Thoughts about the Historical Jesus
Sermon given by John Kennison
March 8, 2020
First Reading.
(Presented as an informal Bible Quiz.
What are the gospels? Who wrote them? When were they written?
(Answer: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. We don’t know who wrote them, the Names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, were added later. Mark was written in about 70 AD, then Matthew then Luke and John in that order.)
Complete the following verse from the bible: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that _____” (Answer: all the world should be taxed or registered.).
In which book is this verse found? (Answer: Luke) When was this decree issued? (Answer: When Quirinius was governor of Syria, or about 6 AD.)
A later verse says: “And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”
Then some people are mentioned who went to be taxed. Who were these people? From which city did they start? Which city was their destination? What happened when they arrived there?
Answer: Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born
Second reading.
This reading, about the war between Israel and Rome, is based on Michael Grant’s History of Ancient Israel.
In 66 AD, Eleazer, the captain of the Temple, discontinued the twice daily offering for Rome and its Emperor. Soon thereafter, Nero appointed Flavian Vespasian to the post of governor of Judea to quell the growing Jewish resistance to Roman rule.
In 69 AD Vespasian returned to Italy to become the new Emperor of Rome, leaving the crushing of the Jewish rebellion to his able son Titus. In spite of fanatical resistance, Titus succeeded in capturing the Temple which was consumed in flames. Four and a half months later, the city fell.
By 70 AD, the Jewish population had suffered appalling casualties and pagan immigrants were allowed to settle in their place. Jerusalem itself was disastrously shattered; worship in its gutted temple was forbidden. The Romans abolished the priesthood and the council of Elders.
SERMON
Several years ago, when I last spoke on this subject, I talked about the Jesus Seminar which presented what might be called a liberal view of a Jesus who had a powerful message of love --a Jesus who inspired non-violent actions, who was deeply Jewish, and a great teacher of spiritual wisdom. The Jesus Seminar rejected the gospel presentation of a Jesus who predicted that, within a generation, the world would end in a bloody conflict. The members of the Jesus Seminar argued that the gospel writers wanted to credit Jesus with predicting the destruction of the temple and the great loss of life that actually happened about one generation later in the Jewish rebellion.
A more conservative view is that Jesus was not only wise and compassionate but also an apocalyptic prophet who really did proclaim that the world was coming to a violent end. The conservatives backed up their argument by pointing out that all layers of the gospels include this apocalyptic message. Moreover, Paul’s letters, which were written before the war with Rome, also mention the coming end of the world. Finally, Jesus started out as a disciple of John the Baptist, who is usually seen as an apocalyptic prophet.
The conservative view seems to have won. Their argument does appear to be strong. The Jesus Seminar is now inactive --its website is no longer being maintained. This doesn’t mean that I find that Jesus has a reduced spiritual impact. We still can find deep inspiration from the parables and insights of Jesus even though our image of Jesus might be changing. I can still enjoy and even get spiritual support from the lively writings of Bart Ehrman and John Meier, even though they are champions of a historical position that I only accept with reluctance. Note that if Jesus believed the world really is coming to an end, what could be more important than to spend our final days being as loving as we possibly can? The apocalyptic Jesus could make sense. The fact that I favor a more optimistic religion is not evidence that Jesus felt the same way. The fact that Christianity has more positive, more liberal traditions and that I am free to identify with them doesn’t tell us what gave Jesus the impetus to preach and live a life of sacrificial love.
I will also discuss two recent books that argue for very different views of who Jesus was. Reza Aslan, a Muslim and a scholar, wrote the book, Zealot, (2013) which claims that Jesus was actually attempting to lead a peasants’ rebellion against both the Jewish and Roman leaders of Israel. The Jewish lower and middle classes had to bear the brunt of the oppressive Roman taxes. Aslan claims that Jesus was a forerunner of the Zealots who, about 35 years after the death of Jesus, capitalized on the widespread discontent, took over the government of Israel and started the disastrous revolt against Roman rule. While Aslan presents evidence to support his thesis, it has not been accepted. The leading Jesus historians claim that the concept of Jesus as the leader of a peasant revolution comes up periodically but it doesn’t fit the facts.
Wendy Newhall generously gave me a copy Joseph Atwill’s book Caesar’s Messiah, written in 2011. The thesis of this book is that the Romans invented the story of Jesus to try to get the Jews to accept a less militant religion—a more peaceful religion that would not inspire a fierce, desperate and foolhardy rebellion. Atwill claims that to do this, the Romans called on Josephus, a Jewish writer and historian, who had been in command of some Jewish troops in the Roman-Jewish war. When it became clear that the Romans would devastate Israel, Josephus went over to the Roman side. Moreover, Josephus not only did that, he re-interpreted the promises in the Jewish scriptures that a powerful leader would arise in Israel. Josephus announced that the promised leader was not a Jewish Messiah but none other than the despised Roman general Vespasian.
After this, the turncoat Josephus lived in Rome with the Emperor’s family, where he wrote his history of the Roman-Jewish War. Atwill’s theory is that Josephus then made up the story of Jesus and the whole of the New Testament to carry out the Emperor’s plan of creating a non-militant Messiah. This is a radical, spectacular and, I think, unlikely theory.
It has three fairly obvious difficulties. First, Jesus is mentioned in Roman documents before the war with Israel. Nero blamed Christian Terrorists for the great Roman fire of 64 AD. Minor official wrote letters asking how to handle these very stubborn people called Christians. Secondly, the letters of Paul seem to have been written before that war. And thirdly, it is unlikely that Josephus wrote the whole of the New Testament, which is a collection of books using many different writing styles.
Atwill’s responses to these criticisms are first that the Roman records which mention Christians before the war are forgeries planted by the Flavian family. Secondly, the usual dates for the letters of Paul are incorrect and, third, Josephus must have used a stable of authors to help him write the New Testament. Atwill does find over 30 places where the New Testament discusses situations that are of the same type as situations in Josephus. Some of these similarities are quite striking. Many of them use an elaborate code in which Vespasian represents God, and his son Titus represents Jesus. But what was the point of using such a code, which would surely complicate Josephus’ task of writing the war history as well as the New Testament? Atwill says that it was intended as a cruel trap for the Jews. They would embrace and worship the new Messiah, then the code would be discovered and the Jews would realize they were worshipping the Roman Emperor, despite the fact that they fought a terrible war precisely to avoid doing that. This hardly seems like a way to calm down Jewish militancy. Most historians find Atwill’s theory to be unrealistic.
However, a piece of Atwill’s theory might be correct. When I looked on the internet for any connection between the writings of Josephus and the New Testament, I discovered that in 2003, before Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah came out, Steve Mason, a well-respected historian, wrote a book called Josephus and the New Testament. I purchased this book and found out that in 1894, a German scholar wrote a detailed study arguing that Luke must have copied material from Josephus. This idea was not very well-received by devout Christians who believed that the gospels were inspired by God. Why would God tell Luke to plagiarize from Josephus? It was also not well-received by the Jesus historians of that time because the gospels, with all their problems of being religious tracts rather than historical documents, are still the best source of information about Jesus.
But wait a minute. Why would a gospel writer even be tempted to plagiarize from a history of a war that was fought about 35 years after Jesus died? Well, Josephus says a lot about the events leading up to the war, starting with the revolt led by Judas Maccabeus against Greek rule in 167 BC. Josephus mentions Jesus and his brother James and John the Baptist. Josephus has valuable information for a prospective gospel writer who probably discovered Christianity in one of the churches that Paul founded beyond the borders of Israel. Mason points out that Luke’s gospel starts with a formal prologue very much like the one that Josephus uses. Both Luke and Josephus mention Quirinius and his census. Both mention the same three “false prophets”. They both refer to Christianity as a “philosophy” and they treat the Pharisees in similar ways. Mason makes a strong case that Luke borrowed heavily from Josephus—but the issue is still being hotly debated.
I think it is helpful to have a fresh look at Christianity every now and then to review its spiritual power. But we need to do more than find out which statements in the gospels are likely to go back to the origins of the religion. Religions get their start and continue to grow because they can change lives. And that power is, in any religion, based not only on its earliest traditions but on its entire history. Christianity survives as a meaningful influence in the world because there have been people who have devoted themselves to making it relevant, people who have practiced its challenging demands, people who have revitalized its message to fit new situations. Even if it were discovered that Josephus wrote the whole of the New Testament, we would still have the great messages of love and compassion and of being humble and of entering something called the Kingdom of God.
After all, someone told us to love one another, told us not to be anxious about tomorrow, told us to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. Someone gave us the great parables of the prodigal son and the good Samaritan. And it is up to each of us to decide what in any religion is worth saving and to keep that part alive and relevant by the way we live.
Benediction:
From Albert Schweitzer’s “The Quest of the Historical Jesus”.
Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. It is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within [us], who is significant for our time and can help it.
Sermon given by John Kennison
March 8, 2020
First Reading.
(Presented as an informal Bible Quiz.
What are the gospels? Who wrote them? When were they written?
(Answer: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. We don’t know who wrote them, the Names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, were added later. Mark was written in about 70 AD, then Matthew then Luke and John in that order.)
Complete the following verse from the bible: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that _____” (Answer: all the world should be taxed or registered.).
In which book is this verse found? (Answer: Luke) When was this decree issued? (Answer: When Quirinius was governor of Syria, or about 6 AD.)
A later verse says: “And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”
Then some people are mentioned who went to be taxed. Who were these people? From which city did they start? Which city was their destination? What happened when they arrived there?
Answer: Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born
Second reading.
This reading, about the war between Israel and Rome, is based on Michael Grant’s History of Ancient Israel.
In 66 AD, Eleazer, the captain of the Temple, discontinued the twice daily offering for Rome and its Emperor. Soon thereafter, Nero appointed Flavian Vespasian to the post of governor of Judea to quell the growing Jewish resistance to Roman rule.
In 69 AD Vespasian returned to Italy to become the new Emperor of Rome, leaving the crushing of the Jewish rebellion to his able son Titus. In spite of fanatical resistance, Titus succeeded in capturing the Temple which was consumed in flames. Four and a half months later, the city fell.
By 70 AD, the Jewish population had suffered appalling casualties and pagan immigrants were allowed to settle in their place. Jerusalem itself was disastrously shattered; worship in its gutted temple was forbidden. The Romans abolished the priesthood and the council of Elders.
SERMON
Several years ago, when I last spoke on this subject, I talked about the Jesus Seminar which presented what might be called a liberal view of a Jesus who had a powerful message of love --a Jesus who inspired non-violent actions, who was deeply Jewish, and a great teacher of spiritual wisdom. The Jesus Seminar rejected the gospel presentation of a Jesus who predicted that, within a generation, the world would end in a bloody conflict. The members of the Jesus Seminar argued that the gospel writers wanted to credit Jesus with predicting the destruction of the temple and the great loss of life that actually happened about one generation later in the Jewish rebellion.
A more conservative view is that Jesus was not only wise and compassionate but also an apocalyptic prophet who really did proclaim that the world was coming to a violent end. The conservatives backed up their argument by pointing out that all layers of the gospels include this apocalyptic message. Moreover, Paul’s letters, which were written before the war with Rome, also mention the coming end of the world. Finally, Jesus started out as a disciple of John the Baptist, who is usually seen as an apocalyptic prophet.
The conservative view seems to have won. Their argument does appear to be strong. The Jesus Seminar is now inactive --its website is no longer being maintained. This doesn’t mean that I find that Jesus has a reduced spiritual impact. We still can find deep inspiration from the parables and insights of Jesus even though our image of Jesus might be changing. I can still enjoy and even get spiritual support from the lively writings of Bart Ehrman and John Meier, even though they are champions of a historical position that I only accept with reluctance. Note that if Jesus believed the world really is coming to an end, what could be more important than to spend our final days being as loving as we possibly can? The apocalyptic Jesus could make sense. The fact that I favor a more optimistic religion is not evidence that Jesus felt the same way. The fact that Christianity has more positive, more liberal traditions and that I am free to identify with them doesn’t tell us what gave Jesus the impetus to preach and live a life of sacrificial love.
I will also discuss two recent books that argue for very different views of who Jesus was. Reza Aslan, a Muslim and a scholar, wrote the book, Zealot, (2013) which claims that Jesus was actually attempting to lead a peasants’ rebellion against both the Jewish and Roman leaders of Israel. The Jewish lower and middle classes had to bear the brunt of the oppressive Roman taxes. Aslan claims that Jesus was a forerunner of the Zealots who, about 35 years after the death of Jesus, capitalized on the widespread discontent, took over the government of Israel and started the disastrous revolt against Roman rule. While Aslan presents evidence to support his thesis, it has not been accepted. The leading Jesus historians claim that the concept of Jesus as the leader of a peasant revolution comes up periodically but it doesn’t fit the facts.
Wendy Newhall generously gave me a copy Joseph Atwill’s book Caesar’s Messiah, written in 2011. The thesis of this book is that the Romans invented the story of Jesus to try to get the Jews to accept a less militant religion—a more peaceful religion that would not inspire a fierce, desperate and foolhardy rebellion. Atwill claims that to do this, the Romans called on Josephus, a Jewish writer and historian, who had been in command of some Jewish troops in the Roman-Jewish war. When it became clear that the Romans would devastate Israel, Josephus went over to the Roman side. Moreover, Josephus not only did that, he re-interpreted the promises in the Jewish scriptures that a powerful leader would arise in Israel. Josephus announced that the promised leader was not a Jewish Messiah but none other than the despised Roman general Vespasian.
After this, the turncoat Josephus lived in Rome with the Emperor’s family, where he wrote his history of the Roman-Jewish War. Atwill’s theory is that Josephus then made up the story of Jesus and the whole of the New Testament to carry out the Emperor’s plan of creating a non-militant Messiah. This is a radical, spectacular and, I think, unlikely theory.
It has three fairly obvious difficulties. First, Jesus is mentioned in Roman documents before the war with Israel. Nero blamed Christian Terrorists for the great Roman fire of 64 AD. Minor official wrote letters asking how to handle these very stubborn people called Christians. Secondly, the letters of Paul seem to have been written before that war. And thirdly, it is unlikely that Josephus wrote the whole of the New Testament, which is a collection of books using many different writing styles.
Atwill’s responses to these criticisms are first that the Roman records which mention Christians before the war are forgeries planted by the Flavian family. Secondly, the usual dates for the letters of Paul are incorrect and, third, Josephus must have used a stable of authors to help him write the New Testament. Atwill does find over 30 places where the New Testament discusses situations that are of the same type as situations in Josephus. Some of these similarities are quite striking. Many of them use an elaborate code in which Vespasian represents God, and his son Titus represents Jesus. But what was the point of using such a code, which would surely complicate Josephus’ task of writing the war history as well as the New Testament? Atwill says that it was intended as a cruel trap for the Jews. They would embrace and worship the new Messiah, then the code would be discovered and the Jews would realize they were worshipping the Roman Emperor, despite the fact that they fought a terrible war precisely to avoid doing that. This hardly seems like a way to calm down Jewish militancy. Most historians find Atwill’s theory to be unrealistic.
However, a piece of Atwill’s theory might be correct. When I looked on the internet for any connection between the writings of Josephus and the New Testament, I discovered that in 2003, before Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah came out, Steve Mason, a well-respected historian, wrote a book called Josephus and the New Testament. I purchased this book and found out that in 1894, a German scholar wrote a detailed study arguing that Luke must have copied material from Josephus. This idea was not very well-received by devout Christians who believed that the gospels were inspired by God. Why would God tell Luke to plagiarize from Josephus? It was also not well-received by the Jesus historians of that time because the gospels, with all their problems of being religious tracts rather than historical documents, are still the best source of information about Jesus.
But wait a minute. Why would a gospel writer even be tempted to plagiarize from a history of a war that was fought about 35 years after Jesus died? Well, Josephus says a lot about the events leading up to the war, starting with the revolt led by Judas Maccabeus against Greek rule in 167 BC. Josephus mentions Jesus and his brother James and John the Baptist. Josephus has valuable information for a prospective gospel writer who probably discovered Christianity in one of the churches that Paul founded beyond the borders of Israel. Mason points out that Luke’s gospel starts with a formal prologue very much like the one that Josephus uses. Both Luke and Josephus mention Quirinius and his census. Both mention the same three “false prophets”. They both refer to Christianity as a “philosophy” and they treat the Pharisees in similar ways. Mason makes a strong case that Luke borrowed heavily from Josephus—but the issue is still being hotly debated.
I think it is helpful to have a fresh look at Christianity every now and then to review its spiritual power. But we need to do more than find out which statements in the gospels are likely to go back to the origins of the religion. Religions get their start and continue to grow because they can change lives. And that power is, in any religion, based not only on its earliest traditions but on its entire history. Christianity survives as a meaningful influence in the world because there have been people who have devoted themselves to making it relevant, people who have practiced its challenging demands, people who have revitalized its message to fit new situations. Even if it were discovered that Josephus wrote the whole of the New Testament, we would still have the great messages of love and compassion and of being humble and of entering something called the Kingdom of God.
After all, someone told us to love one another, told us not to be anxious about tomorrow, told us to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. Someone gave us the great parables of the prodigal son and the good Samaritan. And it is up to each of us to decide what in any religion is worth saving and to keep that part alive and relevant by the way we live.
Benediction:
From Albert Schweitzer’s “The Quest of the Historical Jesus”.
Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also. It is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within [us], who is significant for our time and can help it.