local environment, and in his understanding of the present as a period of joy
and grace rather than one of mourning and judgment in terms of God’s
dealing with Israel. The realization that the most appropriate way of
interpreting and naming Jesus’ ministry of healing and teaching was the
claim that the definitive establishment of God’s kingly rule was taking
place now, marks him off from other reforming groups, no matter how
much all these may have shared common sources that were inspired more
by the prophetic than the legal traditions of Israel.
1. One might first begin by asking how valid this division into different
“quests” is. It can be a useful pedagogical tool for students, but we should
not use them unthinkingly. Schweitzer imposed a very artificial
organisation on his questers. Similarly, in our own day, a “third quest”
which can embrace John P. Meier and N.T. Wright on one side, and a
Dominic Crossan on the other, is a very broad church indeed. So one might
say that rather than such a quest being over, it is not clear whether there has
been any such thing as a “third quest”. Additionally, since some scholars
like Crossan have a good deal in common with the second questers, it is
hard to say that (even if one accepts the groupings) these quests are
sequential epochs like Egyptian dynasties.
Perhaps one of the achievements of the last four decades, however, has
been a gradual erosion of the authority of the “criteria of authenticity”. A
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 283
number of Morna Hooker’s essays were instrumental here. This has led to a
much greater emphasis on the coherence of a whole picture of Jesus, a
much more satisfactory way of proceeding. Dale Allison and N.T. Wright
are examples of scholars who, with quite different results, have recently
eschewed the criteria as conventionally understood, and embarked instead
on constructing portraits which take into account as much of the relevant
data as possible.
Most recently, there has been a renewed appreciation of the eyewitness
character of the material in the Gospels (particularly in the work of Richard
Bauckham). This is a promising development which can pave the way for a
greater optimism in Jesus-research than was the case a generation ago.
Another result of Bauckham’s work, along with that of the John, Jesus and
History group at SBL, may be useful in breaking the Synoptic monopoly
(or tripoly?) in characterisations of Jesus. Even conservative scholars who
do attach great historical significance to John’s Gospel, such as Wright and
Keener, have restricted themselves to the Synoptics in practice. While not a
“quester” myself, I would be fascinated to see the results of scholarly
attempts to give accounts of the historical Jesus in a way which take
seriously John’s Gospel.
1. (a) For practical reasons, these three quests have been and can be
distinguished. However, the frontiers are not so clear, and each quest,
especially the third one, can lead to a great diversity of results. The three
“quests” can interact, in some cases and in different ways, and that can be
fruitful for further research. The third quest is not over, nor are some
aspects of the former ones. They have to continue and to conjoin in new
ways, in order to achieve new insights and new results.
(b) Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in
recent years :
– Archaeology (archaeological discoveries in Galilee, notably in
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 285
2. (a) and (b) Jesus seems to have had a good knowledge of the Judaism
of his time, but it seems to me very difficult to determine exactly his
cultural background, beyond the influence John the Baptist could have had
on him. The proximity of Nazareth and Sepphoris, and the high cultural
level that is now established for this city, may contribute to explain his own
knowledge of Judaism and of the debates that took place. At the same time,
the rapid change generated by the development of such urban centers as
Sepphoris and Tiberias did provoke the emergence of a value system very
different from the one of the Galilean rural hinterland. That could have
catalyzed an apocalyptically inspired response such as the one attested in
Jesus’ proclamation.
(c) The meeting with John the Baptist and the proximity to his
movement, corroborated by Jesus’ baptism, remains the main element that
can help us in defining in more detail which ideological stream Jesus
belonged to. The implicit critic of the Temple cult involved in John’s
baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the apocalyptic accent of his own
proclamation characterized by an imminent expectation of the end can
contribute to a better understanding of Jesus’ own proclamation of the in-
breaking of God’s Kingdom.
286 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
(d) Jesus was a Jew who was well up on his own tradition. He was
influenced by the apocalyptic proclamation of John, the prophet and baptizer.
3. (a) Jesus did personally rework the cultural features that he inherited
in his proclamation of the in-breaking of God’s Kingdom. In Biblical Israel,
the divine kingship was associated in a specific way with the Temple-
Palace which was conceived both as the earthly counterpart of the celestial
sanctuary and as the place of the mysterious residence of God as King
among his people. In Jesus’ proclamation, the Kingdom of God is no longer
associated with the Temple but with his own proclamation and action.
Hence, the Kingdom of God is no longer centered around the Temple but
present wherever it is proclaimed in word and in action, and its coming is
corroborated by the defeat of Satan (Luke 11,20 // Matthew 12,28; Luke
10,18), which has an eschatological meaning (// Assumption of Moses 10,1;
Testament of Dan 5,10-13…). The Spirit plays a leading role in the
dynamics of the in-breaking Kingdom and generates a new relationship
between purity and impurity. Formerly, impurity was thought to be
contagious and always threatening. From now on, holiness invades the
secular sphere and opens up space. In return, this gracious occupation of
space by holiness results in high ethical standards. So, wherever the radical
newness of the in-breaking Kingdom comes to light, one can see a new
understanding both of space and of human responsibility.
(b) As a consequence of the former observations, the proclamation of
the irruption of the Kingdom of God can be regarded as the most original
element of Jesus’ thought. It has to be understood against the background of
the Psalms, as Chilton has demonstrated, and conceived in all its originality.
That Jesus, as a prophet, announced the Kingdom and not himself is also of
main importance in order to understand the origins of Christology. As
herald of the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God, Jesus was not a pretender
Messiah, even if he was condemned as a pretended Messiah. Nevertheless,
his claim to authority was such that, after Easter, his disciples could draw
all the consequences of a puzzling and incomparable proximity to God
which the apostrophe Abba could also suggest.
1. The division of the quest for the historical Jesus into three periods
(Old, New and Third Quest) is artificial. In my opinion there has been only
one search that has been improved by a better knowledge of the ancient
Christian texts, of the social and cultural context in which Jesus lived, and
especially by the refinement of the criteria for establishing the historicity of
the traditions about him. In any case, in recent years the production of
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 287
2. Research on the historical Jesus in the last years has rightly insisted
on the obvious fact that he was a Judean, lived as a Judean and promoted an
intra-Judean renewal movement. This insistence, which was favored by a
more detailed knowledge of Second Temple Judaism(s), was a reaction
against the detachment from his life context prompted by the systematic use
of the criterion of dissimilarity.
One of the traits of Judaism in Jesus’ time was its plurality. It is not
enough, then, to say that Jesus was a Judean, but we have to specify what
kind of Judean Jesus was. It is a difficult task, because the ancient sources
provide little information about the clues that define his place within
Judaism. These clues are, in my opinion, three. The first one is that Jesus
was a Galilean. This means that in order to state what kind of Judean Jesus
was, it is necessary to establish the characteristic traits of Galilean Judaism.
The second clue follows from the fact that Jesus lived most of his life in a
small village. His natural environment was not the urban milieu, but the
rural setting of villages and towns. Finally, the third clue is provided by the
fact that his family most probably came from Judea, as suggested by the
Judean names of all his relatives, and by their close relationship with the
region of Judea that appears in the infancy narratives.
288 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
This peculiar setting in the Palestinian society of the first century makes
it difficult to ascertain what kind of Judean Jesus was. To the difficulty of
determining the peculiar characteristics of Galilean Judaism it must be
added the complexity of identifying the traits of rural Judaism, which was
probably the most widespread, although it left no evidence in the material
remains and in the written sources. The relationship of Jesus’ family with
rural Judea is in my opinion a quite significant fact. It points to the so called
“common Judaism”, traditionally rooted in ordinary people (amme ha-
Aretz) who were little interested in the disputes between groups and
schools. This connection between Jesus and common Judaism rooted in the
rural areas of Judea may explain Jesus’ success among peasant population
in Galilee (many of them immigrants like his own family), and at the same
time his controversies with the scribes and Pharisees, and his confrontation
with the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.
Without responding directly to them in the ways they were posed, the
following reflections should address the gist of the questions.
Significant shifts in the scholarly interpretation of “the historical Jesus”
both in the very beginning and in the last decades of the twentieth century
resulted (mainly) from increased attention to ancient Judean texts. The
(re-)discovery and (somewhat literal) reading of Judean “apocalyptic” texts
in the late nineteenth century led Schweitzer to present Jesus as fully
sharing and preaching an “apocalyptic” scenario of the end of the world. In
the second half of the century, many Christian interpreters embarrassed
about Christian anti-Judaism implicated in the tragedy of the Holocaust
were eager to understand how Jesus belonged fully in ancient “Judaism.”
The discovery of Qumran texts and their apparent similarities with some
aspects of Jesus’ teachings represented in the Gospels contributed to the
“apocalyptic” Jesus. It is sobering to realize that, following a few
significant books in the 1970s-80s, the production of books on Jesus
burgeoned only in the 1990s, enabled by intense marketing by one
publisher. A wave of books by critical neo-liberal interpreters eager to
present a Jesus compatible with modern scientific sensibilities was followed
by a wave from more conservative interpreters eager to restate more
traditional theologies. Nearly all of these presentations of “the historical
Jesus” work on the basis of the standard assumptions, procedures, and
conceptual apparatus of New Testament studies, which is one of the fields
of Christian theology. This is only to be expected insofar as Jesus-
interpreters are trained in the field and usually have professional
responsibilities as well as personal commitment to religious education
and/or the education of the clergy.
Meanwhile, during the last several decades, research into texts, history,
material remains, and cultural features of ancient Judea and Galilee in
particular and their Roman imperial context in general has proliferated in a
number of areas closely related to the understanding of the Gospel sources
and the political and cultural context of Jesus and the movements he
catalyzed. The increasing specialization and proliferation of knowledge,
however, makes it difficult for interpreters of Jesus to keep up with
developments in other special areas that are directly relevant to or may even
undermine previously standard assumptions, approaches, and major concepts.
We only need to read Judean texts, from Ezra-Nehemiah to Josephus to
realize that there was a fundamental division in Judean society under
imperial rule, compounded by escalating conflict between circles of learned
scribes and the high priestly aristocracy whom they supposedly served as
advisers. Second-Temple Judea (“Judaism” is a later construct imposed on
earlier history) was not an independent society. The Persian imperial
regime backed the “return” of some of those deported by the Babylonians to
establish a temple-state that would maintain control over those still on the
290 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
scribal circles and ordinary people, Herod’s repressive rule, popular revolts
at his death, and devastating Roman reconquest. He then also presents a
picture both of scribal groups’ resistance to Roman and high priestly rule
(the “fourth philosophy” resistance to the tribute and the assassination of
high priests by the sicarioi) and of popular movements of resistance and
renewal led by either popularly acclaimed “kings” (reminiscent of the
young David) or prophets who promised that God was about to enact a new
exodus or entry in to the land (new Moses). The Similitudes of Enoch,
produced under early Roman rule, focus on the divine judgment of “the
kings and the mighty” who have been ruining life on the earth, i.e. the
Roman empire.
According to the Gospel sources read in the context indicated by the
above Judean sources for the historical situation, Jesus belongs squarely in
the context of these popular movements and scribal expectations of a
renewal or restoration of Israel. If we do not work from separate sayings of
Jesus separated from literary and historical context (which ignores the
literary integrity of the Gospels as sources), but read the portrayal of Jesus
in the Gospels as whole documents, then Jesus appears to have been
spearheading a renewal of Israel over against the rulers of Israel –
somewhat like the popular prophets (not “eschatological” or “apocalyptic”
prophets in Josephus’ accounts) and their movements.
Given our scholarly training as interpreters of sacred written texts it may
be most difficult for us to come to grips with recent researches in text
criticism and in the relation between oral performance and writing in the
predominantly oral communication environment of antiquity. Evidence
from the DSS indicates that the texts that were later included in the Hebrew
Bible existed in multiple versions that were all still developing and not yet
stable in late second-temple times. Evidence from the DSS also indicates
that “Enoch” texts may have been as authoritative (“scriptural”) as some
later included in the Hebrew Bible. Recent research has also demonstrated
that literacy was confined mainly to scribal circles in Judea and that even in
scribal circles cultivation of revered texts was as much or more by memory
and oral recitation as by making written copies. This evidence suggests that
ordinary people who were not literate and could not afford costly written
scrolls were not directly acquainted with the scriptures. This does not mean
that they were ignorant of Israelite tradition, just that they probably
cultivated popular versions of Israelite tradition orally in their village
communities (in their weekly assemblies/ synagogai). The conflict between
Jesus and the Pharisees would appear to be rooted in the differences
between the official version of Judean-Israelite tradition and the popular
Israelite tradition. Further work on Jesus in cultural context will have to
struggle with the implications of such researches.
Text critics of the Gospels have recently recognized the great variety of
versions in the second and third centuries, prior to the emergence of stable
versions in the late fourth and fifth centuries. This meshes with parallel
292 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
research into the Gospels that is concluding that, for example, Mark
continued to be performed orally even after it was written down – as
different versions/ forms of the Gospel proliferated. Thus, not only do we
need a more adequate understanding of the “oral-transmission” of Jesus-
materials prior to the “writing” of the Gospels, we must now also come to
grips with the probability that what we have are “transcripts” of oral
performances as our sources for Jesus. That our sources are probably
“orally derived texts” thus drives us further into the historical social
(“performance”) context of the oral performance of the Gospel stories in
Jesus movements of the late first century and into learning from recent
work on orally performed texts in other fields.
Much of the research in these related areas is very recent. Interpreters of
Jesus may well simply ignore it. After all, some of our most basic
assumptions and concepts are called into question. To struggle with the
implications of such research, however, will involve considerable new
learning and “retooling”. This suggests that it will take considerable
cooperative effort before we are able to rethink our assumptions and work
out more adequate procedures of historical research and reconstruction.
1. It seems to me that huge steps have been made in the past decades in
the search for the Historical Jesus. First, one must mention the removal of
Jesus from the confines of theology to bring him into history as a historical
personage. The searches for the historical Jesus have made it possible to
clear away faith and religious assumptions from the figure of Christ and
discuss only the man, Jesus. The scholar, regardless of his religious belief,
whether it be repressed, inhibited, or openly declared, is first of all a source
critic. In this sense, he must tend toward impartiality and objectivity if he
wishes to be regarded as scientific. To a certain degree, it would not be
erroneous to state that the source critic deconstructs established norms: if
his religious affiliation subtends his work, he is not a historian, but a
theologian. While the historiography regarding Jesus cannot be free of all
implicit influence of milieu, education, or the religion of the scholar, the
methodology used, the questions asked, and the problems evoked by
scholars must be related to the work of historians, not of theologians. This
is already an important step. For several decades, scholarship has been
seeking to place the personage of Jesus in perspective. An effort has been
made to contextualize Jesus in the Jewish society of his time, using
available literary, epigraphical, and archaeological evidence. As Alan Segal
has stated in “Paul et ses exégètes juifs contemporains,” Recherche de
science religieuse 94 (2006), pp. 440-441:
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 293
Great light has been shed on the historical personage thanks to the Dead
Sea Scrolls and to inter-testamentary literature – the literature that
flourished at the end of the Second Temple Period. In the future it seems to
me that greater consideration of Talmudic literature is essential for
scholarship on Jesus. It is vital to lay bare the most ancient strata of the
Mishnah, the Tosefta, and Midrashei Halakha in order to grasp elements
that could have had an influence on Jesus’ way of thinking and teaching, his
sensitivities, and his message.
The historians will never be much more certain about Jesus. Many of
them rebel against the impossibility of writing a true biography of that
great man. Hence we find repeated efforts ... to find the key to a person
who was also mysterious. This key does not exist. There are only points
of view from which one may cast glances at the Nazarene without ever
drawing nearer.
In the same spirit, at the end of my own, Jésus sous la plume des
historiens juifs du XXe siècle. Approche historique, perspectives
historiographiques, analyses méthodologiques, Paris, 2009, pp. 352-353, I
wrote:
3. In the religious ferment of his age, Jesus offers an approach that has
been regarded as singular for too long. In my opinion, his teaching belongs
to the plurality of the Jewish world of his day. Let us emphasize a crucial
point: a reading of the Prophets as a background is vital for understanding
Jesus’ teachings, his relationship with God, repentance, and the relationship
with the Other. It also seems to me that some of the practices attributed to
Jesus in the New Testament have an echo in Talmudic literature. For
example, Geza Vermes and Shmuel Safrai have shown that Jesus’ practices,
such as healing from a distance, his filial relation to God – where Jesus
addresses the divinity as his Father – the ability to modify the natural cycle
of nature, etc. are found to a lesser extent among figures from the Talmud
such as Honi Hamaagel or Hanina ben Dosa. These men belonged to a
distinct group known as Hasidim (see my article, “L’identification de Jésus
au modèle du Hasid charismatique Galiléen: les thèses de Shmuel Safrai et
de Geza Vermes revisitées,” New Testament Studies 55 (2009), pp. 218-
246). The point is arbitrarily to note similarities between practices and
literary attestations: rather it is to bring out a continuum between the
practices and teachings of different groups, each of which belongs to the
mosaic typical of the Jewish world at the end of the Second Temple period.
In my opinion, one of Jesus’ most original teachings was the hierarchy that
he establishes between the relationship with God and the relationship with
man. His very high moral level and his consideration for others, going as
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 295
1. Non credo affatto che la terza ricerca sul Gesù storico abbia esaurito il
suo compito. Al contrario. Essa ha fornito agli studi alcune nuove piste di
indagine di grande importanza e fecondità che devono essere ancora
percorse e portate avanti. Proprio le nuove prospettive che così si sono
aperte pongono però alcuni problemi e devono essere perciò approfondite e
precisate. Indico i problemi che mi sembrano più rilevanti.
Il primo problema è quello delle fonti. La terza ricerca sul Gesù storico
ha avuto il grande merito di contestare la limitazione tradizionale della
documentazione alla letteratura canonica, allargando lo sguardo ai testi
296 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
della rilevanza teologica dello studio del Gesù storico (e purtroppo anche
per il problema, che è squisitamente storico, della continuità tra il Gesù
storico e il cristianesimo). Ma, rimanendo pur sempre legati a una
metodologia prevalentemente letteraria e teologica, gli autori si limitano di
norma a un’analisi puramente tematica dei vari aspetti della persona di
Gesù (il Gesù carismatico, il Gesù profeta, il Gesù maestro) o delle sue
prese di posizione nei confronti dei vari aspetti del giudaismo (Gesù e la
legge, Gesù e il tempio, Gesù e la speranza messianica), senza tentare di
scrivere una storia (non una vita) di Gesù che ne prenda in considerazione
gli eventuali sviluppi (e rinunciando quindi anche a fornirne una immagine
complessiva); e il ricorso stesso al contesto storico della sua vicenda, spesso
impreciso, risulta quasi sempre poco significativo ai fini della
comprensione di Gesù e molte volte anche strumentale a una immagine
ideologica della sua persona.
(b) Per svolgere la sua missione Gesù non soltanto ha lasciato la Giudea
(dove si trovava col Battista) per tornare nella Galilea dove era cresciuto,
ma ha frequentato prevalentemente ambienti marginali della società
giudaica galilaica: non le città più o meno ellenizzate di Sepphoris e di
Tiberiade, successive sedi del potere erodiano; ma i villaggi di pescatori e
di contadini intorno al lago di Genezaret; e ha praticato anzi una comunione
di tavola con pubblicani e peccatori (Mc. 2,16), che costituiva una evidente
provocazione rispetto a un certo modo di concepire la giustizia e la santità
da parte delle autorità giudaiche.
(c) Come altri personaggi carismatici del tempo Gesù ha compiuto
indubbiamente guarigioni ed esorcismi: quelle “azioni paradossali” di cui
parla Giuseppe (Ant. 18,63) che gli hanno assicurato in Galilea una
notevole popolarità. Ma a queste guarigioni e a questi esorcismi che egli
riteneva di compiere con l’aiuto di Dio ha attribuito un valore particolare:
essi erano la realizzazione del tempo messianico preannunciato dal profeta
Isaia (Mt. 11,4-5/Lc. 7,22); significavano per lui la vittoria di Dio sul potere
di Satana, e quindi la trasformazione già iniziata del mondo in regno di Dio
(Mt. 12,28/Lc. 11,20).
(d) Sollecitato dalle critiche dei suoi avversari per il suo comportamento
anticonformista, Gesù ha dato una interpretazione della legge mosaica che
era più libera e allo stesso tempo più radicale di quelle dei farisei, dei
sadducei e degli esseni: per lui non era la mancata osservanza delle norme
legali di purità, alle quali sembra comunque essersi sostanzialmente
attenuto, ma l’inclinazione del cuore, a determinare la contaminazione
dell’uomo (Mc. 7,15). L’uomo non doveva infatti essere schiavo della
legge, ma era invece la legge che era al servizio dell’uomo; e l’uomo aveva
quindi tutto il diritto di valutarne il contenuto (Mc. 2,27).
(e) Con questi atteggiamenti e con queste affermazioni Gesù ha
manifestato un’autorità, e ha avanzato quindi una pretesa, che, anche se non
si è tradotta nell’affermazione esplicita di essere il Messia atteso da Israele,
può essere tuttavia legittimamente definita messianica: ed è questa pretesa
(non la dimostrazione nel tempio) che ha spinto le autorità giudaiche ad
arrestarlo e processarlo e che, presentata al governatore romano come
pretesa regale, è stata motivo della condanna a morte di Pilato. Alla
preoccupazione religiosa per l’identità di Israele si è aggiunta la
preoccupazione più schiettamente politica per i rapporti con Roma. La
condanna come re dei Giudei da parte del prefetto romano ha infatti il suo
necessario fondamento nella condanna come Messia di Israele da parte
delle autorità giudaiche (come scrive Giuseppe, Ant. 18,64: «Pilato lo
condannò alla croce su denuncia dei primi tra noi»).
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 299
1. (a) The labels often serve more political than heuristic purposes.
Those who don’t like a particular scholar’s work consign that work to an
earlier period. The better focus is not by labels, but approaches.
(b) To a great extent, the so-called “criteria of authenticity” have failed
both to promote consensus and to withstand critical-historical challenges.
(c) New perspectives include the increasing use of the Gospel of John
and increasing use of rabbinic, including late rabbinic materials.
(d) Potential problems include the extent to which religious
confessionalism impacts the field, the dismissal or relegation to one approach
of many of equal value of historical work in favor of a Jesus constructed from
one’s subject position or social location, the favoring of sociological models
over the evidence provided by texts and archaeology, and the inattention of
many scholars to the history of the discipline, such that there is much
reinventing of the proverbial wheel. Matters that need to be better addressed
include the use made of vaguely defined sociological categories. For
example, today it is almost impossible to hear a popular talk (and a number of
academic ones) that does not mention Jesus’ mission to “the marginal and the
outcast.” Precision is needed: marginal to what? Cast out by whom?
Common also (although in U.S. scholarship, with the shift from the Bush
administration to the Obama administration, this tendency seems to be
waning) is the analogy between the Pax Romana and the Pax Americana,
with Jesus standing against “empire.” The study needs nuance (for example,
attention to Rome’s varying roles and presence in Galilee and Judea; in larger
vs. smaller towns; the naturalization of the imperial context; colonial
mimicry; focus on immediate [familial, village] vs. imperial concerns).
(e) Given the inevitable intermingling of scholarly questions and
cultural contexts, we may see a shift in historical Jesus studies from the
political focus to the economic one.
(f) Finally, today there remains debate over whether Jesus was
apocalyptically/eschatologically oriented, whether the texts that give rise
to this view are (merely) metaphor, and whether these texts are products
not of Jesus, but of his early, disappointed, and rejected followers. Instead
of looking at an either/or construct, perhaps we might see an interlacing
of the images: one can be both ethical and eschatological, metaphoric and
literal, apocalyptic and utilitarian. Jesus’ emphases may have changed
over time as well.
related to national hopes, above all, for his people. The strangeness of the
exorcist and faith healer also belongs within the framework of such hope,
not only as fulfilling prophecy, but also as addressing indirectly what were
drivers of the poverty he saw among his people.
Beyond that, I would expect a growing realization that, however
optimistically one assesses the sources, they offer anecdotes and logia
deriving from at most the last two to three years of Jesus’ life and
selectively transmitted, so that historical reconstruction cannot short-cut its
own vulnerability and be credible.
2. Both the family names and the location in lower Galilee suggest a
conservative Judaean family. Jesus’ initial reluctance to respond to the
Syro-Phoenician woman and probably the Gentile centurion may reflect
such conservatism. He seems certain to have shared John the Baptist’s
Judaism, as did the earliest believers who continued his baptism, albeit
supplemented with claims of a degree of fulfillment, probably matching
Jesus’ own take on eschatology. He apparently shared John’s strict
application of incest laws to Antipas for marrying his stepbrother’s wife.
His views on divorce reflect a comparable strictness, perhaps even
influenced by Antipas’ divorces – one might speculate. Like Paul, Jesus, or
at least early use of scripture supporting his stance, assumes sexual
intercourse establishes permanence. Similarly his eschatology envisages no
place for sexual relations and he saw himself called already not to marry
when at 30 most did, but like Paul affirms the option for others. The closest
parallels to such eschatology are to be found in Pseudo-Philo and Jubilees,
which appears to envisage the age to come as one where all are children and
may have linked this to the notion of a return to Eden, which it understood
as a most holy temple where sexual relations had no place. Luke’s
adaptation of the saying about not marrying may reflect 1 Enoch 15:6
which sees sex warranted only for procreation, but Mark and probably Jesus
do not assume such limits (12:25; 10:2-9). The notion of the eschaton as
sanctum differs from the sectarian and most other writings at Qumran,
which saw the ideal future as matching the present, but functioning as it
should – with (extended) holy places (including even the whole city) and
time (even the Sabbath) as sanctum and so out of bounds for sex, but
affirming sex in the right places and times, much as in the present. This
places Jesus or early Jesus tradition in a Judaism which so emphasizes the
eschatological sanctum (and eternal Sabbath in its terms) that no other
space or time remains for sex.
These values co-exist with an approach to disputes over Torah
conformity which emphasizes response to human need over fear of impurity
or bad moral company and Sabbath observance. Expanded in Matthew to
become halakhic argument, Jesus’ consistently clever and bipartite
responses in anecdotes function, much like his parables, are provocative
and informed by prophetic perspectives. The conflict with contemporaries,
sometimes called scribes or Pharisees, is not over whether to adhere to
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 303
Torah, but over how to do so. That the issues arise almost always only
incidentally suggests that Jesus did not present primarily as Law teacher.
Conflicts in the early church make best sense on the basis that Jesus never
called Torah into question, but approached it with a typically prophetic and
sapiential perspective of seeing justice and mercy at its core, matching his
espousal of the most generous prophetic eschatological visions, which were
strongly inclusive.
shapes that person’s beliefs and faith and even worship. But the Church’s
Jesus, enshrined in the Four Gospels and then later codified theologically in
the ecumenical creeds, is the Jesus that the Church will believe.
“Messiah,” for there was no better word for the one who thought he was
God’s agent for eschatological restoration. The record we now have of
Jesus’ interaction with the Baptist, found in such passages (and their
parallels) as Mark 1, Matthew 11, Mark 9, Luke 7, and John 1 indicate to
me that Jesus and John both saw themselves as “scripture prophets” whose
role was sketched in the pages of Israel’s scriptures.
3. The word “original” gets us in trouble every time but the word
“distinctive” or the term “identity-shaping” will get us where we want to
go. One word gets us there: kingdom. Yes, this term emerges throughout
Israel’s history and is found throughout Israel’s scriptures in one way or
another. The essential idea of government by God, and we could begin with
Abraham’s call and move into the period of the Judges or into the Samuel-
Saul-David narratives, not to miss also the visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel,
shaped as all of this was by the vision of God in Israel’s worship book, the
Psalms, is at work when Jesus says “kingdom of God.”
Jesus’ distinctive emphasis though is that the long-awaited kingdom,
and one could dig here into specific ideas and hopes like the restoration of
twelve tribes, the purging of Mount Zion, the elimination of oppressing
enemies, and the moral conversion of all Israel, has now dawned. I’m of the
view that Jesus meant “has drawn near” more than “has already arrived
[and that’s all there is to it].” But what matters most is that Jesus thinks the
long-awaited promises were now coming to pass and he was the Agent of
God to make that happen.
Everything about Jesus flows from this fundamental platform. While a
previous generation fixed on his use of Abba for God, which is a distinctive
(but not unique or original) belief for Jesus, and found in Jesus a profound
religious genius, that term does not have the gravitas in Jesus’ teachings
and mission and vision that kingdom has.
Accordingly, since Jesus believed the kingdom was dawning, he called
to a radical vision of discipleship, and that discipleship is focused both on
following Jesus himself, which takes a profound sense of mission and
vocation, and taking up his vision of the kingdom with radical zeal.
that do not fit in with this threefold division. The history of exegesis has
often followed very diverse directions (M. Pesce, Il rinnovamento biblico,
in M.Guasco, E.Guerriero, F.Traniello (eds.), Storia della Chiesa. XXIII e
XXIV, Roma 1991-1994, 575-610; 167-216). In addition, Jewish research
on the historical Jesus over past centuries do not find a place within the said
scheme (to avoid a long bibliography, I merely cite, for example, S.
Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, Chicago, 1998; The Aryan
Jesus. Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton,
2008; D. Jaffé, Jésus sous la plume des historiens juifs du XXe siècle, Paris,
2009). The reaction of churches to historical research on Jesus continues to
influence and condition both historians and exegetes, and not always with a
negative effect, as research on Jesus can have a broad social impact only if
it takes account also of this aspect. The various linguistic, disciplinary and
national perspectives, along with the immensely influential ecclesiastical
one, and the Jewish research should be taken into consideration by histories
of research on Jesus (something that is not the case in recent publications,
whether in extensive or short books).
With reference to the question “Do you think that this phase is now
over?”, I think, therefore, that the answer could be that serious and rigorous
historical research (and the modern age has seen many of them) can never
be “over”. Even the so-called Third Quest is very far from over (personally,
I am unconvinced by the neo-apologetic and neo-conservative line of
scholars such as J.Dunn, R.Bauckham, L.Hurtado and others, although
undoubtedly serious and interesting), while socio-anthropological
researches continue to provide a fresh approach even after the older
generation of the so-called “Context Group”. We must, therefore, maintain
contact with all of the previous history of research. The exegesis of
previous generations remains indispensable. Still today, the old problems
and solutions require our attention. The danger today is that of losing
contact with a long tradition of studies of extraordinary value. It is our task
to educate the younger generations to study the classics of the exegesis and
history of early Christianity from the sixteenth century to the present.
As to the question: “What are the most interesting and promising future
perspectives in the field? What are the specific problems that you think
more than others deserve or require further analysis?”, my answer is that
research should concentrate on Jesus’ life practice, without which the
conceptions of Jesus cannot be adequately understood. Jesus was not a
thinker, but a religious leader immersed in the life of people (I refer to our
book A.Destro – M.Pesce, L’Uomo Gesù, Milano 2008). It is also essential
to focus attention on anthropological and sociological aspects (I would like
to mention only H.Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place, Louisville, 2003;
W.Stegemann, Jesus und seine Zeit, Stuttgart, 2010). In second place, the
preoccupation with demonstrating a continuity between Jesus and
subsequent Christian theology or christology must abandoned: historical
research should also take account of the parameter of discontinuity. Many
308 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
but he is also deeply involved in the real needs of the people of his time and
in the historical destiny of the Jewish people in a precise historic-social
moment, more than in the debates of theologians, intellectuals or single
religious thinkers.
The psychological and psychiatric sciences reveal the contradictoriness
of each personality, often arising from a ceaseless struggle among divergent
tendencies that the individual rarely manages to dominate. The way of
thinking and the decisions of a person are mainly determined by a complex
of contradictory elements that are difficult to reconcile, rather than by any
central thought. We must try to learn everything we can from current
researches on the history of Jewish and Hellenistic thought at the time of
Jesus. However, his personality should not be reduced either to certain
elements of Jewish thought, or to certain religious practices alone. During
our research, we have become convinced that Jesus was, at one and the
same moment, a man of both a radically vertical and radically horizontal
orientation. This double dimension should encourage us towards
substantially complex representations of his thought and life practices.
Within this perspective, we are deeply interested in the visions that
integrate the eschatology of Jesus with his mystic dimension. The Gospels
of Thomas and of John, for example, develop aspects of Jesus’ religious
experience that should not be seen as in contradiction with or mutually
exclusive to his historico-social eschatology (vedi A.Destro - M.Pesce,
“Continuity or Discontinuity Between Jesus and Groups of his Followers?
Practices of Contact with the Supernatural”, In S.Guijarro-Oporto (ed.), Los
comienzos del cristianismo, Salamanca, 2006, 53-70; P. Craffert, The Life
of a Galilean Shaman, Eugene, 2008 and the research of A. DeConick on
early Christian mysticism).
Nonetheless, recent years have been characterized by a greater attention
for the history of previous research (as testified by the proliferation of
essays of a historiographic or dialogical character, see for example:
C.S.Keener, The Historical Jesus and the Gospels, Grand Rapids, 2009;
K.Beilby – P.R.Eddy (eds.), The Historical Jesus. Five views, London
2010) and by a diversity of approaches. It is my hope that the various
approaches will respect and nourish each other reciprocally, without
claiming any primacy, something that would be very difficult to attain.
1. Only some of the provoking theses of the Third Quest survived the
end of the last millennium. Some of them (like the early dating of some
non-canonical texts, e. g. the Gospel of Peter or the Secret Gospel of Mark)
were refuted in discussion, some were (unfortunately) neglected by the
scholarly community (attempts at interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection) and
310 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
some were in fact not so radically new (social dimension of Jesus’ activity).
Nevertheless, the Third Quest evoked a continuing Jesus Research as a
particular field which concerns history, theology, religious studies, and
philosophy. This is an inconspicuous comeback of Jesus into the present
cultural scene.
The most promising future perspective of Jesus Research is the
hermeneutics of human culture. In the European Union we experience a
new search for constitutive elements of humanity, for the meaning of
religion and for the anchoring the hope. The discussion about the “real”
Jesus, about his impact in history, literature and art is the best way to find a
basis for re-discovering the roots of European and American self-
understanding, for a dialogue with other religions and for a qualified critical
analysis of Marxist heritage.
The problem deserving the most attention is the inner consistency of
Jesus’ teaching and proclamation. We have to attempt to reconstruct his
theology. I am aware of the fact that Jesus has not created any theological
system. However, he must have an idea how the various themes of his
proclamation and teaching relate to each other: Kingdom of God, Last
Judgment, love commandment, authority to speak in the name of God,
promise to the poor, warning against mammon, Israel centered mission,
global horizon etc. To reconstruct the interrelation of these themes is one of
the basic tasks of Jesus research.
2. Jesus was a Jew. He was a pious Jew, but, since he intended to reform
Israel and got a new vision about its role in universal history, he took
distance from the piety of his family and his Galilean setting (Mark 3:31-
35par.). The fact that his family considered him to be “out of mind” (exestē)
may relate to his vision of the kingdom of God and of his expectation of the
Last judgment. He belonged to the reformers of Israel like was in the
Hellenistic time the Teacher of Righteousness and in Jesus’ time the
Pharisees and John the Baptist. Originally, Jesus was John’s follower, but
after his baptism he emancipated from his teacher. He presented the
expected kingdom as a promise for the poor and as a guarantee for the
victory of divine righteousness, whereas John’s preaching was rather based
on a warning against God’s judgment.
The intention to reform Israel attracted Jesus to the Pharisees who are
the most frequent partners of his disputes. Yet, the differences in
interpretation of Law (Jesus: reduction on basic commandments; Pharisees:
hundreds of instructions adapting the main commandments in a casuistic
way to the urban civilization) revealed that the programs are not
reconcilable.
Jesus’ concept of mission is Israel-centered (centripetal), expecting the
eschatological pilgrimage of nations to Zion.
Like in the late Hellenistic stream of the “rational piety” (logikē latreia),
in Jesus’ concept of the cult, the role of the temple was relativized. He
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 311
1. The so-called “Third Quest” has two great merits: Against a long-
standing tradition of Christian Anti-Judaism it greatly stressed the fact that
Jesus of Nazareth could only be appropriately understood against the
backdrop of First-Century Palestinian Judaism. The interest in the
contemporary social history and the integration of archaeological findings
led to a stronger anchoring of Jesus in historical reality. These approaches
were not completely new but they were conducted with broader knowledge
and methodological refinement. We now have a much more substantiated
picture of Galilee during the time of the Second Temple. This enables us,
for example, to disclose the assertion of a half-pagan Galilee as an
ideologically motivated construction. However, the optimism of some
scholars to find in the apocryphal gospels trustworthy information about
Jesus was not a historical-critical advance. In this respect older scholars like
Joachim Jeremias rightly adhered to more rigorous criteria of authenticity.
Nevertheless, we should not disregard the foregoing phases of the quest for
Jesus. Questions were asked that are still worthy of grabbing our attention.
The “Old Quest” stressed the literary critical problems of the Synoptic
Gospels. For many scholars these problems seemed to be solved by clinging
to a rigid Two-Source-Hypothesis. Stirred by American and French exegetes,
the discussion of the last years indicates, however, that this rather simplistic
solution does not match the complexity of the Synoptic phenomenon. The
following questions are still relevant in order to establish a solid source base:
Is it really possible to speak of Q as a unified source? Should one, not rather
presuppose the existence of numerous and early informal written notices as
they were commonly used in ancient school settings? How should we
evaluate the Matthean and, above all, the broad Lukan special tradition? Is it
not rather likely that these two streams of tradition extensively overlap with
the triple and double tradition? Are those scholars right who argue anew that
we should not exclude John’s Gospel from our quest? Did eyewitnesses have
a decisive influence on the origin and development of the Jesus tradition?
How should we judge the value of eyewitness reports in the light of modern
psychology of memory? Seen in light of the Qumran discoveries might it not
be probable that Jesus not only spoke Aramaic, but Hebrew and some Greek
as well? Did Jesus consciously formulate summaries of his teaching,
occasionally introduced by the unique amen-introduction, to impress them
upon the memory of his disciples and other hearers? Can the use of
mnemotechnical devices be demonstrated? Is there evidence of some care for
verbal transmission of the words of Jesus?
Even during the time of the so-called “No Quest” Anglo-Saxon scholars
like Charles Harold Dodd contributed to the quest. To speak of a “No
Quest” seems to be a rather Germanic perception on the history of Jesus
research. During the “New Quest” certain scholars, sometimes influenced
by an Anti-Jewish bias, overemphasized the uniqueness of Jesus. Could it
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 313
be, however, that today some scholars avoid the question of the originality
of Jesus intentionally?
2. If one accepts that the Lukan special tradition, including the first two
chapters of this gospel, was handed down in conservative Jewish-Christian
circles gathering in Jerusalem and Judea around James, the Lord’s brother,
and other relatives of Jesus, then several conclusions concerning the
religious background of his extended family might be drawn. Though the
Lukan special tradition partially accords with the Dead Sea Scrolls in terms
of language and concepts, the exclusivism of the Qumran group is absent.
Those family circles behind the Lukan special tradition held fast to both the
Jerusalem temple and the Davidic messianic expectation. New prophecies
as well as the belief in the angelic world mattered to them. Poverty and
asceticism had religious value. The piety of Jesus’ extended family
resembled the kind of piety of the older Hasidim (1Macc 2:42) from whom
Essenes and Pharisees split off as rather narrowed developments in the
pluralistic world of Second Temple Judaism.
One must reckon with the possibility that Jesus was already introduced
to scripture in his childhood years at home and in the synagogue of
Nazareth and its elementary school (cf. Luke 4:16). He surely learned in his
pious family not only the colloquial Aramaic but also the holy language. It
is improbable that Jesus was less “a Hebrew from Hebrews” than the
apostle Paul was (Phil 3:5). Being on pilgrimage to Jerusalem Jesus could
hear in the temple halls the famous scribes of his time. Apparently, the
Enochic writings (cf. Jude 14) and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
were also cherished in his extended family. This may partly explain why
Jesus pondered more intensely on the concept of the “Son of Man” than
was usual in contemporary Palestinian Judaism. Against a Messianism in
his extended family that was sometimes national-politically colored, Jesus
had to find his own way. Due to his preaching he aroused a mass movement
in Galilee and, thus, he had to distance himself from Zelotic tendencies
existent even by his disciples. Jesus accepted the prophetic call of the
Baptist instead. John denied that all children of Abraham were
automatically saved in God’s impending judgment (Matt 3:7-10 / Luke 3:7-
9). When Jesus himself announced the dawn of the time of salvation he
could not have learned this as a pupil from John. Jesus’ conviction, that
through his work the eschatological “kingdom of God” started to become a
reality, obviously calls for another explanation.
Jesus also was innovative regarding ethical aspects like love for enemies
(Matt 5:43-44 / Luke 6:27-28), he was in agreement with Old Testament
and early Jewish ethics in many other aspects. In order to legitimize his
authoritative preaching and his sometimes offensive behavior Jesus often
appealed to the Holy Scriptures but never to another teacher (cf. Matt 23:8-
10). His contemporaries felt that he spoke with the authority of a prophet
(Mark 1:22). Certainly Jesus acted like a teacher and prophet. His claims,
however, are not adequately evaluated by retreating to these two traits.
Martin Hengel has given many arguments that Jesus’ performance can only
be understood in Messianic terms. Had Jesus not been condemned as a
Messianic pretender (Mark 14:26), his being crucified under the Roman
prefect Pontius Pilate would be historically inexplicable.
However, Jesus’ originality became visible in the way he enacted his
Messianic claim. In his public ministry before the “Galilean crisis” (cf.
Matt 11:20-24 / Luke 10:13-15) Jesus did not proclaim himself Messiah,
although he inseparably bound the realization of God’s kingdom to his
person. The so-called Messiasgeheimnis was not a post-Easter theological
construction but part of Jesus’ history. After the refusal of his call to
repentance, being announced through the disciples in all Galilee (Matt 10 /
Luke 9-10), Jesus withdrew to an inner circle for esoteric instruction (cf.
Mark 8:27-33). The selection of “the Twelve” showed that he still felt
responsible for Israel’s fate (Matt 19:28 / Luke 22:30). In spite of his
rejection Jesus hoped for the redemption of Israel. He was willing “to give
his life as a ransom for many”, that is for Israel and all men. The
authenticity of the “ransom logion” (Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28) and the
Eucharistic words (Matt 26:26-28 / Mark 14:23-24 / Luke 22:19-20) is
confirmed by Paul (1Cor 10:33-11:1; 11:23-25). The combination of the
Danielic “Son of Man” (Dan 7:13) and the Deutero-Isaianic “Servant of the
Lord” (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) embraced by Jesus had no early Jewish
precedents, at least as far as we know. The cleansing of the temple was not
simply a critique of the Sadducean upper-class (Mark 11:15-19). By this
prophetic and Messianic sign Jesus announced the end of the temple as a
place of atonement since he would fulfill and abrogate this function of the
holy place by his death on Golgotha.
Furthermore, one should not exclude the possibility that Jesus told the
inner circle of his disciples also about his extraordinary experiences in
connection with his baptism by John (cf. Luke 10:18-20). Of primary
importance in this respect is a logion whose authenticity can be defended on
philological grounds and by the witness of Paul (1Cor 1:19,21; 2:6-7,10-
11): “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have
hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed
them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things
have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son
is except the Father; or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to
whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Luke 10:21-22 / Matt 11:25-27). In
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 315
different from that about the “historical Jesus,” because Remairus thought
that the only real Jesus was the one that lived and died. Was there in his
doctrine something that could make sense of why his disciples almost
immediately after his death started to believe that he had been resurrected
and even that he was God?
Reimarus’ answer to this question, as is known, was negative. His main
argument was that of the existence of an opposition between the doctrine
taught by Jesus and that of his disciples. In other words, his interest as a
historian did not involve Jesus as much as the origins of Christianity, which
the disciples tried to root in his precedents but which actually could not be
historically traced back to him.
Today the edges of the problem are not so clear-cut. This vagueness in the
question that we pose to the sources obviously determines the uncertainty in
the solutions that we observe. The amount of documents that can be relevant
to the inquiry has significantly increased. On the other hand, the canonical
texts, which are still the most used by scholars, are studied as if they could
and should provide conclusive answers. This approach is perfectly legitimate
from the believer’s point of view but not from the historian’s. For the non-
believer, these texts, critically interpreted, represent the misty background on
which to set those unclear images of Jesus given by the non-canonical texts.
On the other side, the believers insist that the canonical gospels are
theological texts. What is the meaning of this expression? Does this imply
that their authors had each his own ideas? The obvious fact that every author
has his own cultural background (non-Christian in the case of the evangelists)
and, therefore, his own viewpoint on what he narrates, has become a
justification for the diffidence of the historians, especially if they are
believers, towards the possibility of using them as reliable sources. The
projection of theological formulas, like that of the infallibility of the scripture,
on the history are perhaps preventing us from discussion on texts that actually
sometimes do not agree with each other, or are hardly reconcilable with those
formulae or even with the creed or contemporary catechisms.
2-3. In spite of the fact that the amount of available data has
significantly grown in the last century, we are still unable to delineate a
clear map of the various types of Palestinian Judaisms at the time of Jesus.
We could not effectively manage all the Qumranic material: we do not
know what was the relationship between Qumran and the rest of Essenism.
We cannot be sure of how influential Enochic Judaism, only recently better
defined, actually was. The relationship between Palestinian Judaism, to
which Jesus certainly belonged, and the Diaspora needs to be clarified. In
this case, it is the same nature of the materials that represents an obstacle or,
perhaps, it is the limitedness of our abilities. Anyway, I do not know of any
convincing attempt to solve these problems.
We could admit that the Pharisees dominated in the cities. The situation
of the countryside, however, is not documented. Some Pharisaic
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 317
preoccupations, like that about the payment of the tithes, or the disparaging
epithet ‛am ha’arets that they attributed to the country folk, seem to imply
that the people of the cities did not have a clear knowledge of the situation
outside of it. Probably the same contemporary classification of groups is
more suited to define ideologies than actual social entities. Groups existed
but they probably did not necessarily derive their identity from specific
ideological systems. Some important element puts Jesus close to the
Essene. Among these, very relevant is the rejection of divorce, which Jesus
affirmed not as an innovation of his own. Mark’s text is very clear on this
matter. Those who interrogate Jesus are already aware of the existence of
this idea, they are just interested to know what was Jesus’ position is in that
regard. Jesus confirms his adherence to that proposal. The scarce interest
that Jesus shows in his preaching for problems related to purity and the law
points towards some continuity with Enochism. Certainly, both the doctrine
and the practices taught by him were different from those of the Pharisees.
This difference is not perceived only by the contemporary reader of the
Gospels but was evident also to the actors of the events. Jesus did not come
from a Pharisaic setting, he was a peripheral Jew.
Jesus’ theoretical thought has few innovative features in respect to the
most widespread ideas at the time: he believes in the creation, in the
resurrection, in the immortality of the soul, in the existence of Satan, in the
last Judgment, in the obstacle of sin for salvation. A particular problem is
the relation he posed between himself and the Son of Man, both of Daniel
and of the Book of Parables. One of his original contributions to the
ideological debate of his contemporaries is his belief that everything
belongs to God. From this idea derives his prohibition of any kind of oath,
because whatever the object of swearing, it would always be on God. This
is also the deep-rooted reason why he rejected the distinction between pure
and impure animals.
His attitude towards life is substantially optimistic because he is
convinced that the kingdom of God is near and that it will be established
regardless of any human participation to it (Mc 4:26-33). When he becomes
conscious of the suffering that is coming upon him for the realization of the
kingdom, his spirituality becomes tragic but still optimistic, even at
Gethsemene: he believed that he was doing his father’s will for the
salvation of many.
Jesus’ ethical teaching is characterized by its radicalism. It is radical as
in Qumran Essenism but, opposite to that, with no sought support in the
Law. Every act is just a projection of a spiritual attitude: fornication and
homicide exist in the most intimate parts of the soul before they are realized
and even when they are not realized. It is the scripture as a whole that must be
followed, not the Law as a normative: “Do for others what you want them to
do for you: this is the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12). Mark narrates the
entire Jesus’ story without ever explicitly mentioning the Law. I am not sure
whether on this point Jesus was an innovator, but he definitely was radical
318 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
and consistent on it. It was probably the reason why his claims were not
understood by the Pharisees and why also Paul had many of his troubles.
Going back to Reimarus and to his way of dealing with the problem, he
was right in singling out the existence of a fracture between Jesus’ death
and the origins of Christianity. He deemed it absolutely impossible that a
man could rise from the dead, while the emergence of Christianity could be
explained, since its very beginning, only assuming that the disciples and the
apostles actually believed that Jesus had been resurrected. This fracture was
explained by comparing Jesus’ doctrine with that of his followers. In the
story reconstructed by Reimarus on the basis of the documents, however, he
seems to miss a fact which, I think, has always been ignored since then. At
some point in his life, Jesus’ prediction starts to include an element that the
evangelists may have over-emphasized or somehow altered but which they
certainly did not entirely invent. Either because of the delay in the coming
of the kingdom or because of a new insight, he started to think that the path
of the coming reign had to pass through his own sacrifice. This was a
theological idea but, differently from that about holiness or purity, it could
not be simply taught: it had to be realized. Therefore, the last part of Jesus’
life cannot be studied only with regard to his teaching and doctrine: in his
last days Jesus did not only teach something, he did something. He
stipulated the covenant (without “new”, as in Mark and Matthew) with
God, a covenant in his own blood. It is not relevant for history whether he
actually established that pact or he just believed he did, the difference
between the two being simply a matter of faith. It was then this conviction,
reinforced in the disciples by the belief in the resurrection – we do not
know how the latter come into being, but it did – that pushed them to go
and preach the crucified and resurrected Christ all over the world even at
the cost of their lives.
To conclude: knowing Jesus is reconstructing his dialogues with his
disciples and the other people. The result of this enquiry will increase in
quality with our knowledge of Jesus’ time and setting.
1. There are several avenues that are opening up the text to new
perspectives beyond the “Third Quest.” The first is the now widespread
understanding that Scripture was a form of oral performance as well as
literature. Our colleagues in Oral Performance of Literature in Departments
of Communication (once called “Speech”) gained rapid insight into the
narrator as story teller first in the Hebrew Bible, but then in the New
Testament. If we study the story teller in Hebrew, Greek, and Roman
culture, we cannot help but notice that story-telling is often performed in
special structures such as the odeon or theater, that is, Romans liked their
The Historical Jesus: Contemporary Interpreters and New Perspectives 319
3. The more I read the canonical gospels the more I understand that they
present a Jesus with both a tender and a testy side (the latter if he thought
his audience was attempting to escape the demands of God). Our penchant
is to domesticate him and his teachings, and I think that penchant has
infected scholarship for some time. It is found in studies that remove the
apocalyptic element or eschatology or the miraculous or even thorny
personality traits. Perhaps those who thought Jesus was a Cynic philosopher
were trying to do justice to this irascible side of Jesus, as the Cynics seem
to be the same on occasion.
The same objective may lay behind identifying Jesus as an Essene. I
understand the Jesus of the canonical gospels is remembered as setting a kind
of tone in his teaching and preaching that is far less tolerant of those who
evade God’s commandments, such as the Rich Young Ruler, even though
others may have seen the latter as an exemplar of obedience. Some scholars,
like Albert Schweitzer, therefore interpret Jesus as advocating an ethic that
worked for a first century CE apocalyptic population, but hardly for any
other. I think Jesus is an original thinker in a kind of charismatic sense, not
like the philosophers. He saw through identifying current custom as the way
of God and often understood it to be disobedience. On the other hand I think
his followers would have been in a quandary, if they had lived to a ripe old
age, for leaving all (including family) and following him does not propagate
the human race. Rather, like those Essenes whom Josephus saw as
repudiating asceticism so that the human race could perdure, some
compromise was inevitable. I think it is correct to see a radical core of
disciples, a wider group less committed, and an even broader group who
accepted what he had to say, but would not move into refusing marriage and
avoiding wealth. His radicalism extended to the temple in Jerusalem, and he
appears to have been as adamant about the sacredness of God’s Temple as he
was about the commandments to love God and neighbor. I therefore do not
think that Jesus advanced new ideas so much as he saw deeply into Israel’s
sacred stories and practices and claimed them for the here and now.
That was an offense for some and still is for others.
____________________
1
E.g. John D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991).
2
Against the non-eschatological Jesus, see Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian
Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) and Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New
Millennium (New York/Oxford: OUP, 1999) who follow the lead of Albert Schweitzer, The
Quest of the Historical Jesus, with an introduction by James M. Robinson (New York:
Macmillan, 1968), translated by W. Montgomery from the first German edition, Von Reimarus
zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr, 1906).
3
Schweizer, Quest, p. 399.
322 Theme Section / Sezione monografica
2. There are few scholars today that would dispute the importance of
recognizing that Jesus was a Jew, understandable in his Jewish context,
though the term ‛Jew’ (Ioudaios: Judean?) has been problematized. We
have come a long way from the era in which Judaism was equated by
Christian scholars with Pharisaism, equated with Rabbinism, equated with
‛legalism’. In that era, there was no way that Jesus could properly be
considered a ‛Jew’, no matter how much scholars explored Jesus in context.
I like to use this quote from T. W. Manson to illustrate the old idea:
The difference between the ethic of Jesus and that of Judaism is again
simply this, that with Jesus the fact that the good heart is fundamental is
accepted and carried to its logical conclusion while in Judaism the whole
apparatus of Law and Tradition is still maintained beside the moral
principle which renders it obsolete. 4
‛If anyone wants to be first, he shall be the last of everyone, and server
of everyone’ (Mark 9:35, and see Mark 10:43-44, parr. Matt. 20:26-27;
Luke 22:26).9
and then they serve the people. Jesus asks all the people ‛to recline in
groups on the green grass’ (Mark 6:39): an image of everyone being
properly set up for a mealtime, with green grass instead of mattresses they
would usually recline on. The role of the Twelve is defined as one of
diakonia – ‛service’, like women’s service10 – and apostolēs, ‛envoy-ship’
(Acts 1:25, and see Luke 17:10).
I think that such inverted hierarchy/gender modeling among Jesus’
disciples is indicated in Acts 6:1-6. We are told that in Jerusalem the
disciples of Jesus were eating communally every day (Acts 2:46-47), but
the ‛Greek-speakers’11 complain that their ‛widows’ were not getting served
enough in ‛the service’ of food. The ‛Twelve’ – having just been
imprisoned, then busy ‛teaching and proclaiming in the Temple and around
houses’ (Acts 5:42) – state: ‛It is not good for us to leave aside the teaching
of God to serve tables’ (Acts 6:2); rather, they would devote themselves ‛to
prayer and service of the word’ and let others focus on this task: one they
apparently previously did. Greek-speaking, male diakonoi are appointed
instead, to tackle the criticism on this occasion. So, among Jesus’ first
disciples it could at times be the job of free men to serve communal food to
women, here particularly the foreign widows. There is just no way of
explaining how bizarre that was in the first century.
As Jesus said: ‛For who is greater, the one reclining (at a table, to eat) or
the one serving? Isn’t it the one reclining? But I am among you as one
serving’ (Luke 22:27).
unter einem neuen “Label” die alten theologischen Fragen neu aufnehmen
und sie mit historischen Fragen verbinden. Sie könnte so die Bedeutung Jesu
für nicht-christlich geprägte Menschen verständlich machen.
(a) Wie sind die Quellen zu beurteilen? Jede Veränderung in der
klassischen Zwei-Quellen-Theorie, jede Neubeurteilung der apokryphen
Jesusüberlieferung, jede Neukonzeption des Verhältnisses von
Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit, aber auch jede neue Erkenntnis über
Traditions- und Gedächtnisprozesse wird Folgen für die Jesusforschung
haben. Dabei werden in zunehmendem Maße analoge
Überlieferungssituationen zum Vergleich herangezogen werden: z.B. die
Überlieferungslage bei einigen alttestamentlichen Propheten oder bei den
montanistischen Propheten und Prophetinnen. Religionswissenschaftlich-
komparatistische Verfahren werden absichern, was wir über Jesus
überhaupt wissen können.
(b) Welchen Ort hat Jesus im Judentum? Seine kontextuelle
Individualität im Judentum zu erfassen, ist weiterhin eine zentrale Aufgabe.
Je mehr wir über die verschiedenen Gruppen im Judentum erfahren, umso
besser können wir Jesus in seinen jüdischen Kontext einordnen und ihm
innerhalb des Judentums ein Profil geben. Auch hier werden
komparatistische Verfahren systematisch angewandt werden – sowohl für
Vergleiche innerhalb des Judentums als auch für Vergleiche, die über das
Judentum hinausführen. Dabei werden theoretische Modelle der
Religionswissenschaft für Erneuerungsbewegungen und Religions-
gründungen eine Rolle spielen. Denn es muss verständlich gemacht werden,
warum von Jesus eine Bewegung ausging, die sich bald vom Judentum
trennte und von der sich auch das Judentum bald getrennt hat.
(c) Weiterhin wird die Frage nach seinem Verhältnis zum Urchristentum
gestellt werden. Nachdem die “third quest” nach Jesus forschte, ohne damit
Fragen der theologischen Identität des Christentums zu verbinden, bleibt
die Aufgabe, den Weg vom historischen Jesus zur urchristlichen
Verkündigung verständlich zu machen – nicht nur theologisch für die
christliche Gemeinde, sondern historisch und religionswissenschaftlich für
alle Menschen. Es könnte sein, dass Ansätze der kognitiven
Religionswissenschaft dabei eine Rolle spielen werden. Divinisierungs-
prozesse und ihre Voraussetzungen werden in der ganzen
Religionsgeschichte intensiver untersucht werden müssen, um die
Entwicklung von Jesus zur urchristlichen Christologie zu verstehen.
Mit seiner Botschaft ist Jesus auch heute für alle Menschen –
unabhängig von ihrer religiösen Einstellung – relevant: Er lebte einen
konsequenten jüdischen Monotheismus, der sich theologisch in Bildern und
Symbolen ausdrückte und ethisch zu einem humanen und sozialen Ethos
motivierte.
Eric Kun Chun Wong (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China)