I really disagree with the central claim of this article. It’s a common misconception that gets repeated. Most historians who specialize in this area would say we can actually know quite a bit more than what’s suggested here:
“Jesus was a 1st-century itinerant Jewish preacher who spoke Aramaic and was crucified by the Romans. That’s the scholarly consensus in a nutshell.”
That’s not wrong, but it’s incomplete. There’s a lot more that, while maybe not 100% universally agreed upon, is so widely accepted among critical scholars that I think it’s fair to call it a consensus:
- Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
- He had followers—Peter, Andrew, James, John, Mary Magdalene
- He had a mother named Mary, a father named Joseph, and a brother named James who later led the Jerusalem church.
- He was based in Capernaum
- He was rejected at his hometown
- He performed healings (whether miraculous or not is debated)
- He preached about the coming kingdom of God
- He traveled to Jerusalem for Passover
- Judas betrayed him
There are probably more I'm forgetting, but at least from my readings, and I've read a lot on the subject at this point, most historians accept what I have listed above as historical.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Joseph. You make some good points.
In fact, I originally had a section in the article discussing how Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist is the most agreed-upon episode in Jesus' life *after* the crucifixion. It was cut for length because discussing the criteria of embarrassment and dissimilarity made things a bit too weedy. It's also true that Jesus had a mother and preached to followers, but I felt those were obvious enough not to mention.
I'm deliberately being playful in this article to drive home the idea that what many people think they know about Jesus' life with a high degree of certainty (i.e., enough to fill four books of the Bible) is nowhere near what historians and critical scholars can say with that same certainty.
And even with tongue in cheek, it's not far from what some scholars have said and written. For instance, the historian SGF Brandon once wrote, "Ironic though it be, the most certain thing known about Jesus of Nazareth is that he was crucified by the Romans as a rebel against their government in Judea."
So, yes, there is much we can discuss and debate regarding the historical Jesus, and I'm still learning myself. I just hope people come away with a better understanding of the challenges inherent in separating historical truth from the 2,000 years of tradition that have been layered on top.
Good points. I enjoyed the article. Happy to see this subject being written about, as it's what I write about on here!
To expand on what you said in your response:
"I'm deliberately being playful in this article to drive home the idea that what many people think they know about Jesus' life with a high degree of certainty (i.e., enough to fill four books of the Bible) is nowhere near what historians and critical scholars can say with that same certainty."
And similarly, there's stuff that historians are pretty confident about, that many Christians have no idea about. For example, I had no idea Jesus had siblings. It doesn't fit with the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity, and that's why it was left out of my Catholic education. I didn't even know it was controversial until I brought it up on Threads. I got some snarky comments from random people claiming that when the Bible says his brothers and sisters, it actually means his cousins. It doesn't, but confirmation bias has led them there. There are more examples.
Thanks for sharing your story, Joshua. I was raised Protestant, so the idea that Jesus had siblings wasn't controversial in my church circles. After Jesus' birth, it was assumed that Joseph and Mary had children the natural way because that's what married couples tend to do. Just goes to show how nuanced and intricate a discussion of the historical Jesus is.
(Elaine Pagels' latest book, "Miracles and Wonder," which I mention in the article, has an excellent chapter on the birth of Jesus. Well worth checking out.)
But that's one thing I love about this subject. There are so many different perspectives, traditions, and theologies to learn about. In fact, next week, I'll share a list of six books that Bible experts and enthusiasts recommend to help people better understand Christianity and its history. If you have some books you'd like to recommend, please share them with me here or in the comments of that article when it goes up.
I'd definitely be interested in giving them a read. Cheers!
Thanks for reading and joining the conversation, Gary! I agree with you that miracles are highly unlikely by definition.
Allow me to expand on that a bit, though, because I don't see it as a historical question. It's a question of faith, and that's why I approached it like I did in the article.
During my interview with Pagels, she noted how, for example, Paul saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. But historians can't verify this event because it was a personal experience. Did he see Jesus? Someone else claiming to be Jesus? Did he have an epileptic fit? Who knows.
Historical evidence can only show that he and many others claimed to have had such an experience, and those claims helped spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. (Pagels also has an excellent chapter on the miracles in her book, which I highly recommend checking out.)
So, I have no problem with people believing in the resurrection. Once they claim it's a historical fact, however, they are subject to the rigors of that discipline, and to my knowledge, we simply don't have the independent evidence to back such a claim up.
Great topic. Thanks for sharing it.
I really disagree with the central claim of this article. It’s a common misconception that gets repeated. Most historians who specialize in this area would say we can actually know quite a bit more than what’s suggested here:
“Jesus was a 1st-century itinerant Jewish preacher who spoke Aramaic and was crucified by the Romans. That’s the scholarly consensus in a nutshell.”
That’s not wrong, but it’s incomplete. There’s a lot more that, while maybe not 100% universally agreed upon, is so widely accepted among critical scholars that I think it’s fair to call it a consensus:
- Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
- He had followers—Peter, Andrew, James, John, Mary Magdalene
- He had a mother named Mary, a father named Joseph, and a brother named James who later led the Jerusalem church.
- He was based in Capernaum
- He was rejected at his hometown
- He performed healings (whether miraculous or not is debated)
- He preached about the coming kingdom of God
- He traveled to Jerusalem for Passover
- Judas betrayed him
There are probably more I'm forgetting, but at least from my readings, and I've read a lot on the subject at this point, most historians accept what I have listed above as historical.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Joseph. You make some good points.
In fact, I originally had a section in the article discussing how Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist is the most agreed-upon episode in Jesus' life *after* the crucifixion. It was cut for length because discussing the criteria of embarrassment and dissimilarity made things a bit too weedy. It's also true that Jesus had a mother and preached to followers, but I felt those were obvious enough not to mention.
I'm deliberately being playful in this article to drive home the idea that what many people think they know about Jesus' life with a high degree of certainty (i.e., enough to fill four books of the Bible) is nowhere near what historians and critical scholars can say with that same certainty.
And even with tongue in cheek, it's not far from what some scholars have said and written. For instance, the historian SGF Brandon once wrote, "Ironic though it be, the most certain thing known about Jesus of Nazareth is that he was crucified by the Romans as a rebel against their government in Judea."
So, yes, there is much we can discuss and debate regarding the historical Jesus, and I'm still learning myself. I just hope people come away with a better understanding of the challenges inherent in separating historical truth from the 2,000 years of tradition that have been layered on top.
Thanks again for reading with us!
- Kevin Dickinson
Big Think Books Editor
Good points. I enjoyed the article. Happy to see this subject being written about, as it's what I write about on here!
To expand on what you said in your response:
"I'm deliberately being playful in this article to drive home the idea that what many people think they know about Jesus' life with a high degree of certainty (i.e., enough to fill four books of the Bible) is nowhere near what historians and critical scholars can say with that same certainty."
And similarly, there's stuff that historians are pretty confident about, that many Christians have no idea about. For example, I had no idea Jesus had siblings. It doesn't fit with the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity, and that's why it was left out of my Catholic education. I didn't even know it was controversial until I brought it up on Threads. I got some snarky comments from random people claiming that when the Bible says his brothers and sisters, it actually means his cousins. It doesn't, but confirmation bias has led them there. There are more examples.
Thanks for sharing your story, Joshua. I was raised Protestant, so the idea that Jesus had siblings wasn't controversial in my church circles. After Jesus' birth, it was assumed that Joseph and Mary had children the natural way because that's what married couples tend to do. Just goes to show how nuanced and intricate a discussion of the historical Jesus is.
(Elaine Pagels' latest book, "Miracles and Wonder," which I mention in the article, has an excellent chapter on the birth of Jesus. Well worth checking out.)
But that's one thing I love about this subject. There are so many different perspectives, traditions, and theologies to learn about. In fact, next week, I'll share a list of six books that Bible experts and enthusiasts recommend to help people better understand Christianity and its history. If you have some books you'd like to recommend, please share them with me here or in the comments of that article when it goes up.
I'd definitely be interested in giving them a read. Cheers!
- Kevin Dickinson
Big Think Books Editor
Hmm. I think Theological Jesus, Historical Christ by Dale Allison would align well with that list.
But it is highly likely, if not certain, that Jesus performed no miracles and did not come back to life, as most Christians believe.
Thanks for reading and joining the conversation, Gary! I agree with you that miracles are highly unlikely by definition.
Allow me to expand on that a bit, though, because I don't see it as a historical question. It's a question of faith, and that's why I approached it like I did in the article.
During my interview with Pagels, she noted how, for example, Paul saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. But historians can't verify this event because it was a personal experience. Did he see Jesus? Someone else claiming to be Jesus? Did he have an epileptic fit? Who knows.
Historical evidence can only show that he and many others claimed to have had such an experience, and those claims helped spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. (Pagels also has an excellent chapter on the miracles in her book, which I highly recommend checking out.)
So, I have no problem with people believing in the resurrection. Once they claim it's a historical fact, however, they are subject to the rigors of that discipline, and to my knowledge, we simply don't have the independent evidence to back such a claim up.
- Kevin Dickinson
Big Think Books Editor
Matt Baker of Useful Charts made series on Jesus.
The book that got me into the New Testament is The Passover Plot