An Amazing Life - Appendix IV

An Amazing Life: Jesus and the Nozerim
Appendix IV - Jesus
And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before
they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Mark 9:1.
Jesus is unquestionably the best known - least understood person in all of human history. He is the
subject of more books than any ten other men. His image is deeply imbedded in western minds and his
story is told far more than any other. Yet 99.9% of everything said or believed about Jesus is either pure
speculation or simple fabrication1 and the vast majority of our focus upon Jesus has nothing to do with
him. Because of this, we have undoubtedly lost track of the truth – a truth that is more compelling and
more meaningful than the myths, legends, and theology built around his name and his life.
We hardly need to repeat “what everyone already knows” about Jesus – except to debunk most of it.
And, that’s hardly necessary since hundreds of previous authors have done such a good job at it.
Consider the amazing range of ideas and beliefs about Jesus – ranging from his being an absolute
fabrication created from a mix of former characters, myths, and “gods” to his being the one and only
true “Son of God” sitting at the head of the triune “God” consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. Thus, belief in Jesus ranges from his being the greatest hoax of all time to his being “the way, the
truth, and the light”. What is most fascinating to me is there is an incredible amount of support for all
these views.
Since others have done a thorough job of either revealing the hoax or affirming the deity, there’s little
need to repeat all that. A few have worked diligently in attempting to create a more “historical” picture
of Jesus and many have worked to recreate a better understanding of the context for his life – especially
in the social and religious contexts. This work has benefited greatly from those efforts. What is obvious,
but generally overlooked, is that virtually everything that has been written about Jesus originates from a
strong belief about who he was based upon only two sources – the Bible and the works of Josephus 2.
This huge mass of repetitious material has created the illusion of correctness to the extent that people
assume all the answers have been worked out by those who are willing to sort through the morass.
After years of discussing Jesus with others, I can say with assurance that the word missing most in our
dialog about Jesus is “why”. To some extent the Christian theology attempts to answer questions such as
“why would God want Jesus to suffer the most painful and ignoble death imaginable?” Since no one can
possibly answer such a question, it becomes fodder for theologians (abstract philosophical approach)
and “true believers” (divine revelation approach). This book began as a single question based upon a
single presumption: if Jesus knew that his choices were likely to result in his execution, why did he make
1
Which, of course, doesn’t inherently mean that it’s incorrect.
2
Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who wrote for the Romans. Christians made later insertions into his
writings so that Jesus is mentioned in an awkward, meaningless, and clearly inappropriate way. But his works are
widely cited as confirming the reality of Jesus and are the best known sources of Jewish history.
An Amazing Life: Jesus & the Nozerim ALL RIGHTS RESERVED! 2009 by Rich Van Winkle Page A-IV-1
those choices? Even without divine intervention, I felt confident that I could read the answer in the
gospels. But as often happens, one question led to another and before I knew it I had thousands of pages
of notes with more questions than answers. The two compelling questions emerged:
Why did the early Catholic Church and writers of the New Testament screw things up so badly?
Why is Christianity built upon the life of Jesus when Christians largely ignore his life?
The first question may seem insensitive and biased – and it is. The more I have learned about the early
Pauline Church, the more I have felt that they would have tested Jesus’ great compassion and ability to
forgive. There may be room for debate about the “historical Jesus”, but there is no disputing that Paul
and his followers were liars, murderers, cheats, and fiends. (Ouch!). But then that creates another BIG
question:
Why is Christianity the biggest and most powerful religion on earth?
That answer is worthy of another book - how about “After Jesus”? The short answer has two parts: first,
there is something so powerful and compelling about the life of Jesus that it overcomes the greed and
corruption that has plagued Christianity and secondly, there is an element of truth in the Jesus “myth“
that stands beyond objectification and historical analysis (which Christianity has sufficiently captured to
feed its growth and acceptance).
Finally, before we move on, there was one other question that has driven me (because I don’t believe in
miracles, the “supernatural”, or direct divine intervention):
Why did so many of Jesus’ followers (who were NOT Christians and did NOT believe that he was
the Messiah) believe in his “reincarnation”?
Since the primary goal of this book is to answer these questions, this Appendix is here to answer others.
We will start with a summary of “Jesus – the man” and then proceed to a short biographical sketch and
specific issues.
Jesus – the man:
It cannot be denied that Jesus was different – he was unlike any man before or since. His uniqueness has
contributed to both legend and theology; and it makes him difficult to understand – as a man. Perhaps
this is why so many find it easy to accept that he was more than a man. Unfortunately, I think that efforts
to portray Jesus as divinity have diminished our respect and admiration for him as a man and I hope to
re-establish that Jesus was among the greatest of men whether or not he was “Christ”. As part of that
effort and desire, it is necessary to strip away some of the mysticism and divine suppositions that cloud
our awareness of Jesus – the man.
This book approaches the problem of understanding Jesus from two directions: putting him a more
accurate and complete context and assessing his actions within that context. Because I believe that life is
about choices and choosing, I try to understand Jesus by looking at his choices. There is a single choice
that separates Jesus from most mortals and defines his life and legacy:
To earnestly seek and honor the Will of God.
Jesus made this choice and lived it. We may not agree with his understanding of God’s Will or
understand his method of honoring God’s Will, but we certainly find it compelling and inspirational.
While others have done the same, few have had the circumstance where their choice clearly meant an
early death – especially such a painful sacrificial death. And even if we don’t follow the Christian idea of
“sacrificing for our sins”, we can readily see that Jesus’ family and followers understood that Jesus
willingly gave his life for others out of devotion to God. If that kind of love and devotion doesn’t touch
you or warm your heart, then you really need to read this book and the NT until it does.
While Jesus’ choices lie at the core of “An Amazing Life”, some of the grounds and backgrounds for his
choices are not explained or developed in the story – especially as they relate to the theology of Jesus.
Too much attention is paid to the theology ABOUT Jesus and almost none to the theology that Jesus
accepted, advocated, and followed. Of course, that is centered upon Judaism and Christians suffer the
irony of being taught to hate3 the religion that their “Savior” accepted and honored 4. I think it is
unquestionable that Jesus would have been appalled and offended by Christian treatment of his religion.
But, then again, Jesus was also offended at how his fellow Jews were treating Judaism.
Despite the additions and distractions apparent in the depictions of Jesus’ religious views in the NT
gospels, we can discern the gist of his beliefs from his recorded teachings and those of his immediate
successors. First and foremost, I would categorize Jesus as a religious purist: he believed that the
purpose of religion was to facilitate God’s Will. His perception of God was clear: God is akin to a loving
father (“Abba”) who rules His kingdom graciously yet sternly. For Jesus, devotion to God was best shown
by devotion to others as stated in the “golden rule” and His greatest commandment. And, finally, Jesus
was a purist because he put service to God above all other “rules”, particularly those religious rules
created by men to serve the interests of men. (And he had little tolerance for others who thought that
religious dogma might supersede service to God or fulfillment of the greatest commandment).
Jesus’ religious views carried over into social beliefs and behavior; he gave little weight to the trivial
concerns and niceties of society and directly circumvented or ignored social norms that were based upon
prejudice, ignorance, and class. His devotion to God and dedication to completing God’s Will took
precedence over any social, political, or economic consideration. He viewed himself with humility and
honesty – appreciating that he enjoyed special gifts and believing that he had a special mission. He was
3
Yes, “hate” is a strong word and were it not for the proof of the result, it would be too strong a word.
4
OK, the “Holy Bible” combines the Old and New Testaments, but is that because Christians want to honor the God
and the teachings of the Old Testament or because it was necessary to give credence and respect to their upstart
religion? For many Christians, the primary significance of the OT is their belief that its prophecies support Jesus as
being “the Christ” (see Appendices V and VI).
delighted whenever he encountered great faith and devotion and disappointed when those around him
failed to understand his motives, his methods, or his message. But his own faith in God led him to
believe that God would send another advocate or teacher to meet that need 5.
Let us not forget that Jesus–the man was in fact human. Our limited information about him is narrowly
focused upon a short period in his life and is mostly about one aspect of his life (presented with a biased
viewpoint by those with divergent interests). However, the gospel accounts do not withhold information
that might be considered unfavorable about Jesus (even though he is also deemed sinless).
[Jesus] came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a
friend of publicans and sinners. (Mat. 11:19)
The gospel accounts reveal that Jesus varied from being highly emotional (Gethsemane) to strangely
unemotional (trial). He seemed to be confused about his relationship with his family and his closest
followers. At times he spoke with great clarity and insight and at times he said things nobody understood
(or understands now). And, there are some critical things that he simply got wrong:
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1; c.f. Luke 9:27 and Mat.
16:28).
Although it is clear that Jesus believed this (literally) and that his followers believed him, he was simply
incorrect. Christian apologists (plainly misreading Jesus’ words and context) suggest that Jesus was
speaking metaphorically about some future time (those who die will not “taste” their death because
they will be resurrected in some unknown “second-coming” where all of Jesus’ predictions will finally
come true before the “Son of Man” brings forth God’s Kingdom). Indeed, this single mistaken belief and
teaching gave the Pauline “Christology” its primary impetus: as those who had actually heard Jesus and
accepted this prophetic statement began to die, there was a compelling need for an answer other than
“Jesus was wrong”.
Once we can get away from the theological assumptions of Pauline Christianity and the indoctrination of
the Christian community, we have some hope of actually understanding Jesus as a man, a leader, and a
Jew who devoted himself to God and fulfilling God’s Will.
5
See John 14:16-17; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-15; 20:22; Luke 24:48-49; Acts 1:1-5,8.
Biography:
To exemplify the problems in discussing the historical Jesus, we should begin with his beginning: the
contentious questions surrounding his birth:
Who were his parents?

When was he born?
Where was he born?
Ask Christians about Jesus’ parents and the first answer is almost always “Joseph and Mary”. Upon
reflection or inquiry, they will interject that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father – God was his father,
biology aside. If asked to explain this, the answer is usually something supernatural. However, there are
those Christians who refuse to accept the supernatural and still accept the scriptural tale as historical
and “scientific”. They will offer a remarkable extrapolation of science (biology) to suggest that the
“immaculate conception” is scientifically possible. It’s OK to believe whatever you believe – just don’t
fabricate “facts” in order to support your beliefs 6.
Oddly, this is not a factual issue anyway: under Jewish law 7, reasonable doubt about a person’s
parentage has automatic repercussions and implications. The NT makes it clear that there was doubt
about Jesus’ parentage (John 8:41: “porneia”) and the concept of mamzerut was applied to the offspring
of a woman whose partner was not identifiable under normal circumstances (and therefore was not
necessarily legally permitted)8. The Catholic Church made Jesus a “mamzer” by its own myth. This is
especially odd since just about any Jew could tell us that a mamzer COULD NOT be the Messiah
(“Christ”).
So, we start with a great paradox – the whole idea of “Christianity” is that Jesus was the Christ 9 and yet
their scripture specifically makes it impossible for him to be so. (If Christians want to create their own
concept of the Messiah, that’s their choice, but instead they seem to claim that they know more about
Judaism than the Jews). But that’s only a beginning of the issues regarding Jesus’ parents.
6
I have never understood this mechanism – those who feel like they can win a debate by making things up. It only
works with those who don’t care about the facts (or truth) in the first place, so why not just stick to the myth?
7
Originating in Deuteronomy 23: 2 and expanded in both tradition and other writings (e.g. Yebamoth 8:3; and the
Mishnah).
8
“Whoever his natural father was, Joseph, another man to whom Mary was not married while Joseph was her
husband (a soldier or not, a Gentile or not), or the power of the most high (if some procreative event really is
implied in Luke 1:35), Jesus was a mamzer within the terms of reference established by the Mishnah in its
discussion of traditional definitions (Ketubot 1:9 above all).” “The Mamzer Jesus and His Birth” by Bruce Chilton at
Bard College (2005) - http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_Mamzer_Jesus_Birth.shtml. See also, “Rabbi
Jesus: An Intimate Biography” by Bruce Chilton, Doubleday (2002) – countered here: http://www.ibr-
bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_2004/BBR_2004b_06_Quarles_ChiltonsMamzer.pdf.
9
The translation of the Hebrew word “Mašíaḥ” as the Greek “Χριστός” (Khristós) became the accepted Christian
designation and title of Jesus.
Although the gospels of the NT do not specifically say that Jesus’ parents were poor, it is inferred and
that has become the legend. More so, Joseph and Mary are basically insignificant in the gospels other
than their parentage of Jesus. But then, it is made very clear that Jesus was not only in the lineage of
King David (the gospel genealogies), but that he was the legitimate heir to David’s throne 10. Of course,
this also implies that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father since the biological heir wouldn’t be someone
else’s son. But that’s another issue. Just to simply things, I’m going to ignore the Christian myth of “virgin
birth” (and the 10,000 pages of discussion regarding such) and assume that Joseph accepted Jesus as his
biological son and “heir”.
But then the genealogies that propose to show that Jesus was the legitimate Davidic King of the Jews
inherently imply that Joseph was the legitimate King of the Jews – quite a difference from a lowly
“carpenter” (see below). Of course, there were others who made a claim to the Davidic throne – and
were killed for doing so. Indeed, the gospels and the historical record show clearly that King Herod
actively sought out and executed Davidic rivals. Joseph might have worked as a “carpenter” in Galilee,
but if the gospels are true, he was a king in hiding. Why isn’t that made clear and discussed? Doesn’t
that change the storyline substantially? (This issue is discussed in several of these Appendices).
The matter of Jesus’ parents leads to the next issue relating to his birth – the time. Others have spent so
much time and energy on this topic that I won’t. We don’t know when Jesus was born and we never will.
What we can say with some certainty is that it wasn’t in year 1 of the “common era”. (There was no year
zero). We can also point out that the date of “Christmas” was chosen centuries later without much
regard for either the gospel accounts or history. The whole issue would be trivial except for the rigidity so
many have exhibited in debating it and the ignorance so many Christians have about it. Just enter “birth
of Jesus myths” in Google and sort through the four million or so hits. Give it a decade of dedicated
study and you can be an unknowing expert on this one issue. (I think that’s why most Christians won’t
even ask questions about their “Lord”). Because it fits better than others, I’m using the year 7 BCE for the
year Jesus was born.
Let’s move on to the place of Jesus’ birth. Like the date of his birth, the place of Jesus’ birth is subject to
a massive debate. Because of the gospels, the tradition has Jesus born in Bethlehem. If those authors
had merely left it at that (as an unexplained assertion), there would be little basis for debate. But the
gospel writers were more interested in why Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem than the fact of it.
Indeed, the reason is what lies at the heart of the debate.
Micah (5:2) prophesized that the Jewish Messiah would come from Bethlehem (as “the city of David”).
So Matthew and Luke give us some details to help convince us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. One of
those details is a big problem - that Jesus was born during a census or registration of the populace
ordered by Emperor Augustus at the time that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was Roman governor of Syria (Luke
2:1-3). Who would have thought that the Romans would endure and that their history would be well
recorded – right down to the actual counts of their various censi. Sure enough, there was such a census,
but it was taken of Roman citizens in the year 6 CE. And, since the gospels are clear (as in the “massacre
10
In Matthew 2:1, the “three wise men” come to “The King of the Jews” and at Mark 15:2, Pilate asks Jesus "Are
you the King of the Jews?" and Jesus answers him "It is as you say."
of the innocents”) that Jesus was born before Herod I (“the Great”) died in 4 BCE, one of the gospels is
wrong. Well, actually, two are wrong.
Mark (the first of the gospels to be written as presented in the NT) ignores the birth of Jesus and begins
its story with Jesus’ later life. But John is pretty clear that it was common knowledge that Jesus was not
born in Bethlehem (John 7:41-42). Christians can argue that the lack of historical evidence to support
such a census doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But I haven’t heard or seen any rational argument to
support a census where hundreds of thousands of people are required to travel for weeks or months to
some ancestral hometown merely to be registered or counted. The cost and disruption would have been
huge and recorded historically. What the well established history shows is that the Palestinian and
Egyptian Jews simply wouldn’t have put up with such a requirement (much smaller incidents led to
major revolts during this time period). Christians, however, have no choice but to re-write history in
order to make this (and other errors) work because the alternative would be to accept that their
“scripture” is a myth written by people trying to make a point instead of telling an honest story. (That is
not the same as saying it lacks historical merit).
Oddly, some have accepted that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem while continuing to assert that he lived
in Nazareth. Indeed, Jesus was a “Nazorean”, but that has been incorrectly construed as a place instead
of a group (except where the NT makes it clear that it was a group). See Appendix I for detailed
discussion of this key issue.
So, if you’ve gotten this far, you’re undoubtedly willing to accept some other possibility. Let’s try to
establish what we do know, might know, or can reasonably surmise about Jesus…
Most critical biblical scholars accept that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing
Jesus' life – meaning that they also accept that there really was a person thusly described. Of course,
there are some who hold that the ENTIRE Jesus legend is mythical – a fabrication. They not only don’t
accept Jesus as “the Christ”, they don’t even believe he existed. On first thought, it might seem wholly
irrational to argue such a thing: Jesus is so deeply ingrained in our social and religious thought that it
doesn’t seem possible that there is NO physical evidence whatsoever that he existed. There is NOT ONE
reliable historical reference that tells us anything about Jesus.
The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels,
especially the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. All were written well after Jesus’ death by
people who never met Jesus. More so, they were edited by people who clearly weren’t trying to be
historical – they were trying to support a new religion framed and built by Saul/Paul of Tarsus – another
man who never met Jesus. Their concerted effort to remove whatever historical record they could that
might conflict with their theological work has left us short on other evidence about Jesus. And, their
efforts to falsify the historical record has fueled their opponents to this day 11.
Luckily, in the last century, our collection of historical documentation from the first century has grown
immensely. We still lack a document written as a “history” that tells us anything concrete about Jesus.
11
As in the Josephus insertions; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus.
What we do have is a wealth of documents written soon after Jesus’ death which are not Christian and
which show conclusively that Jesus was more than a myth. Apocryphal texts such as the “Gospel of
Thomas” and the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” agree that Jesus was a respected Jewish teacher
and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and who was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the
Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There remains plenty to debate, but those who argue that Jesus was
entirely mythical are as far from right as those who believe everything written in the gospels.
Our best evidence supports the following conclusions: Jesus was related to the charismatic John the
Baptist and followed his model as an itinerant sage, healer, and baptizer mainly in the surrounds of
Galilee and the River Jordan during the years 20-35 CE. His message focused on religious devotion,
anticipation of an imminent apocalypse, and the “golden rule”. He belonged to a group known as the
Nazoreans (see Appendix I) that favored a Jewish restoration movement. It appears that at some point
he accepted a leadership role in an apocalyptic movement, fell into disfavor with ruling Judean
authorities, and was executed by them.
What happened after his execution remains one of the great mysteries of human history. Many believed
that he survived the execution by resurrection from death under divine intervention. As that belief
spread, Jesus’ stature was elevated and people began to record and repeat what he had taught.
However, since one of those teachings was the imminence of the apocalypse (as above), many of his
early followers became disillusioned and confused when it became clear that Jesus had been wrong (or
had been misunderstood) about the timing of the apocalypse. Some of them founded a new non-Jewish
mythical/theological conception of his life and started the Catholic Church based upon Jesus being “the
Christ”.
Part of the Christian tradition advocates faith-based acceptance that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary,
performed miracles including the raising of the dead, and rose from the dead himself and ascended into
heaven - from which he will return in “glory” during the “end-of-times”. Christians hold that Jesus
fulfilled many Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and that he was the awaited Jewish Messiah.
Upon resurrection and return Jesus is to emerge as God (or a God) in the form of the incarnation of God
the Son, of the divine Trinity. Unfortunately, these Christian beliefs compel scholars to doubt many of the
gospel traditions associated with Jesus under the likelihood that they were fabricated in order to support
the claim of Messianic fulfillment.
In recent years there has been a new scholarly approach to discern the more authentic historical life of
Jesus and to put that life in a proper context. Use of better tools (such as computerized textual analysis)
and having more sources (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) have allowed scholars to present a new and
more complete view of Jesus – and the family of Jesus. Much of this research has been focused upon
James, the brother of Jesus. (See Appendices IX and XII). A more complete understanding of the life of
James (about who we have better historical evidence) has led to a better understanding of Jesus.
Among the new lines of thought is one affirming that Jesus was a family man. His four brothers were all
“Apostles” (Appendix IX) and what we learn about the family of James (Jesus’ oldest brother - Appendix
XII) has clear application to Jesus. The family of Jesus (known as the “Desposyni”) takes on much greater
significance if we accept one basic fact – that Joseph (the patriarch) had some legitimate claim as an heir
to the throne of David (Appendix VIII). While it is a central tenant of Christianity that Jesus was a
descendant of David, the implications of this possibility are many:
 It is meaningless unless Jesus had genealogical proximity to David’s royal lineage 12.
 It is meaningless to Jesus if his parentage was in question 13.
 It is the best explanation for many biblical passages.
As one example of how this presumption changes our view, I would point to the “massacre of the
innocents” (Mat. 2:16-18). The gospel account of this event is not supported in the historical record, but
the essence of it is: King Herod was paranoid about the Davidic heirs and he hunted them down. Some
were killed, a few exiled, and even fewer were brought into his close control. If Joseph was a possible
Davidic heir (and there were many), then he and his male offspring were in peril at least until the death
of Herod I in 4 BCE. Egypt would have been a good place to go for such a family, especially the family of
Joseph (Appendices III and XVIII). So, a gospel passage that isn’t exactly historical may reveal historical
truth: the family of Jesus went to Egypt in order to escape Herod’s pogrom.
Jesus’ particular status as a Davidic “prince” would have been quite complex (the “mamzer” issue), but
that of his brothers would have been clearer: their claim as Davidic heirs would have been much more
certain. If we re-frame the gospel accounts with the pretext of Jesus and troop being led by Davidic
“princes”, an entirely different picture emerges. Among the issues immediately addressed are: the timing
of Jesus’ mission, its non-Judean focus, the “triumphant entry” into Jerusalem 14, and the Roman charge
against Jesus: “IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM” (“Jesus the Nazorean – King of the Jews”) 15. A family
of Davidic heirs would have logically had contacts and connections throughout the region and in high
places (such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea). Instead of being stoned to death for “blasphemy”
as any commoner would have been, a royal heir would have had to be tried by the Romans.
A condensed (encyclopedic) biography of Jesus-the man might read:
12
There would have been thousands of Jews in Palestine with Davidic “blood” during the time of Jesus, but few
would have been close enough to any line of descendancy to make their ancestry meaningful. Appendix VIII is
dedicated to this complex subject.
13
Christians generally ignore the paradox created by their conflicting claims: Jesus could not be fathered by anyone
other than a Davidic heir and have any legitimate claim to the Davidic throne. Those who propose that his claim
came from his mother’s line ignore the clear wording of the New Testament, well established Jewish law and
custom (Appendix V), and common sense. Besides, the parentage claims of the gospels would clearly make Jesus
mamzerim (as above) and such would disqualify him as king of the Jews.
14
Matthew 21:1-9; Mark 11:4,7; Luke 19:29-38; John 12:12-16.
15
According to all four Gospels, Pilate specifically challenged Jesus to deny that he was the "King of the Jews" and
Jesus wouldn’t deny the accusation even though the denial would have saved him. According to John, the High
Priest asked Pilate to change the inscription, but Pilate refused. (John 19:19-22).
A prominent Palestinian Jew of the 1st century (circa 4 BCE-36 CE) who many believed was a
prophet, healer, and possible “Messiah”. He was born under suspicious circumstances to Mary,
the daughter of a Temple priest of Jerusalem and sister of Elizabeth, the mother of John the
Baptist. His father was Joseph the Nazorean, a prominent Galilean of Davidic descent who
accepted Jesus as his son despite rumors of scandal involving Jesus’ conception. Little is known
of Jesus’ early years although accounts suggest that he spent time in Egypt and Jerusalem. Given
his later acceptance as a “Rabboni”, it is likely that he was formally trained.
Jesus had four brothers (James “the Just”, Joses, Simon, and Jude) and at least two sisters
(names uncertain). After spending some time as a follower of his famous cousin John, Jesus
began his own mission which resembled John’s and focused upon the same key message:
“Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” Some of John’s followers joined Jesus in his
mission and eventually they and a few others joined Jesus’ brothers to become “the Twelve”
(“Apostles”) – leaders and primary missionaries of the movement. In pairs and as a group, they
travelled around Palestine and surrounds (including Galilee, Samaria and the Decapolis) where
Jesus taught, healed, and baptized.
The mission drew its critics as its popularity grew and eventually Jesus found himself at odds
with the priestly aristocracy of Judea/Jerusalem. While his message of love for others as the
means to show love of God was widely acclaimed, his message of intent over letter of the law
created a rift with the conservative establishment. After his involvement with disturbances in the
Jerusalem Temple centered on defilement of the sacred grounds (through commercialization)
and as his followers began claiming that he was the expected Messiah (or the King of the Jews),
Jesus found himself precariously positioned. Instead of leaving for safer regions, he chose to
remain true to his mission and was captured (possibly through betrayal) by local authorities for
trial.
In a confusing, contradictory, and very unlikely legend, Jesus was tried by an ad hoc “Sanhedrin”
(Jewish Court) assembled by the High Priest Annus (or Caiaphas), then the Tetrarch Herod
Antipas, and then the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate – who declared him innocent.
Nevertheless, Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem and taken to a nearby tomb owned by
Joseph of Arimathea where he was to be entombed until he could be prepared for burial (a delay
necessitated by the Jewish Passover holiday). However, when one or more others (the names
vary according to the account) went to the tomb, the body was gone. Subsequently, a number of
others reported seeing a living Jesus and the story of his “resurrection” became well known. A
number of conflicting tales exist as to what happened to Jesus thereafter, but his followers
continued his mission in Palestine.
Later, the self-proclaimed “Apostle” Paul (Saul of Tarsus – a former enemy of Jesus’ mission)
separated from the Jesus movement to start a new religion based upon legends of Jesus and a
Christ-based theology (proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah only the Jews didn’t recognize
him). For most, awareness of Jesus originates from Christian works (gospels/scripture/stories)
and the legends and theology transcend the facts about Jesus. Thus, while some believe that
Jesus was divine (as part of a triune divinity), others believe that Jesus was completely a
fabrication (myth) created by Catholics to found their religion. The historical record is so
incomplete and distorted as to make either belief viable.
Jesus remains one of the best known personages of history and his “birthday” is one of the most
popular holidays in much of the world. “Easter” is a holiday commemorating the resurrection of
Jesus. Two thousand years after his death there is still new speculation regarding the traditions
relating to Jesus. One popular theory holds that Jesus married his longtime companion Mary
(Magdalene) and that she bore him children. Another places his tomb in India. And several
“secret” societies supposedly protect information about his life, bloodline, and the like. A search
for relics and archeological remains that might offer new facts about Jesus continues.
Other Issues:
We can say with certainty that Jesus was more than a man. We cannot prove or disprove any
metaphysical legends or beliefs about Jesus. As the Christians say, such matters are left to “faith”. What
we can do is question and correct some major fallacies that have been promulgated about Jesus while
broadening the scope of common inquiry regarding his life. Much of that process should originate from
careful evaluation and consideration of the limited sources within a proper historical context. And, as
should be obvious, the most relevant historical context would focus upon Judaism as it existed during
the time of Jesus. I have attempted to compile and condense the most relevant aspects of that history
within the other appendices associated with this work.
There are many questions regarding Jesus which will probably never be answered and about which we
have no reliable information (such as details of his appearance). Meanwhile there are some important
questions that need further consideration where important clues are available or some historical data is
available. We will take a quick look at a few of these.
Where did Jesus get his ideas and how well educated was he?
Because of the emphasis and legend in the NT gospels regarding Jesus being poor, itinerant, and from
“the boonies”, it is generally assumed that he was basically illiterate and uneducated. And yet he was
considered a master instructor (“Rabboni”), taught in the Temple precincts of Jerusalem 16, was treated
with academic respect by opposing religious leaders, and was multi-lingual. The legend is self
contradictory.
16
When Jesus was arrested late at night in Gethsemane, he wondered why his captors came there to arrest him
when he had been teaching daily in the Temple courtyards (Matt. 26:55; Mark 14:48-49; Luke 22:52-53; cf. John
18:20).
First of all, all Jewish boys of his time were by necessity multi-lingual: they were expected to learn basic
Hebrew, the common spoken languages in Palestine were Aramaic and Koine Greek, and the official
language was Latin. According to the tradition, Jesus grew up in Egypt, lived in a suburb of Sepphoris (a
governmental and business center on a major trade route), and taught in areas of Palestine that were
fully Hellenized (the Decapolis). When he quoted scripture, it is apparent that his primary source was the
Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. According to the gospel accounts, Jesus spent
time in the Jerusalem Temple listening to religious instruction and discussion. Some, if not all, of that
would have been in Hebrew. He is mentioned as reading from scripture which was likely hand-written
Hebrew. And he uses phrases in Aramaic and Greek. Jesus was either fluent in several languages or was
fluent in Greek and passably fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic 17.
Being multi-lingual and able to read does not imply that Jesus was able to write. Of course, we have
nothing that was written by Jesus and no mention of anything ever having been recorded in writing by
Jesus18. If Jesus could write we must wonder why he didn’t write something that was saved, for there is
little doubt that if he had written down anything it would either have been saved (or at least mentioned
as in John 8:6). Part of our difficulty in understanding why Jesus didn’t write is cultural: we learn to read
and write together as both are considered equally essential in our world. At the time of Jesus, the oral
tradition was dominant and the skill of writing was highly specialized (as with the “scribes”). The need to
write was quite rare and was almost exclusive to legal and religious requirements. It was similar to the
situation in much of the western world until the 17 th century19.
We also forget that there was a time when written works were extremely rare and valuable. Even if Jesus
was able to read, it is highly unlikely that he would have encountered more than a spattering of written
words in his everyday life. His access to written scripture would have been very limited. Conversely, the
gift of oration was widespread and often practiced. As Jesus did, so did many others – travelling around
and giving speeches. This was the primary form of education, entertainment, and news transmission and
the protocol for establishing one’s credentials was more formalized. We should remember the numerous
NT accounts where someone goes to a town (even their home town), says the wrong thing, and is
stoned, imprisoned, or pushed off a cliff.
While we may not know just how “literate” Jesus was, we can be assured that he was a gifted orator.
Even allowing for exaggeration, it is clear from the NT accounts that large crowds gathered to hear him
speak and that what he said had great impact on many. We have every indication that Jesus was formally
educated in Judaism and that his views were respected enough to create controversy and discussion
17
And we should note that in Christian terms, Jesus was touched by the Holy Spirit and should have had the “gift of
tongues” (which originally meant that he was fluent in untaught languages).
18
The oft noted exception is: “Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he didn’t
hear them.” (John 8:6). Some think that Jesus was merely “doodling” although the original Greek clearly identifies it
as writing.
19
If something was important enough to be written down (such as a legal document) one wanted a professional
involved to ensure that it was done properly (common even today when such documents are written in English
instead of Latin or some other “official language”). Writing has less value when only 1% of the people are able to
read and where professionals use language as a way to set themselves apart (as some lawyers and priests still do).
among other Jewish religious leaders. Although some have suggested that Jesus was a follower of Beit
Hillel (the “School of Hillel”- one of the great Rabbis of that time and all time 20), the legend strongly
suggests otherwise.
Both Hillel and Jesus believed that love of others was the key to Jewish life 21 and both attempted to
humanize the Halakha (law of Judaism 22). While they shared many basic beliefs and attitudes, Jesus was
clearly one who took his own path and derived his ideas from diverse sources. It should not be surprising
that Jesus would recognize the teachings of Hillel that would later dominate Rabbinical thought as
righteous. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus was Hillel’s student - Jesus advocated several positions that
were different than Hillel’s23 and they had a key fundamental difference. Jesus held strong eschatological
(end-of-times) beliefs whereas Hillel didn’t (or he didn’t include them in his teachings). So, although both
Hillel and Jesus were leaders of popular Jewish renewal movements (unlike the strong isolationism of the
Qumranians24), the legend more clearly indicates that Jesus was a “free thinker” who synthesized his
beliefs from a variety of sources including John the Baptist 25, the Essenes26, the various zealot
movements and even the stricter Beit Shammai. Other than a coincidence in a few reasonable ideas,
there is nothing indicating that Jesus learned from Buddha, Confucius, or any other non-contemporary
(although he may well have heard some oration regarding them).
It is rather strange and ironic that so much attention has been given to the Essene influence on Jesus and
so little is given to the better established Zealot influence (although the Essenes are as misunderstood as
the Zealots). Both sectarian groups had clear influence upon Jesus and his followers, but so did other
“sects”. We know that even after concerted efforts by the Pauline church to remove Gnosticism from the
Jesus legend, it surfaces often – particularly among the followers of John the Baptist and the non-
canonical gospels. And, although it is clear that Jesus belonged to a well-known sect called the
Nazoreans (see Appendix I), we typically ignore what that group was all about. If we hope to understand
the origin of Jesus’ beliefs and teachings, we need to study all of these groups.
Aside from teaching and preaching, Jesus was known for his baptisms and healings. His baptisms were
quite different in purpose and function than Pauline/Catholic baptism, so we should attempt to
understand what Jesus learned from John about baptism and what differences arose between them (See
Appendix XI). And while many have seen a relationship between Jesus and the Therapeutae 27, it is likely
he was as diverse in his learning of the healing arts as he was in his learning of religious philosophy
20
See Appendix XIX.
21
Hillel taught "love peace, seek peace, love mankind and thus lead them to the law." See Appendix XIX.
22
See Appendix V.
23
For example, Jesus’ position on divorce (Mat. 5:31) was less lenient than Hillel’s.
24
See Appendix XVI.
25
See Appendix XI.
26
See Appendix XVI. Jesus was not a Qumranian and the Qumranians were not the Essenes. That there is an
overlap in ideas, practices, and beliefs means little when viewed with their differences.
27
The well-known healers who had their major community in Alexandria Egypt (across Lake Mareotis). See
Appendix XVI.
(however, I think it is likely that Jesus had significant contact with the Therapeutae community at Mt.
Carmel). We’ll begin with a look at the baptisms of Jesus.
First, we should remind ourselves of the obvious – “baptism” didn’t originate with Christians. According
to the gospel of John, Jesus was baptized by John long before the first “Christians”. Less obvious is the
fact that baptism didn’t originate with John. Our notion of baptism comes from the Christian use of the
Greek word describing ritual immersion by the Jews (used to restore one to a condition of "ritual purity"
in specific circumstances. Note Ex. 19:10; Lev. 16:4; Num. 31:21-24.) In Hebrew, the ritual is called
“mikveh28“, which is derived from the early Prophets who formulated rules for spiritual cleansing. Their
belief was that the mikveh cleanses the unclean 29 as God cleanses Israel.
This cleansing ritual had two relevant uses during the time of Jesus: to prepare those who were seeking
to enter the coming Kingdom of God and as part of the conversion (proselytizing) of Gentiles to
Judaism30. John's mission was consistent with the Prophets and the expectations of his time: he
preached God's impending judgment and warned his fellow Jews that they must repent and be cleansed
(spiritually renewed through mikveh) in preparation for the coming of the Messiah (which he believed
was at hand).
While subject to debate, there were three commonly accepted requirements for converting a Gentile
proselyte to Judaism: circumcision, cleansing, and sacrifice (not necessarily in that order although the
order was considered essential by some). Thus, John probably “baptized” both Jews and Gentiles who
wanted to convert to Judaism and Jesus probably followed this practice. Thus, Jesus used the Jewish
cleansing ritual “mikveh” to help spiritually prepare those who sought to enter God’s Kingdom, including
Gentiles who wished to convert to Judaism. He too believed that this Kingdom was “at hand” (more
below). It may well have been that Jesus also used this as part of his healing ministry.
We learn little about Jesus’ healing methods in the NT, but there are two things that are clear: he healed
both by “faith” and by practice. Faith healing pre-dates Jesus by thousands of years and continues to this
day. There is no need to argue whether such is miraculous or not – it’s a matter of faith. What is most
revealing in the gospels is that faith healing wasn’t the only method used by Jesus 31. First and most
obvious was Jesus’ healing of the blind beggar as told in John (9:8, et seq.) where Jesus used spit, soil,
and the Pools of Siloam to cure the man 32. Similarly, we have Jesus healing a deaf man (Mark 7:33) and a
28
In Hebrew, the word “mikveh” literally means "a collection or gathering together" and when used in the
immersion context it refers to a gathering (or pool) of water. See I Kings 7:23ff and 2 Chronicles 4:2. For more
information, I suggest http://www.haydid.org/ronimmer.htm.
29
"…uncleanness is not mud or filth which water can remove, but it is a matter of scriptural decree and dependent
on the intention of the heart." (Maimonides, a 12 th century Jewish scholar in Yad, mikva'ot 11:12).
30
One of the disputes between Hillel and Shammai was the need for mikveh in the conversion; the Hillelites held it
to be essential because it signified the required spiritual cleansing and the beginning of a new life. See Ex. 20: 10;
23:12; 12:19, 48; Deut. 5:14; 16; 11, 14, etc..
31
In “The Alexandria Letter”, Dr. George R. Honig considers the possibility that Jesus was a brilliant medicinal healer
far ahead of his time.
32
I find the side statement that some of the crowd though the beggar was a fraud to be very interesting. (John 9:9).
blind man (Mark 8:23) with spit33 . This forces the apologists to explain the need for something more
than faith and the power of God to heal these ailments.
In this same train of thought, we might consider Matthew 17:11-21 (and Mark 9:17) where Jesus
specifically tells his disciples that some demons (ailments) cannot be removed by faith alone (but only
through prayer and fasting). Thus, although the Paulines would have us believe that Jesus healed by faith
alone and that with sufficient faith all ailments may be cured (see Mat. 17:20), such contradicts Jesus’
own words34 and reported actions (however, we might note that the disciples apparently relied upon
“faith healing” alone). We will probably never know whether Jesus was a miracle-worker, Jesus was a
master healer, or the stories of Jesus’ healings were pure legend or great exaggeration. Perhaps it was
some of each.
The Teachings of Jesus and the Teaching by Jesus:
It may seem unnecessary to discuss the teachings of Jesus since there are already several million authors
who have discussed it. But then, 95% or more of them were actually dealing with the “teachings of
Jesus” as interpreted by Paul and his church. We cannot hope to know the real Jesus until we decide
what he believed and said. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what people said about him and it certainly
doesn’t help for others to put words in his mouth that he didn’t speak. And why do we give so much
attention to the interpretations others give about what he said? We should note that all of the
“teachings” attributed to Jesus were, at best, actually “sayings” remembered and re-transmitted by his
followers until somebody wrote them down decades later. Some of them were misunderstood and
others were pure fabrication.
While less than perfect, I much prefer the approach chosen by “The Jesus Seminar” where the sayings of
Jesus are given a ranking by scholars which indicates the likelihood that they were actually said by Jesus
(or were a later fabrication) and recorded accurately. And then those sayings are analyzed in reference to
the context of their time and to each other. Here is a list of the teachings considered most authentic to
Jesus (top 25 – Jesus Seminar rating in parenthesis):
1. (92%) You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”, but I tell you, if
someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn also to him the other. And if someone wants to sue
you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. Give to the one who asks you, and do
not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you (Mat. 5:3935).
33
In ancient times, spittle was regarded as having special power - not only as a remedy for diseases but generally as
a charm. (Persius,"Sat.," ii., 32, 33; Tacitus, "History," iv., 81; Pliny, "Natural History," xxviii., 7). The Misnic doctors
speak of "clay that is spitted", or "spittle clay". Misnah Mikvaot, c. 7. sect. 1.(d).
34
It is telling that the contradictory verse was omitted from the Vatican manuscripts and was removed from the
Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syriac manuscripts while these same documents acknowledge it in its parallel place at Mark
9:29. Origen, Chrysostom, and other primitive Christians acknowledged its presence. Thus, we know that it was
intentionally removed.
35
Within the Seminar’s rankings, comparative verses in other works are also rated. If the rankings are equal, I list
both; otherwise I list only the most reliable. Luke’s sayings tend to receive slightly higher rankings with these folks.
2. (91%) Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God (Luke 6:20).
3. (90%) If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles (Mat. 5:41).
4. (84%) Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27).
5. (83%) To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?, It is like leaven that a woman took and hid
in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened (Luke 13:20–21; Mat. 13:33)
6. (82%) Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (Luke 20:25; Mat. 22:21; Mark
12:17).
7. (81%) Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand
it back (Luke 6:30, Mat. 5:42)
8. (81%) The Good Samaritan parable of Luke 10:30–35.
9. (77-79%) The Blessings (“Beatitudes”) of Luke 6:21
10. (77%) The Shrewd manager parable of Luke 16:1–8.
11. (77%) The Vineyard laborer parable of Mat. 20:1–15.
12. (77%) The Lord’s Prayer (Mat. 6:9; Luke 11:2).
13. (74-76%) The Mustard Seed parable (Mark 4:30–32).
14. (75%) I tell you not to worry about everyday life--whether you have enough food to eat or
enough clothes to wear (Luke 12:22–23; Mat. 6:25).
15. (75%) The Lost Coin parable at Luke 15:8–9.
16. (74%) The “Foxes have dens” parable at Luke 9:58 and Mat. 8:20.
17. (74%) No prophet is accepted in his own hometown (Luke 4:24).
18. (72%) Friend at midnight (Luke 11:5–8).
19. (72%) No servant can serve two masters (Luke 16:13)
20. (71%) The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field (Mat. 13:44).
21. (70%) The Lost sheep parable of Luke 15:4–6; Mat. 18:12–13.
22. (70%) Nothing outside a man can make him “unclean” by going into him. Rather, it is what
comes out of a man that makes him “unclean” Mark 7:14–15.
23. (70%) The feared judge parable at Luke 18:2–5.
24. (70%) The Prodigal son parable at Luke 15:11–32.
25. (70%) Let the dead bury their own dead (Mat. 8:22).
Frankly, I think these ratings are highly optimistic – at best, distant recollection of such sayings may
capture their essence, but rarely gets the details right. While this analysis might give us an indication of
the kinds of things Jesus was most likely to have said, we should not read them to say that we can be
92% certain that Jesus spoke these actual words (especially given the inherent translation issues).
We are confronted by two anomalies regarding Jesus’ actual teaching: we are told that he only taught in
parables36 or figurative discourse (Mark 4:33-35) and that Jesus intended his teaching to be difficult for
most of his listeners. When asked why he taught using parables, Jesus told his disciples:
"To you have been given the mystery of the Kingdom of God; but to those on the outside
everything is said in parables."
You have been given the opportunity to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but
not them. Whoever has this understanding will be given more and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have this understanding, even what he has will be taken
from him. This is why I speak to them in parables, that, "Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand" (see Isa 6:9) (Mark 4:11).
Thus, Jesus accepted the ancient tradition that the mystery 37 of the Kingdom of God is reserved for those
who properly pursue understanding and are deserving according to God’s judgment. Jesus'
contemporaries would have had a clear understanding of the phrase "Kingdom of God" as referring to
the specific eschatological salvation foretold by the Prophets 38. This was not only a (or the) “hot topic” of
the time, it was part of the Messianic expectation that he would be a great teacher and that the esoteric
secrets of God’s Kingdom and its coming would be revealed to him. (See Psalms 17:37,43 noting Isaiah
17:43 - "his words will be as the words of the holy ones, among the sanctified people"; the Similitudes of
Enoch 46.2-8 and 1 Enoch 81-82; 93:2; 103:2; 104:10-12; 106:19).
However, we also are offered sermons by Jesus that include clear didactic teachings, such as the
“Beatitudes”, and stories he told that are both simplistic and direct:
A Judean going on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of
his clothes and money, and beat him up and left him lying half dead beside the road. By chance a
Jewish priest came along and when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of
the road and passed him by. A Jewish Temple-assistant walked over and looked at him lying
there, but then went on. But then a (despised) Samaritan came along, and when he saw him, he
felt deep pity. Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and
bandaged them. Then he put the man on his donkey and walked along beside him till they came
to an inn, where he nursed him through the night. The next day he handed the innkeeper a
generous sum and told him to take care of the man. “If his bill runs higher than that,” he said,
36
The term "parable" (παραβολαῖς or “parabolê”), as used by Mark and most Christians, has a double meaning: it
denotes both a type of discourse and teaching that is obscure. See “The Hidden Kingdom”, Aloysius M. Ambrozic,
CBQMS 2 (1972), pps.46-106 and http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/TeacherMethod.htm.
37
As used here, the mysteries (mustêrion) and what is said in parables (parabolais) seem to be the same. Jesus
offers the disciples his secret knowledge about the "mystery of the Kingdom of God," but to others (ekeinoi hoi
exo) this secret knowledge is hidden or obscured so that only the deserving receive it.
38
In the Book of Daniel, the Hebrew term “raz” specifically refers to God's eschatological purposes (Dan. 2:18, 19,
27-28, 30, 47).
“I'll pay the difference the next time I am here.” Now which of these three would you say was a
good neighbor to the bandits' victim?"
A man in the audience replied, "The one who showed him some pity." Then Jesus said, "Yes, now
go and do the same." (Luke 10:25-37).
Since Mark had to be aware of teachings by Jesus that were not in parables, we must assume that his
assertion that Jesus only taught in parables specifically referred to teachings about the mysteries of the
Kingdom of God. This may be reflected in this saying of Jesus:
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will
trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" (Matt 7:6)
As an expression of Jesus' pedagogical philosophy, it indicates that Jesus adapted his teaching method
according to its content and audience: he taught about the Kingdom of God (the “pearl” of holy
knowledge) only to those who were spiritually worthy.
Finally, we should take a quick look at one other type of teaching offered by Jesus: legal instruction.
There are three key beliefs about the law that Jesus accepted and taught:
"For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord
looks at the heart." (1 Sam. 16:7; cf. Deut. 5:29). God had promised to put the law in their minds
and write it on their hearts." (Jer. 31:33). Jesus believed in obedience from the heart.
Failure to obey the intent of the law matters just as much as failing to obey the law. Inward
disobedience inevitably leads to outward disobedience. (See Mat. 5:21-26; 23:25-28).
The law can only be properly applied with love, tolerance, and justice (e.g. healing on the
Sabbath as in Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17).
Jesus repeatedly demonstrated his expertise on the law in discussions or disputes with other “experts 39”.
Not only was he aware of the legal issues of the day, he knew their subtleties and background. His
opinions were founded in scripture, but carried a definite pragmatism and flexibility. In a couple of cases
he demonstrated the ability to see behind the superficial issue and directly addressed the more
fundamental concern (“It’s not what goes in…”; “"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath"). At least one of his legal teachings shows his logic: When asked if the law requires one to
marry, he answered that some men are born eunuchs, some are celibate because they were castrated,
and others have chosen to be celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven. He concludes from this that if one can
be celibate then they should be (for Heaven’s sake) (Mat. 19:12) 40.
39
Jesus’ view of other legal experts is confusing because Matthew unambiguously states that Jesus was saying stay
away from the teachings of the Pharisees (labeling them as hypocrites), yet he reports Jesus as saying “do what the
Pharisees say because of their authority.” "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore
whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not follow after their works: for they say, and do
not." (Mat. 16:12;23:1-3). We should also note the bias of the gospel authors against the mislabeled “Pharisees”.
Jesus’ Theology:
Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion, made no claim of being the Messiah, and generally
followed Orthodox Judaism as his theology. There are two key areas where his theology was unusual: his
view regarding his relationship with God and his view on the coming Kingdom of God. We will focus on
these.
Aside from Jesus’ use of a personal endearment (“Abba” = “Papa”) when addressing God (recorded in
several passages in the gospels), it is hard to mistake the highly personal and intimate relationship that
Jesus felt with God. His prayers were more than generic pleadings for divine intervention; Jesus spoke to
God with the clear expectation that his prayer would be heard and considered. Jesus’ firm belief in God’s
loving nature almost certainly stemmed from personal experience that we are not told about in the
gospels. We are left to wonder if Jesus spoke of such with his chosen Apostles and brothers.
Since Jesus viewed God as his divine father, his view of God’s promise to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to
Earth was certainly not figurative or abstract: Jesus believed that God was going to act in a very real and
direct manner SOON. More so, Jesus believed that he had some direct and significant role to play in
bringing about the fulfillment of God’s promise. This belief led others to assume that Jesus thought he
was the Messiah or that Jesus actually was the Messiah. (For a full discussion of Jesus’ messianic beliefs,
see Appendix VI).
Thus, the key phrase in Jesus’ ministry and life was: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near
(ἐγγίζω41)" (Mat. 4:17; cf. Mat. 3:1-2). This is much the same as the later exposition: "The time promised
by God has come at last!" Jesus announced. "The Kingdom of God is near (ἐγγίζω)! Repent and believe
God’s good news (εὐαγγελίῳ)!" (Mark 1:15). Of course, this was exactly the same “mission statement”
offered by John the Baptist (Mat. 3:2) and is the clearest link between their ministries. I propose that it is
impossible to understand Jesus’ mission or theology without understanding the role of John. So let us
take a short detour and summarize the connection between Jesus and John (developed more fully in
Appendix XI).
Although he was less than a year older than Jesus, John (Jesus’ cousin) was more than a step ahead of
Jesus. Despite the efforts of the NT authors to portray Jesus as the superior missionary (John 4:2 - and as
the Messiah), it would seem that John’s followers thought that he was the Messiah. Efforts to limit
John’s stature and role (as the “voice in the wilderness”) whose function was to prepare the way and
announce the arrival of the Messiah are countered by the clear superiority of John evident in several
passages in the gospels:
 John had a well established and popular mission which Jesus joined 42,
 John baptized Jesus (Mark 1:4),
40
Although the Jesus Seminar gives this a 70% rating, I would guess that it was a later assertion answering the issue
of Jesus’ not being married (which was considered a religious duty by his peers).
41
The word used here is “ἐγγίζω” (“eggizó”: perfect tense indicative mood) which expresses extreme closeness,
immediate imminence – even a presence. It would normally mean “I bring near” or “to make near”.
 John taught Jesus the core theology that both espoused 43,
 John sent a trusted follower (Andrew) to help Jesus with his mission, and
 Jesus acknowledged John’s superiority44.
If we accept these things as being true, then we should not doubt Jesus’ position – John was the greater
and Jesus viewed his religious teaching as prophetic. John was preparing the Way for the coming of
God’s Kingdom which he thought was “at hand”. There was no longer a need to look for “signs”, the time
was now.
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the
Kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is seeking his way into it.” (Luke 16:16).
How this fits into their Messianic beliefs is less clear and the few hints in the NT are purely Pauline. If we
were to take them seriously, then the following passage is profound:
Not everyone who calls me “Lord” shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they do the will of
My Father. Many will claim to have prophesied, cast out demons, and done many wonders in
God’s name, but I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice
lawlessness!” (Matthew 7:21-23).
Thus, Jesus was direct and certain – the path to Heaven is the one of righteousness (obeying God’s laws)
and devotion (doing God’s work). Miracles, preaching, and rituals have nothing to do with honoring God.
“By their fruit you will recognize them” (Mat. 7:16) is equally clear: talking about doing God’s Will is only
meaningful if it yields the fruit of righteousness. For Jesus, such righteousness was based upon loving
goodwill offered to his fellow humans: acceptance, insight, healing, forgiveness, and being a role model.
But then, we cannot explain Jesus’ decision to die based upon that theological view alone…
Choosing to Die:
It is difficult to think of Jesus choosing to die, especially if he had reason to believe that it would be from
one of the most miserable of deaths – crucifixion. But we’ll be coming back to that matter after we
affirm that it was Jesus’ choice to die.
There really aren’t very many possibilities given what we are told in the gospels – Jesus had some type of
premonition that he was to be killed (and how)…
Jesus explained to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands
of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, that they would deliver him to the Gentiles to
42
“Jesus as a Figure in History: How modern historians view the man from Galilee”, Mark Allan Powell, Westminster
John Knox Press (1998), page 47.
43
Including the “mission statement” as above, Mark 1:15; Mat. 3:2.
44
“John the Baptist is indeed a prophet, and more than a prophet…I tell you all that no greater man was ever born
into this world than John the Baptist." (Mat. 11:9-11).
be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day he would rise again 45 (according to
prophecy). (Matthew 16:21;20:18-19; Luke 18:32; John 18:32).
Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."
"The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. (John 13:21; Mat.
26:21).
If true, these passages tells us unequivocally that Jesus went to Jerusalem knowing he would be killed
after being betrayed by one of his closest friends. He could have stayed away from Jerusalem or he could
have left the region (and hid) once “Judas” left the last supper (although Jesus directed him to proceed
with the plan46 – John 13:27). But then something went amiss…
(With his followers at Gethsemane) - “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: wait here, and
watch. And he went forward a little, fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the
hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away
this cup from me… And again he went away, and prayed, and spoke the same words. (Mark
14:32-40).
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? 47’
That is to say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46).
The Christian “take” on this is that Jesus realized that he was about to take on the sins of all humanity
(and being sinless) such was too much (temporarily) for his humanness to bear. Frankly, I see that as
worse than mere conjecture or silly theology, but that’s not the point. Something profound had
happened and it marked a turning point for Jesus and the whole of humanity. It is worthy of our deepest
consideration out of historical merit alone.
Let us take a minute and review the circumstances alleged in the gospels. Jesus had been engaged in his
ministry for a few years (at least three according to John) and it had become popular and successful.
Officials would visit him every now and then and query him on his views, but found nothing they could
45
Note that there is a contradiction with John 20:9, which states that the disciples “knew not...that he must rise
again from the dead.” There is also a contradiction regarding how long he would be dead: Some verses say “after
three days” while others say “on the third day.” (Mat. 12:40; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33).
46
“Plan” may strike some as the wrong word, but since the Christian concept has the death of Jesus as a necessary
fulfillment of prophecy (to which Jesus was a willing participant), it was not only the Plan of Jesus and Judas, it was
presumptively God’s plan.
47
This is a transliteration (Aramaic sounds into Greek) of Jesus words and one of the several times where Jesus
speaks using Aramaic in the gospels. It is suggested that Jesus was quoting the Book of Psalms: "My God, My God,
why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me and from the words of My groaning? (Psalm 22:1-
2 where the writers’ piety, or confidence in God was being ridiculed). But the Hebrew source for “forsaken” was “
ִ‫ ”עעזזבַב תתנני‬which would sound more like “azavtani” than “sabachthani” (our transliteration of Greek into English) –
which could also be translated as fail, fortify, or refuse (per Strong’s). Some early Bibles (e.g. the Vulgate,
Septuagint, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic) use terms (“ִ‫ ”שגגתי‬or “shegagathi”), which would better translate as: "My
sins are the reason why deliverance is so far from me." See Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.
accuse him of. Jesus was in Jerusalem frequently (teaching daily in the precincts), so the authorities
would have known him and his views. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was “at hand” and that he
had some special role to play in its coming. He held Davidic ancestry that may have given him some royal
claim. But nothing was happening – there was no apparent Messiah, there were no compelling “signs” of
the Coming, and people were being to wonder about Jesus’ claim that the Coming was coming any
minute. Perhaps Jesus was also beginning to have second thoughts.
Jesus believed. His faith was greater than that of a mustard seed. His devotion to God was superhuman.
His righteousness was as perfect as he could make it. Messiah or not, Jesus believed that he could induce
God’s coming through his actions (and perhaps creating a “critical mass” of righteousness among others).
And yet, God hadn’t come. So, as we would say, Jesus took it to the next level: he initiated a plan (based
upon prophecy) that might prompt God’s action. The clearest evidence of this plan was his riding into
Jerusalem on the “colt/donkey” (Mark 11:1-11; Mat. 21:1-10). The story raises a number of questions;
the most compelling of which is a need to explain why Jesus wasn’t promptly arrested by the Romans –
especially with the crowd shouting “Praise God for the Son of David [the KING]!" (Mat. 21:9).
Whereas the gospel writers would have us think that Jesus could avoid an accusation of treason by being
careful to avoid actually saying such himself (as Jesus supposedly did during his trial), the Romans and
their Herodian puppets had no such qualms – anyone who was a potential royal claimant or who was
identified as such was in trouble and was generally killed (see Appendices VIII and IX). So the reasonable
answers here are few:
The stories are only legends,
Jesus’ troupe and following was so small that it was deemed insignificant, or
Jesus had sufficient “connections” and enough influence to get away with this.
I would suppose that all three answers apply. We can be certain that the NT authors were willing to
exaggerate and fabricate in order to make a point. Since this would be among several stories created
merely to ensure that an expected prophecy was fulfilled (see Appendix VI), we could conclude that the
whole story is legendary. But I think not; the general idea seems consistent with a coherent plan which
included the disturbance regarding the money changers. The Romans probably wouldn’t have
understood the significance of riding in on a donkey or the Hebrew chants. To them, it probably seemed
like another odd, but harmless, Jewish religious event.
As explained in detail within Appendix IX, the family of Jesus was far from the image offered in the NT.
This scene itself is yet another indication of such – the crowd is acknowledging their belief that Jesus is
the legitimate claimant to the throne of David. (Note that they’re not calling him the Messiah – the claim
the NT authors would have preferred). Even if this was a staged event and the crowd was prompted, it
wouldn’t make sense to create this amount of risk unless there was a factual basis behind it. As one of
many possible Davidic heirs, Jesus was Jewish royalty and could not be treated like an ordinary Jew.
Besides, his brother James was a prominent priest and his cousin John was considered a Prophet by
many. Suggestions of powerful connections appear throughout the NT: Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus,
Nicodemus, and Chouza, for example. Jesus “got away” with something few others could have – at least
for a while.
Although the synoptic gospels differ on this48, Matthew tells us that the people of Jerusalem wondered
who it was creating the stir and they were answered “This is the prophet Jesus”. Jesus then proceeded to
the Temple area where he drove out the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice and knocked
over the tables of the money changers along with the chairs of those selling doves (Mat. 21:12). If the
Romans had ignored his presence before, they certainly wouldn’t have ignored this kind of disruption.
And yet, according to the accounts, Jesus wasn’t arrested by either the Romans or the Temple police.
(And we can be sure that the money changing area was well guarded – see Appendix XIII).
It is here where we have to choose: either the rest of the story makes no sense and was created as a
transitional legend to enable Christianity or something else happened. In order to accept the gospel
accounts, we have to explain the following:
 The delay in arresting Jesus (based upon betrayal instead of openly illegal actions),
 The manner and contradictions in the arrest stories,
 The ridiculous and contradictory trial sequences,
 The confusion within the gospel accounts regarding timing and sequence of the trial,
 The numerous legal errors, procedural issues, and improbabilities of the trial events,
 The abject weirdness of the crucifixion tale,
 The most unusual nature of the crucifixion,
 The release of Jesus’ body to Joseph and Nicodemus,
 The empty tomb story and contradictory tales,
 The different resurrection accounts,
 The resurrection motif generally, including the miraculous element,
 The collection of unanswered questions that reasonable people should ask.
While the Christian apologists have been offering explanations for 2,000 years, their answers still divide
us into those willing to believe based upon faith and those who give reasoning a higher priority. With
apologies to the apologists, their explanations are generally irrational and I chose to believe that the
legends in this regard are simply erroneous. A more reasonable, historically supportable, and consistent
story would follow along these lines…
Jesus grew impatient with the coming of God’s Kingdom and decided that he needed to do something
more to prepare the way. Despite the great personal risk for him, Jesus and his closest followers
developed a “secret plan” that involved three key elements: tricking the authorities into revealing their
corruption, triggering the messianic fever that was pent up, and divine intervention. All three parts of
the plan failed and succeeded: the expected outcomes didn’t happen, but all parts succeeded in
unexpected ways.
48
Mark has him spend the night in Bethany before returning to Jerusalem to confront the money changers. John
adds the “whip” detail and quotes Jesus: “How dare you turn my Father's house into a marketplace!" (John 2:16 –
with a different timing than the synoptic gospels).
First, the authorities acted with more caution and reserve than expected. Instead of provoking a possible
riot or uprising, they waited to arrest Jesus when and where it wouldn’t create much of a stir. They didn’t
need Judas to “betray” Jesus, they knew where to find him. I suspect that the Judas story was created
because he was the “Apostle” who did most of the planning and was the one who played the most
positive roles (instead of Peter (who denied Jesus three times) or the Boanerges boys (James and John)).
Given the contradictory stories of his death, he may have died (heroically) in the cause. Eventually, the
Jewish authorities circumvented the law in order to hand Jesus over to the Romans, merely proving
again that they were corrupt but adept.
The arrest and attempted execution of Jesus didn’t trigger the messianic revolt that was expected. The
authorities acted with characteristic violence and intimidation to thwart the plan – most of Jesus’
followers fled in fear (or possibly as instructed – note Mat. 28:7-10; Mark 14:28). However, subsequent
events would lead to a messianic inspired disaster as the zealots used the people’s “fever” to fuel the
Jewish revolt (with several followers and relations of Jesus playing key roles). The revolt set the stage for
the later Pauline anti-Judaic success.
God works in ways we can’t grasp (note Isaiah 55:8-9) and so it is unwise to impute our motives onto
God or to presume that God’s methods should make sense to us. If there is such a thing as divine
intervention, then we should never expect it or claim it. That seemed to be the most fundamental
mistake made by Jesus and his followers – perhaps even thinking they could provoke God’s intervention,
first by righteousness and then by prophetic manipulation. If God intervened anywhere in this story, it is
not apparent. Besides, if we give credit to God, we must also give blame. As an alternative, we might
analyze “luck” and its role in this story – although I find this unavailing. I have enough difficulty trying to
make sense of the story without trying to analyze where God (or luck) was involved.
Anyway, we now come to the crux of the whole matter – the legendary death of Jesus.
The Execution of Jesus:
While we may have to discount much of the legend, we can be fairly certain that at some point, Jesus
was arrested. After that, we have to wonder about the sources used by the gospel writers – it’s not as if
the alleged proceedings would have been public. Who would have witnessed the details described? Who
recorded the words spoken by Jesus, Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas? Who doesn’t question the absurd and
virtually impossible series of events depicted in the gospels where a Jewish “court” (certainly not the
“whole Sanhedrin” as stated in Mark 14:55) convenes on the night of first day of the feast of unleavened
bread (“Pesach”/Passover) – one of the most significant Jewish holy days (Mat. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke
22:7; cf. John 13:1 where it is the day before).
At the palace of Caiaphas49 (Annas in John) where some scribes and elders are gathered, an inquiry is
held where men who are blatantly violating sacred Jewish law 50 are supposed to offer Jesus a “trial51” on
the charge of blasphemy. Of course, Jesus is so guilty that Caiaphas has to rip his garment open and
everyone agrees that Jesus has committed the greatest sin: “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the
Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.” Lev. 24:16.
According to the Christian apologists, even Jews who clearly cared little about the law wouldn’t dare
execute someone without Roman permission. But they ignore their own scripture:
And when [the Council] had driven him out of the city, they began stoning [Stephen], and the
witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul [later, Paul]. And they
went on stoning Stephen … And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. (Acts
7:58-8:1).
Stephen was the first of the “Christian martyrs” and was killed shortly after the death of Jesus. Clearly,
the Sanhedrin had the power to execute certain offenders 52. Ultimately, there’s no reason to believe that
the Jews had anything to do with Jesus’ execution – unless they simply turned him over to the Romans
after arresting him in the Temple for rebellious actions. Clearly, no Christian scholar would assert that the
Jewish authority actually crucified Jesus.
We can readily imagine a circumstance where Jesus got arrested during a festival in Jerusalem (possibly
for sedition) and Pilate held off his execution until the day after. But, in truth, there’s little reason to
accept the timeline suggested in the gospel accounts. The Paulines wanted a “sacrificial lamb” and it was
easy to create the gospel scenario around Passover events. It’s what happened during and after the
execution that matters.
I find it quite unfortunate that we spend so much of our time focused upon the death and after-death of
Jesus and so little on his life. (We have the Catholic Church to thank for that). Conversely, I have to
acknowledge that it is only because of the extraordinary events surround the execution of Jesus that we
know him as more than an obscure Jewish Rabbi. While riddled with doubtful theological insertions, the
story has three apparent “facts”:
49
Matthew and Mark state that Jesus was tried the same night he was arrested. (Mat. 26:57, Mark 14:53). Luke
states that Jesus was tried the next morning (Luke 22:66).
50
Jewish courts were strictly forbidden to meet at night (Ex 18:24) or during a festival (Num 28:18).
51
Mosaic law required that witnesses appear on behalf of the accused, no single judge preside at any legal
proceeding, no capital case be tried in a single day or on the day before the Sabbath, and no sentence be
pronounced before the morning sacrifice. Jewish law prohibited the initiating of a charge without a plurality of
corroborating witnesses, the admission of conflicting testimony, false witnesses, and interviewing of witnesses in
another witness’ presence.
52
Philo recorded a letter written to Agrippa I indicating that the death penalty was allowed without Roman
approval to anyone who entered the Holy of Holies without authority (De Legatione ad Gaium, 39). Similarly, capital
punishment was allowed the Jews for any Gentile (even Roman citizens) who entered the inner Court of the
Temple. (Jos. BJ, v. 5:2). The Talmud records executions (an adulteress burnt at the stake and a heretic stoned)
during the period. (T. J. Sanhedrin 24, 25).
Jesus was crucified,
His tomb was empty, and
More than a few people believed they saw him alive afterwards.
If we accept these as facts, then there is a clear bifurcation in where we go next: if we believe in miracles
or divine intervention, then we should be true “Christians” and give their theology the benefit of the
doubt; or, if we reject supernatural resurrection then we must accept that Jesus did not die on the cross.
I propose the later.
It is not a new idea: people have doubted the supernatural explanation since it was first offered. Indeed,
it is apparent that some of the details in the NT were invented simply to address the critics and doubters
(as below). Two possibilities stand out: Jesus survived his crucifixion or someone else was substituted for
Jesus.
In the jargon of this field, the first possibility is known as the “swoon theory” or the "Apparent Death
Theory". It’s not new to me or this era. Of course, with the power of the Catholic Church in the west
through the last 2,000 years, it has been risky for people to propose this idea. And yet, some 1,400 years
ago, Islam shared this tradition:
“…yet they did not slay him [Jesus], neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to
them.” (Qur'an 4:155)53.
Moslems rationally reject the idea that a loving God would allow His only son to be hung on a cross – a
most painful and disgraceful death54. Yet, they do not believe or suggest that a figurative Jesus was not
crucified; instead the “person” on the cross was some type of illusion or doppelgänger.
Christians counter with arguments suggesting that survival on the cross was virtually impossible 55. They
are certainly correct in cases where a full crucifixion took place, but most of the medical evidence 56 they
offer simply doesn’t fit the circumstances: Jesus was only hung from the cross for a few hours and his
legs were never broken (the normal means of expediting death since the victim who was unable to
53
The Arabic text that reads: "wa ma qatala hu wa ma salabu hu wa lakin shubbiha lahum" which is better
translated as "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Isa (Jesus) was put over another
man (and they killed that man)". The variations appear in the translation/interpretation of the end portion of the
verse which reads: "wa lakin shubbiha lahum". “Shubbiha” means to be made like; a likeness or similitude. This
could refer to a likeness or similitude (of Jesus) or even a likeness or similitude of killing & crucifixion.
54
It was the "extreme and ultimate punishment of slaves" (Cicero's “servitutis extremum summumque supplicium”,
Against Verres 2.5.169), the "cruelest and most disgusting penalty." (crudelissimum taeterrimumque supplicium,
ibid. 2.5. 165.), and "the most pitiable of deaths" (Josephus ,Jewish War 7:203). It was also a disgrace (Deut. 21:23).
55
For a good summary, go to http://carm.org/swoon-theory.
56
Frankly, it is difficult to accept a Christian argument based upon medical evidence, since medical evidence would
counter their belief in the miraculous healings. Besides, if the disciples of Jesus were given healing powers (as
alleged in the NT), then we can only accept that they would have healed Jesus once he was removed from the
cross.
support their weight soon suffocated). Besides, there is clear reason to doubt much of the crucifixion
tale since the sources are divergent.
First of all, the crucifixion aspects common to all four gospels are few: Jesus was brought to the "Place of
a Skull" (Golgotha/”Calvary”) under the charge of claiming to be "King of the Jews" and was there
crucified with two others (“robbers” in most, common criminals in Luke). Three gospels (the synoptic)
describe Simon of Cyrene bearing the cross, darkness from the 6th to the 9th hour (noon to 3 PM), and
the temple veil being rent from top to bottom. The synoptic gospels also mention several witnesses,
including a centurion and “several women” who watched from a distance (two of whom were present
during the burial).
Luke omits the story about a drink that was offered to Jesus on a reed (a sour wine mix) but adds that on
the way to Calvary Jesus spoke to a number of women within the group of mourners following him,
(addressing them as "Daughters of Jerusalem"). Only Mark and John describe Joseph actually taking the
body down off the cross. Only Matthew mentions an earthquake, resurrected saints who went to the
city, and that Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb. Only Mark gives us the actual time of the
Crucifixion (the third hour, or 9 am), the presence of Roman soldiers, and the centurion's report of Jesus'
death.
Luke’s unique contributions to the narrative include Jesus' words to the women who were mourning,
one criminal's rebuke of the other, the reaction of the multitudes who left "beating their breasts", and
the women preparing spices and ointments before resting on the Sabbath. John is the only gospel which
mentions the request that Jesus’ legs be broken ("crucifragium”) and the soldier’s subsequent piercing of
Jesus' side (as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy).
Luke has one of the criminals defending Jesus, who in turn promises that he and Jesus will be together in
paradise. In Mark, Jesus calls out to God, then gives a shout and dies. Luke doesn’t mention that Jesus'
mother was present during Crucifixion whereas John places her at the Crucifixion and states that while
on the Cross Jesus saw both her and the disciple standing near her whom he loved. John records that
Jesus said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son".
John also places other women (three Marys) at the Cross. He lists those present as Mary, Jesus’ mother,
his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Matthew and Mark mention the
women with Mark offering the name Salome (presumed by some to be Mary’s sister, others as Jesus’
sister).
The gospels contradict each other about who carried the cross to the place of execution (the synoptics
all have Simon, John has Jesus carrying his own cross) and about what the sign on the cross above Jesus'
head said: Mark says: "THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Latin), Matthew has: "THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE
JEWS" (Latin), Luke: "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Latin), and John: "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING
OF THE JEWS" (in Aramaic, Latin and Greek). The gospels disagree about what the “robbers” said to
Jesus: Mark and Matthew have them both insulting Jesus, Luke has one hurling insults while the other
claims that Jesus' execution was unjust because he was not guilty of any crime, and John recorded
nothing said by them.
There were seven statements reportedly uttered by Jesus while he was on the cross:
 "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34 – omitted in many early
versions).
 "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43).
 "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46).
 "E′li, E′li, la′ma sabachtha′ni?" (Mt. 27:46; slightly different in Mark 15:34).
 "Woman, behold, your son!" (John 19:25-27) 57.
 "I thirst." (John 19:28).
 "It is finished." (John 19:30).
Finally, there are striking differences in what were reported to be Jesus' last words. Mark and Matthew
say that Jesus "cried out", but don’t say if any words were spoken. Luke gives us "Father, into your hands
I commit my spirit" and John merely quotes Jesus as saying "It is finished."
These differences and discrepancies alone should raise serious doubts about the authenticity of the
stories. And, since none of the writers tell us how these events were recorded 58, we have to think they
were largely fabrications. Besides, there are other problems with the accounts. For example, Luke (a
physician) suggests and John specifically states that nails were driven through Jesus' hands59 during the
crucifixion (Luke 24:39; John 20:27), but we know that the weight of the victim's body would tear
through the hand, so when the Romans used nails 60 they passed them through the wrist (between the
two bones of the forearm).
The very purpose of crucifixion was to execute the criminal by the most painful and prolonged means.
The victim was generally hung naked to maximize the indignity and was rarely allowed any normal type
of burial61. The best historical evidence indicates that, on average, it took three days for victims of
crucifixion to die62. Pontius Pilate (who we might classify as an “expert”) was very surprised when he
heard that Jesus was already dead (Mark 15:44). It requires little imagination to see that the gospel
57
The “beloved disciple” of the gospel of John is the subject of considerable debate. I doubt if it was John. Since
this person took Mary into his home, it is unimaginable that it wasn’t one of Jesus’ brothers.
58
Only John gives a possibility – the disciple whom Jesus loved. But that doesn’t explain the different versions or
why he’s not mentioned in the other accounts. Note the “eye witness” assertion at John 19:35 and then note that
the word “ὁράω” used there often has a metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" or to see spiritually
(Strong’s).
59
Both John and Luke tells us that when Jesus appeared to Thomas after the crucifixion, he told him, "Put your
finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." The Greek
word for hand (χεῖρας) used by both gospel writers is specific (wrist would be “καρπός”, genitive καρποῦ).
60
Because iron was so valuable, the Romans generally didn’t use nails - they tied the victim's arms to the
crosspiece. I note the exceptions of Yohan Ben Ha'galgol and Jehohanan.
61
See “Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross”, Martin Hengel, Fortress, 1977.
writers added numerous elements to the crucifixion story merely to address problems with the early
accounts.
Because we can’t even be certain how Jesus was crucified it is problematic to argue medical details.
Nevertheless, the Christian apologists have flooded us with their “medical evidence” and arguments that
Jesus must have died on the cross63. I have yet to find one that isn’t based upon invalid information or
the avoidance of information. For example, most argue that Jesus had to die because of dislocated
shoulders and the inability to support their weight causing asphyxiation. Then they turn around a say
that the reason why the victim’s legs had to be broken was to expedite death by asphyxiation, but Jesus’
legs weren’t broken. Christian doctors, wishing to offer expert medical “testimony” to this debate often
ignore their own statements: “Crucifixion was never intended to kill anybody. It was only intended to
make a human being suffer as much as could be inflicted upon him before killing him by breaking his
legs… Crucifracture is what they would do when they simply grew tired of watching this agony and
suffering or when they had something better to do and wanted to end a crucifixion.” (“The Cruxification”
by Dr. Keith Maxwell64). Almost all ignore another key fact: “A typical cross granted the victim a partial
seat, called the sedile”65 (or “sedulum”). Less common was the addition of the “cornu” (“horn”) which
had a function we need not detail. (See “The Bible as History” by Werner Keller, Barnes & Noble
Publishing (1995), p348 and “Dialogue ‘To Marcia on Consolation’”, in Moral Essays, Seneca, 6.20.3,
trans. John W. Basore, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946)
2:69).
Because the issue is so sensitive to Christians and so vehemently defended, I will take a minute and
address their major contentions:
•Jesus’ early death is logical considering he underwent brutal beatings, a flogging (many people
did not even survive this), crucifixion, and being stabbed in the side with a spear, and this after
being up all night and suffering from severe dehydration.
Logical is far from factual. It was common for Romans to inflict the suffering described, but such also
indicates the strong desire to torture and prolong the agony. As many Christian authors claim, the
Romans were experts as crucifixion and to kill the victim too soon was contrary to that expertise.
62
Typically, death came from exposure, dehydration, and damage caused by scavenger animals. (Ouch!) One source
speaks of historical records showing that one person lived for nine days on the cross. (See Tsamis, below). Josephus
tells us of a friend who survived crucifixion (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 75).
63
For one of the better ones, see “The Crucifxion of Jesus - An Historical, Procedural, and Pathological Approach”
by William J. Tsamis, M.A. available at http://fidei-defensor.blogspot.com/2006/08/crucifxion-of-jesus-
historical.html.
64
Lecture transcript at http://www.thylacineslair.com/Reflections/Cruxification.htm.
65
“The Crucifixion of Christ” at http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/crucifixion/cruc.html. Justin Martyr spoke
of a protrusion on the cross at its center, which carried the weight of the crucified. (Dialogue 91:2.) On this rough
"seat," Irenaeus says, "the person rests who is fixed by the nails." (Against Heresies 2.23.4). Tertullian called this
feature a "projecting seat." (Ad Nationes 1:12).
•Roman soldiers faced a possible death sentence for prisoner escape; giving them adequate
incentive to make certain Jesus was dead.
Perhaps, but “escaping” by premature death negated the fundamental purpose of this form of
execution. All three men being crucified that day probably endured similar treatment and the other two
were obviously alive at the time it was determined that Jesus was dead.
•Crucifixion was a common practice in the Roman Empire and the soldiers would know when an
individual had died.
This assumes that they cared, weren’t bribed, and hadn’t been instructed otherwise. Modern doctors
are occasionally fooled into believing someone has died when they haven’t. There was even a Jewish
tradition in which a deceased's body was set in a tomb before sundown on the day of their death and
visited a few days later to make certain that the body had truly died. Mistakes were made.
•The legs of a crucified victim were often broken to speed up death, yet Jesus’ legs were
intentionally not broken since everyone was convinced he was already dead.
Christians are fond of noting that the religious leaders were anxious to make sure that messianic
prophecies were not available to Jesus’ followers (thus the guards at the tomb). Wouldn’t these leaders
would have been aware of the “no broken bones” prophecies of Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, and Psalm
34:20? Nevertheless, John tells us that “These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled:
‘Not one of his bones will be broken’," (John 19:31-37). If the soldiers were convinced he was dead, there
was no reason to pierce Jesus’ side.
•Following the resurrection, no one suggested that Jesus survived but rather that his body was
stolen. It seemed everyone had concluded for certain he had died.
True. But if Jesus was revived and the truth had been told, the Romans (assisted by their traitorous Jews)
would have hunted him down and we probably wouldn’t know the name Jesus.
•Jesus made several appearances shortly following his resurrection where he walked long
distances, conversed, and ate food while giving no signs of serious injury.
We’ll have to deal with the resurrection appearances elsewhere, but we should note how weird and
inconsistent they are (as in not realizing it was Jesus until later).
•Jesus’ disciples would not likely die as martyrs if they knew Jesus did not prove his divinity by
rising from death.
Thousands of Jews died shortly after Jesus’ death as “martyrs” who didn’t even know him or about him.
Many through the ages have died because of belief in other divine personages – but they were obviously
wrong?
•The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had been seeking Jesus’ death for some time and would have
ensured that he was actually dead.
They apparently did their best. But we might also give credit to Jesus’ followers for they were
unquestionably (at least for Christians) filled with the Holy Spirit, capable of miracles, adept at healing,
and capable of out-smarting the authorities (see the Acts of the Apostles in general).
•Jesus spent three days in a cold tomb receiving no medical attention.
Well, actually, the NT doesn’t say that. What it says is that Jesus wasn’t in “his” tomb three days after at
least two remarkable and powerful men placed him (or someone) there. We have no record of what
happened between the cross and the tomb, in the tomb, or for the time until someone (conflicting
reports) went to the tomb on (or after) the “third day” (as little as 33 hours by some accounts).
Thus, while it is possible that Jesus did die on the cross, it is also possible – or more likely – that he
didn’t. For those who believe, it’s a matter of “faith”; for the rest of us, it’s a matter of probability,
common sense, and discerning the facts. We believe that people who are seen alive after appearing
dead were actually not dead. And, I will note again the interesting paradox in Christian logic: the
Apostles and followers of Jesus are credited with supernatural healing powers. At the very least, they
were among the most accomplished healers of their time. Wouldn’t this alone make Jesus’ recovery
possible?
Life After Death: Jesus the Savior?
Figuring out what happened after Jesus’ crucifixion is even more problematic than figuring out what
happened during his trial and execution. What is clear is that many people claimed to see a living Jesus
afterwards. It is hard to discount so many witnesses. The oddity for me lies in idea that Christian faith in
the resurrection is based not on the testimony of these witnesses – but upon the belief that Jesus died in
his unusual execution and was reincarnated by God (and that the purpose of such was to relieve us of
God’s judgmental burden for our sins). Given a choice between the possibility of someone surviving
crucifixion (well established as a real possibility) and someone being reincarnated by God (no reality
beyond “faith”), unbiased rational people must choose the former.
If Jesus was not the Messiah or the Son of God, then we might wonder why he is worth so much
attention. I propose three answers:
1. Jesus’ teachings, when placed in their proper prospective, offer a compilation of ideas that can
reform the world’s greatest religion into something much more powerful and moral. Viewing
God as the ultimate Loving Being has powerful transformative power.
2. Jesus’ life serves as a powerful model of piety, devotion, righteousness, and love. His mission of
helping people turn to a loving God through love of God by being more loving has powerful
social and evolutionary power.
3. Jesus’ death serves as a powerful reminder that commitment to moral purpose and dedication
to a worthwhile idea can inspire others (even when it turns out that one’s plan is less than
perfect). Jesus so believed in God’s loving nature that he created the expectation of divine
intervention and he was willing to die in order to facilitate it. That should touch us at a very deep
level and empower us to live better lives.
Whereas there have been others with wise teachings, a few who were inspirational models of
righteousness, and many who have died for some moral purpose, who else brought these qualities
together in such dramatic and compelling ways. I know of none and I pray that my story is worthy of him.
Therefore whosoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him unto a
wise man. And every one that hears these sayings of mine and does them not, shall be
likened unto a foolish man. (Mat. 7:21-27).

An Amazing Life - Appendix IV

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

An Amazing Life - Appendix IV

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

An Amazing Life: Jesus and the Nozerim

Why is Christianity the biggest and most powerful religion on earth?

Jesus – the man:

To earnestly seek and honor the Will of God.

Who were his parents?

 It is meaningless to Jesus if his parentage was in question 13.

 It is the best explanation for many biblical passages.

A condensed (encyclopedic) biography of Jesus-the man might read:

The Teachings of Jesus and the Teaching by Jesus:

The stories are only legends,

The Execution of Jesus:

•Jesus spent three days in a cold tomb receiving no medical attention.

Life After Death: Jesus the Savior?

Potrebbero piacerti anche