The Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus: An Analysis of the Textual Support for a Portrait of Christ

I: Introduction

In terms of historical importance, it is difficult to find a more influential and polarizing person than Jesus of Nazareth. He is also an extremely enigmatic figure, though myriad wars and charitable works alike have been justified with his person and teachings. In the last century, interest in the figure of Jesus Jesus has prompted a series of quests to better understand his life, his ideas, and what he saw as his mission. The primary sources for biographical information of Jesus, the gospels present a characterization of his life, ministry, and death, in which he is closely associated with the divine and the supernatural. These documents inform the orthodox theological understanding of Jesus. The alternative to this approach, on the other hand, is more scholarly and reductionist attempts to construct a portrait of the historical Jesus. However, these attempts often produce an entirely different figure than the biblical Jesus, one that is distinctly human and mundane. This paper will examine some distinctive aspects of versions of the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus and attempt to determine which portrait is more historically accurate.

To this end, this paper first presents outlines of two scholarly portraits of the historical Jesus and explains them in terms of two significant events in Jesus’ life: his clearing of the temple and his crucifixion. It will then present a similar outline of the biblical portrait of Jesus through these same two events, and point out the differences and similarities of the historical and biblical approaches. From here, this paper will present three relevant passages from Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jewish people,” Tacitus’ “Annals,” and the Sanhedrin Tractate of the Babylonian Talmud and analyze them with respect to whether or not they offer more support for the biblical Jesus or the historical Jesus. Finally, this paper will argue and conclude that, though these documents fail to offer much positive support for any substantive portrait of Jesus, they nevertheless prove the historical portraits to be more probable than the characterization that is provided in the gospels.

II: Outlines of the Historical Jesus

The attempt to construct a historically accurate characterization of Jesus involves compiling a physical autobiography rather than a metaphysical one. That is to say, while projects to understand the many theological attributes ascribed to the biblical Jesus through the various claims of the New Testament require an investigation into the supposed divine or prophetic nature of Jesus, the search for the historical Jesus is concerned with identifying the ways in which Jesus the historical and human figure acted in the world. This would include studying how he influenced those around him, what role he played in the social and political contexts of his community, what claims he made about what his followers should do or believe, and the ways in which these things interact with one another in his life. In other words, the project of discovering a historical Jesus is an attempt to describe the life of a man as opposed to the attempt to attach issues of theological, supernatural, or salvific importance to him. In this regard, the project is the same as the one which attempted to portray Plato, Nero, or Napoleon in a historically accurate way; the gospel claims of the miraculous or the divine associated with Jesus are not taken into consideration.

While many such portraits have been created throughout the quest for the historical Jesus, according to Theissen and Winter no single construction of Jesus’ life has achieved anything close to scholarly consensus because the methodologies of historical criticism, with respect to the subject of Jesus and other areas of historical research, are “themselves in a constant process of development.” (Theissen and Winter, 2002) This is to be expected as, if the criteria to which a historical portrait of Jesus must conform to is not fixed and agreed upon then the characterizations that result from these undertakings will be similarly varied and contentious. Accordingly, many portraits of the historical Jesus are in conflict and seemingly inconsistent with one another.

One such characterization portrays Jesus as the Jewish version of a Cynic philosopher. On this view, Jesus was not the fulfillment of ancient prophecy, but a social and economic activist who was committed to radically transforming the power structure of the Jewish and Roman hegemony. According to J.D. Crossan, a leading advocate of this understanding of Jesus’ teachings and ministry, Jesus’ social thought was a brand of extreme egalitarianism which tragically resulted in his crucifixion because “He threatened to destroy the Jewish temple that he viewed as a seat of Jewish hierarchical authority, a symbol of the human inequality he had come to despise.” (Kostenberger and Kellum, 2009) On this theory, Jesus’ taught and acted in such a way that he was in open rebellion against the Jewish leadership of his community, and his death on the cross, for Crossan, is not symbolic of a vicarious act of atonement; rather, it is the execution of a social reformer by a dominant and oppressive political group - a situation that has played itself out countless times throughout recorded history and is in no sense unique to Jesus of Nazareth.

A second such historical portrait of Jesus is that of the eschatological or apocalyptic prophet. This view understands Jesus to be playing the same role as a long line of Jewish prophets, such as Daniel or Isaiah, by admonishing his kinsmen and warning them about the end of a spiritual or political era and the coming of a new one. According to E.P. Sanders, a supporter of the view that Jesus’ ministry was fundamentally apocalyptic in this way claims that, given the long and established prophetic traditions of Judaism, Jesus’ threat to destroy the temple is better understood as the utterance of a prophet than as a call to social revolution: “There is no context for understanding the symbolic action as ‘cleansing.’ Contemporary Judaism would not expect cleansing from an eschatological prophet or teacher.” (Witherington, 1997) For Sanders, Jesus this prophecy led to Jesus’ execution by the Romans at the request of the Jewish leaders of the city not for blasphemy but for presumed sedition. 

These two competing portraits of the historical Jesus differ from one another in many ways. The understanding of Jesus as a Cynic philosopher shows him as a politically-minded and potentially violent social revolutionary who railed against the hierarchical tradition of Judaism; on the other hand, the prophetic portrait of Jesus understands him as embracing the historical traditions of his people by assuming one of Judaism’s most characteristic and important roles. The former Jesus is concerned with the immediate social and material conditions in Jerusalem; the latter Jesus is a divine mouthpiece, a symbol of God,  through which God would reveal the imminent closing of an era. Still, despite the glaring disparity of these portraits of Jesus as a historical figure, these views share a common methodology as they both seek to understand Jesus in natural and human terms by explaining certain events contained in the gospels– the cleansing of the temple and the crucifixion – in non-supernatural terms. 

III: Outline of the Biblical Jesus

In contrast to this, the narrative of Jesus’ ministry and death presented in the canonical gospels is clearly intertwined with the supernatural and the miraculous. The same events which Sanders and Crossan seek to explain in simple physical terms and account for in their historical portraits are relayed by the gospels as having theological or divine significance. For example, Jesus’ threat to destroy the Jewish temple in Mark and Matthew follows his action of ridding it of those who were changing money and selling doves to the Jewish faithful who had come to worship and make sacrifices. According to the author of Matthew, Jesus justifies his outrage on scriptural grounds by saying, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers.” (21:12-13) Similarly, the author of John has Jesus admonishing the temple merchants by saying “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” (2:13-26) Furthermore, the author of Mark states that Jesus here forbade anyone to carry merchandise in the temple whatsoever. (11:17) 

The biblical Jesus’ explanation for his cleaning of the temple is clearly at odds with Crossan’s understanding of the historical Jesus as a Cynic philosopher who is bent on promoting an ideal of radical economic and social egalitarianism. Jesus’ use of the historical Judaic texts, which he quotes in his rebuke in to the merchants in Matthew, indicates that he has a desire that the ancient Jewish regulations be upheld, not discarded or reformed. (Isaiah 56:7) Jesus here affirms rather than contradicts the status quo. This seems to be thoroughly inconsistent with the idea that he was motivated by the goal of a social or political revolution. Furthermore, with respect to the portrait of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, in the gospel responses, Jesus’ rationale for cleansing the temple seems to be moral rather than prophetic. He initially reprimands the merchants for their unethical practices and only after that, according to the author of Mark, does he make the prediction of a future event by saying he will destroy the temple and build a new one in three days. (14:57-58) It appears that, according to the gospels, Jesus’ concern in this episode has primarily to do with the present action of the merchants, not the end times. Therefore, the biblical Jesus also seems to differ from Sanders’ portrait of the historical Jesus as an eschatological prophet.

With respect to Jesus’ death, both Sanders and Crossan are in agreement with the biblical account that he was crucified under Roman authority and the behest of the Jewish leaders at the time. They portraits differ only in that, while Crossan thinks that Jesus was executed because of his rabble-rousing and sociopolitical ideology, and Sanders thinks that he was killed as punishment for crimes of sedition, all four gospel accounts refer to Jesus’ charges being related to his acceptance of the title “King of the Jews,” this blasphemous epithet being the reason that the Sanhedrin petitioned for his execution.   The biblical depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus is further detached from the historical Jesus as his crucifixion gives rise to miraculous and supernatural phenomena in its wake. The Passion of the Christ movie plays on the supernatural aspect. For instance, the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all claim that, immediately after Jesus’ death on the cross, darkness covered the city.  Moreover, the gospel of Matthew elaborates even further by stating that, in addition to the darkness, the temple veil was torn open; the earth shook and cracked open the tombs of the saints, and the bodies inside the tombs were resurrected and began to walk around the city and talk to people. (Matthew, 27:51-54) Here, the biblical Jesus is someone whose death is an extremely significant event – probably more so than that of a prophet and certainly more so than a social reformer or a philosopher. 

It is important to note, however, that the two rival portraits of the historical Jesus outlined above are not necessarily inconsistent with the way Jesus is presented in the gospels. In other words, in it entirely possible for Jesus to have been a Cynic and radical egalitarian and an eschatological prophet, as Crossan and Sanders respectively see him, as well as a figure with close ties to the supernatural and the divine, as the gospel writers portray him, at the same time. The gospels provide good reasons to believe that Jesus was very disturbed by the social and economic inequality that prevailed in his day; The Sermon on the Mount, his numerous warnings against greed show, and his insistence that many of those who would follow his teachings would have to give up their worldly possessions serve to show that he was at least partly concerned about the distribution of wealth in the world he saw. Moreover, Jesus’ concerns in this regard appear to be well-founded as, according to biblical scholar David Growler, archeological evidence shows that ancient Capernaum was extremely poor; thus, Jesus’ egalitarian ethos and ethic of sharing are not surprising. (Growler, 2007) Likewise, the biblical Jesus did teach about the end times. For example, all of Matthew 24, which takes place right after the cleansing of the temple, is dedicated to this subject. The biblical Jesus differs from the historical Jesus primarily in that he is portrayed as being closely related to the supernatural in some way. 

IV: Early Accounts of Christ Apart from the Gospels

The sources ancient sources outside of the New Testament that refer to Jesus give little doubt that such a man existed as Jesus is referred to in several credible documents. Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus several times in his history “Antiquities of the Jews,” written in 94 CE. In particular, a passage known as the Testimony of Flavius corroborates the biblical accounts of Jesus as a wise man, a teacher, a doer of good works and his ecumenism between the Jews and the Gentiles. This passage also corroborates the crucifixion under Pilate, claiming that the execution was done “at the suggestion of the principle men among us,” and describes the persistence of Christianity afterward. (Whiston and Pfeiffer, 1974 )

Another ancient source which mentions Jesus is the Roman historian Tacitus’ “Annals.” Writing around 116 CE, Tacitus, after relating Nero’s practice of torturing Christians, goes on to say that Jesus “suffered the most extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.” Like Josephus, Tacitus continues by elaborating upon the post-crucifixion formation persistence of Christianity in Judaea and also in Rome. This passage further corroborates the biblical claim that Jesus’ trial and execution were performed under the authority of Pilate. (Yardley and Barret, 2008)

A third historical document outside of the gospels that makes reference to Jesus is the Sanhedrin Tractate in the Babylonian Talmud. Though the tractate was composed perhaps several hundred years after Jesus lived, some scholars contend that it represents a depiction of Jesus in Jewish oral literature and, therefore, may provide information that can contribute to the portrayal of the historical Jesus. (Theissen and Merz, 1998) In one sentence, the tractate claims that Jesus was sentenced to be stoned, and in another sentence, it says that he was hanged. In any case, though it does not say that he was crucified, the relevant passage agrees with the gospel narratives that Jesus was executed and that this execution took place on the eve of the Sabbath. Further, the passage also states that the charges for which he was executed were sorcery and luring the Jews into idolatry. (Shacter and Freeman)  These accusations would seem to corroborate the biblical account of a Jesus who preached an unorthodox version of Judaism, and in doing so committed blasphemy. 

V: Evaluation and Conclusion

Each of these sources provides information that corroborates certain aspects of the biblical portrait of Jesus. Josephus attests to his moral character and his being a wise teacher of the truth. Both Josephus’ and Tacitus’ histories corroborate that he was crucified under the discipline of Pontius Pilate. Additionally, Josephus and the Sanhedrin Tractate agree with the gospels that Jesus execution was brought about by the request of the Jewish leaders in the area, the latter document further agreeing that the justification for this was Jesus’ teachings and ministry. In this sense, a good deal of historical information presented in the gospels seems the be accurate.

However, neither Josephus, Tacitus, nor the author of the Sanhedrin Tractate has referred to events which would corroborate the gospels’ accounts of a Jesus who is closely associated with the supernatural or divine. Rather, these three documents agree with the gospel writers on only the mundane details of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion; they do not attest to any of the miraculous events which are presented in the New Testament. The information that establishes the biblical account of Jesus as a person who was something more significant than a prophet or a social reformer and Cynic philosopher is isolated in the gospels; it is not mentioned in these extra-biblical sources.

The silence of these other sources on the distinctive characteristics of the biblical Jesus is extremely problematic.  If Josephus, Tacitus, and the author of the Sanhedrin Tractate have each heard of Jesus, have some idea about his ministry and know that he was executed, how is it possible that they have never also heard about the darkness that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke claim had spread across the city? Additionally, how can it be that Josephus and Tacitus are aware that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified but are each unaware of the seemingly more significant events that followed, according to the gospel of Matthew, immediately after the crucifixion when the ground shook and dead people climbed out of their graves and spoke to passersby? 

The biblical portrayal of Jesus is characterized by these kinds of events; they are what serve to present him as more than a prophet or a reformer. An eclipse over a city and the resurrection of the dead are more significant events than a man’s execution. It seems apparent that, since the authors of these texts had some knowledge of who Jesus was if the sun were blacked out after Jesus’ death or the dead were reanimated, they would have heard about these supernatural events as well and written them down in their histories. Additionally, none of these writers make mention of any of the many miracles that the gospel writers report to have taken place during Jesus’ ministry. The fact that they did not do so casts doubt on the historicity of these events, and this, accordingly, casts doubt on the reliability of the authors of the canonical gospels and, in turn, the biblical portrayal of Jesus. 

However, these sources do not go far in corroborating either of the characterizations of the historical Jesus outlined about either, as their references to Jesus are somewhat nondescript. This being the case it does not seem as though any of these sources provide evidence for either Sanders’ or Crossan’s theories. Though Josephus, Tacitus, and the tractate author each agree that Jesus was executed, their explanations of why this occurred do not support either the Cynic philosopher portrait or the eschatological prophet portrait. Josephus is silent on the nature of Jesus’ charges, and Tacitus does not mention them either. The Sanhedrin Tractate, however, in stating that Jesus was executed because of his blasphemy in leading Israel to worship false gods does appear to directly contradict the idea the Jesus was crucified because of his revolutionary egalitarian political ideology or because of treason and sedition. 

While these sources do not support the biblical depiction of Jesus as put forward by the New Testament, neither do contribute to a very informative and substantive portrait of the historical Jesus. Additionally, since these sources fail to mention the supernatural events which surround Jesus’ ministry and death, they cast doubt on the gospels and the biblical portrait of Jesus, making the historical characterizations more probable depictions by default, As to which of these historical portraits is more accurate or probable, these sources provide no grounds for choosing one over another.

Bibliography

Gowler, David B. What Are They Saying about the Historical Jesus? New York: Paulist Press, 2007.

Josephus, Flavius, William Whiston, and Charles F. Pfeiffer. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1974.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2009.

Schweitzer, Albert, and John Bowden. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

Shacter, Jacob, H. Freedman, Ph.D., "SANHEDRIN." Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin. Accessed August 01, 2013. http://comeandhear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin.html

Tacitus, Cornelius, John Yardley, and Anthony Barrett. The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

"The Book of the Prophet Isaiah." The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Accessed August 01, 2013. hhttp://ebible.org/kjv/Isaiah.htm.

"The Gospel According to John NASB." Unbound Bible. Accessed August 01, 2013. ttp://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch.

"The Gospel of Matthew." The Gospel of St Matthew (ASV American Standard Version). Accessed August 01, 2013. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/matthew-asv.html.

Theissen, Gerd, Annette Merz, John Bowden, and Christoph Burchard. The Historical Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Theissen, Gerd, and Dagmar Winter. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Witherington, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.