The Teaching of the Historical Jesus (27-30 CE)

1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (63 BCE-30 CE)

Since most of the history of this period has been discussed in chapter 2, in this section attention will
be paid to those facets of this period’s history relevant to our understanding of Jesus and his ministry,
the period after Herod’s death.

After Herod’s death in 4 BCE his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Archelaus, Herod
Antipas and Philip. Archelaus became ruler of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, Herod Antipas of Galilee
and Perea and Philip of the regions north and east of the Sea of Galilee.

In Judea the transition was all but peaceful. The Jerusalemites de­manded a reduction in taxes and the
release of prisoners. Peasant revolts broke out in different parts of the country, a phenomenon which
occurred sporadically until the outbreak of the Roman-Jewish war in 66-70 CE.

Archelaus’ reign lasted only 10 years before he was removed from his position in 6 CE. Since then
Judea and Samaria were ruled by Roman governors. Tax was to be paid directly to Rome. This led to
revolts, one of them led by Judas the Galilean in 6 CE, in different parts of Palestine,.

Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod the Great, in other words before 4 CE. His ministry,
however, took place between 28–30 CE while Herod Antipas was ruler of Galilee (where most of Jesus’
ministry took place). Pilate was governor in Judea and Samaria (26-36 CE) and Tiberius was emperor
of Rome. Pilate was a typical Roman governor who often acted insensitively towards Jewish laws and
customs. This caused tension between him and the Jews. Though, as part of Judea, Jerusalem was
formally under Roman control, the high priest and his advisors were mostly responsible for its
governance. During the Jewish festivals the procurator or prefect came to Jerusalem with extra troops
in case of trouble. This would also have been the case when Jesus and his disciples went to
Jerusalem for the Passover in about 30 CE.

As a result of the long reign of Herod Antipas in Galilee (4 BCE–39 CE), it was probably more peaceful
than Judea. This does not necessarily mean that the Jews were satisfied with their situation. No part
of Palestine was totally exempt from the consequences of Roman rule such as heavy taxation and
social and economic tensions between rich and poor. The potential for insurrection was present most
of the time. In such a situation of dissatisfaction the hope for divine intervention, which in some cases
manifested itself in the outbreak of violence, arose from time to time.

Within this context of dissatisfaction and poverty, Jesus emphasised care for the poor and the needy
and reliance on God. He acted as healer among the sick and demon-possessed and preached about
the kingdom of God and the characteristics of a life in this kingdom. Jesus and his movement fit into a
group of renewal movements within Judaism which occurred in Palestine since the twenties of the first
century. John the Baptist also lead such a group.

●​ Lesson Task: In preparation for this lesson, please watch the lecture of Prof. Dale Martin (Yale
University) on the Historical Jesus. Set time aside to watch the entire video, which is
approximately an hour long, and remember to take notes. Here follows the link:

●​ Play Video
2 JESUS AS A HISTORICAL FIGURE
2.1 Our sources about Jesus

For information about Jesus as historical figure we are to a large extent dependent on the four Gospels
of the New Testament. Since the Gospel of John is even further removed from the historical figure of
Jesus than the other three, the latter are in reality our main sources. Although Paul’s letters predate the
Gospels, he has already to a large extent left the his­torical figure of Jesus and the details of his life and
ministry behind. The only aspects of Jesus’ life which function prominently in Paul’s writings are his
crucifixion and resurrection.

In addition to the Gospels in the New Testament there are a number of extra-canonical writings which
are nowadays regarded to be valuable sources for Jesus. This applies especially to the Gospel of
Thomas, which should, according to a number of scholars, be dated among the earliest writings of the
New Testament. Attention will be paid to this when dis­cussing the earliest Christian literature (cf
chapter 4 below).

Apart from the Gospels, in which Jesus is the main figure, a few historians of the time referred to him
in passing. In his Jewish Antiquities (approximately 93-94 CE) the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus
wrote as follows about him (later insertions excluded):

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was someone who did startling deeds, a teacher
of people who receive the truth with plea­sure. And he gained a following among many Jews and also
among many Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross on account of the accusation of
the leaders among us, those who previously loved him did not cease to do so. And up to this day the
Christians, who are named after him, did not die out (Jos Ant 18.3).

In his Annals the Roman historian Tacitus (56–118 CE) also refers to Jesus when he says that the
designation ‘Christians’ ‘comes from Christ, who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign
of Tiberius’ (Annals 15.44).

These sources do not provide new information about Jesus. They merely confirm the historical
existence of Jesus and a number of facts we know about him from the Gospels. It is nevertheless
significant that the portrayal of an outsider such as Josephus shows clear similarities with the image
of Jesus we encounter in the Gospels.

It will become clear in the course of dealing with the Gospels how Jesus and what he did and said was
taken up by each evangelist in a narrative about him and interpreted for a specific situation. Since one
can only use a source sensibly when its nature is grasped, it is necessary at this stage to say
something about the nature of the Gospels. As the Gos­pels had a long process of origin, one also has
to visualise how this pro­cess probably took place.

With regard to the nature of the Gospels it is important to realise that these writings are not historical
narratives which merely report what Jesus said and did. If this were the case, we would have one
Gospel only and not four (canonical) versions of the Jesus event. In some respects they differ quite
substantially (cf especially the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John – cf
chapter 4 and 5 below). On the other hand, if the authors of the Gospels were not at all interested in
history and therefore in the events of Jesus’ life, there would not necessarily be wri­tings which focus
on Jesus’ words and deeds (cf, e g, the Pauline letters where Jesus’ words and deeds play almost no
role). Although incorpo­rating historical material into their Gospels, some of which goes back to Jesus,
the evangelists had a different aim with their writings. They were people who, themselves convinced
that God was at work in Jesus and his ministry, wanted to convince others of the same. Forty years or
more after his ministry, they endeavoured to spell out for different groups of people, the significance of
what Jesus said and did, also with regard to himself. This implies that not everything which forms part
of the Gospels goes back to Jesus as historical figure, and that information about the historical Jesus
cannot simply be read from the Gospels.

Against the Gospels, as mere historical reports of what Jesus said and did, speak also the context in
which they originated and the time that elapsed between Jesus’ ministry and the writing of the
Gospels. The first-century culture in which Jesus’ ministry took place and in which the writings about
him originated was primarily oral. Only a small part of the population could read and write. This implies
that different ver­sions of, for example, a parable, had existed from the start, since it was probably told
more than once to different audiences and in different con­texts. It also implies that, during the
approximately four decades between Jesus’ ministry and the writing of the first complete Gospel
(Mark), the traditions about Jesus circulated orally and in the process underwent changes. Sections of
the Gospels which deal with the same matter or which take the same form were probably composed
into smaller written sources before the Gospels were written (cf the grouping together of the same
kind of material such as parables and miracle-stories). In a predominantly oral culture traditions would
still have circulated orally even after they had been written down.

From all this it is clear why it is not a simple task to reach Jesus as a historical figure. To this can be
added the complexity of constructing a specific first-century Palestine context for the ministry of
Jesus. It is no wonder that scholars come up with divergent views of the historical Jesus.

For those who want to take a deep dive into the world of the New Testament, you may try this paid
prescription done by respected scholars in New Testament and Early Christian Studies. Explore here.

2.2 The quests for the historical Jesus

Intensive research on Jesus as a historical figure started when, influenced by rationalism, scholars
during the 18th and 19th centuries CE realised that discrepancies exist between Jesus of Nazareth, the
figure who lived in Pa­les­tine during the 1st century, and the portrayal(s) of him in the New Testament.
The first to write about this was Samuel Reimarus, whose work was published after his death by
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1778). During the 19th century many attempts were made, especially in
Ger­ma­ny, to recover the historical Jesus by means of historical criticism (the so-called ‘Old Quest’).
While the emphasis was on historical construction, more than historical interest was at stake. In its
first stages it was an anti-dogmatic movement in which the differences between Jesus as historical
figure and the Christ of faith were emphasised. Only later scholars thought that by turning to the
historical Jesus Christian faith could be renewed.

During the first decades of the 20th century optimism about the possibility of recovering the historical
Jesus suffered a blow from various directions. In his famous book The quest of the historical Jesus
Albert Schweitzer convincingly demonstrated that the proposals made by schol­ars regarding Jesus as
historical figure to a great extent reflected their own views and ideals. Research on the nature of the
Gospels underlined the problems associated with this endeavour even further. It was more and more
realised that the incidents reported in the Gospels were not mere historical reminiscences, and that the
chronology of the Gospels does not reflect the historical life of Jesus, but was created by the Gospel
authors.

For nearly half a century the problem was put aside by stressing that the historical Jesus was not
important for faith and for the church. This view was especially held and propagated by Martin Kähler
and Rudolph Bultmann, the latter being one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th
century. In the 1950's the problem was again taken up. While in the ‘Old Quest’ scholars played off
‘Jesus as historical figure’ and the portrayals of him in the New Testament against each other, an
attempt was now made to bring the two together by pointing to the close relationship between the
Jesus of history and the Christ of faith prevalent in the Synoptic Gospels. Although the evangelists
were more in­terested in Jesus’ significance than in his identity, these scholars pointed out that Jesus’
significance was for them closely related to his identity. The meaning of Jesus can therefore not be
detached from the historical figure he was.

Since the middle of the 1980's Jesus-research was resumed zealously and is still going on (the
so-called ‘third quest’). Characteristics of the current phase of research are especially the following: A
serious attempt is made to understand Jesus within the first-century Jewish context. The construction
of a more specific Galilean context for Jesus plays a crucial role in current research. In addition to the
canonical Gospels, extra-canonical sources are used in the construction of the historical Jesus. Much
attention is paid to method, especially social-scientific method.

The current phase of historical Jesus research is still characterised by sharp difference of opinion with
regard to Jesus as a historical figure. These differences are related to a number of factors. We have
pointed out that the Gospels, our main sources for Jesus, are not historical accounts in the modern
sense. Since they deal with a restricted number of incidents from a short period of Jesus’ life, we do
not have all the pieces of the Jesus-puzzle. This implies that connections between the available pieces
have to be made by the scholar. Another contributing factor to the diver­sity in ‘historical Jesus’ images
is the complexity of first-century Judaism as part of the Mediterranean world, the world in which Jesus
lived. The Judaism of the time, which was influenced by Hellenism, contained different facets to which
scholars relate in search of the historical Jesus. Some emphasise the apocalyptic or eschatological
strand in first-century Judaism and come up with Jesus as eschatological or apocalyptic prophet.
Others place Jesus within the charismatic stream of first-century Judaism and regard him as a
charismatic Galilean holy man.

Closely related to the specific strand of Judaism in which Jesus is situ­ated is the facet of his ministry
perceived to be the main access route to him. If a scholar, for example, chooses Jesus’ words as the
main access route to him as historical figure, she or he will end up with a Jesus who differs from the
one reached by mainly focussing on his deeds. The method used is also a crucial factor in determining
the outcome of ‘his­torical Jesus’ research. The obvious challenge of Jesus research is to sketch an
image of him which account for both his words and deeds.

●​ Lesson Task: Watch the following short video (3 min) in which N.T. Wright speaks about
"Historical Jesus Studies Today":
[Link]

2.3 Examples of historical images of Jesus

The portrayals of Jesus as a historical figure with which scholars have come up since the end of the
nineteenth century can roughly be typified as eschatological and non-eschatological.

(1) Although criticising the historical constructions of Jesus by scholars of his time, Albert Schweitzer
came up with his own construction of Jesus, which was influential especially during the first half of the
20th century. As Johannes Weiss before him, Schweitzer emphasised that Jesus and his ministry
should be understood within the world of Second Temple Ju­da­ism. For him this implied the framework
of Jewish apocalyptic, the expectation of the imminent end of the world, in his view an important strand
in the Judaism of Jesus’ time. Jesus’ ministry and proclamation had to do with the coming of the
kingdom of God in the near future, an insight provided to him by his reading of Matthew 10. The
kingdom at stake here is not a human moral community to be brought about in this world, but a
supernatural kingdom bringing with it the end of the world.

Fig: Picture of Albert Schweitzer (By Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-D0116-0041-019 / Unknown / CC-BY-SA
3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, [Link]
Schweitzer mostly relied on Mark, whose basic outline he regarded as historical, and Matthew,
sometimes conflating material from them. According to Schweitzer, Jesus’ view of the kingdom and
his awareness and view of his messiahship were closely related. At his baptism Jesus had become
aware that he was the one destined by God to be the messiah. When the disciples whom he sent out
returned and reported to him their success, he was convinced that the kingdom was now about to
dawn. When this did not happen, Jesus went to Jerusalem to force the issue of the kingdom by taking
upon himself the suffering associated with the period before the end of the world and offering his life
as an atonement for the people. In line with his view of an eschatological kingdom preached by Jesus,
Schweitzer regarded Jesus’ teaching as, inter alia, embodied in the Sermon of the Mount, as
interimethic. Over against scholars who had intended to make Jesus relevant for their time, Schweitzer
emphasised that the historical Jesus is a stranger to our time.

(2) Schweitzer’s line of thought is, in modified form, currently pursued by E P Sanders. Sanders also
emphasises first-century Judaism, particu­larly Jewish eschatology, as context for understanding Jesus
and his ministry. In support of this view he emphasises that the line from John the Baptist to Paul and
to the other apostles is that of Jewish eschatology.

In constructing his Jesus, Sanders relies primarily on eight in­dis­putable ‘facts’ about Jesus, and not so
much on Jesus’ words, since these in his view do not sufficiently explain his crucifixion and the
forming of a messianic sect by his followers. The facts are the following:

(1) Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist.

(2) He was a Galilean who preached and healed.

(3) He called disciples and spoke of twelve of them.

(4) He confined his activity to Israel.

(5) He engaged in a controversy about the temple.

(6) He was crucified by the Roman authorities.

(7) After his death his followers existed as an identifiable movement.

(8) At least some Jews persecuted some parts of the new movement, and it apparently this continued
to a time near the end of Paul’s career.

Starting with Jesus’ action in the temple, Sanders argues that this event, together with other important
aspects of his ministry such as his relationship to John the Baptist and the call of the disciples, fits
into what he calls restoration eschatology, that is the view that God would vindicate and restore Israel.
Jesus was, according to Sanders a restorationist pro­phet: He regarded himself as God’s last
messenger before the establish­ment of the kingdom, which would entail God’s dramatic intervention in
history.

(3) Another scholar who at present propagates an understanding of Jesus and his ministry within an
eschatological Jewish context is Thomas Wright. Although in theory opting for Schweitzer’s route, and
typifying Jesus as an eschatological prophet, Wright redefines apocalyptic language by saying that it
did not, as Schweitzer thought, refer to the end of the world in time and in space. Apocalyptic language
is, according to him, the symbolic language of protest and revolution. As eschatological prophet, Jesus
used this kind of language to give expression to the belief that Is­rael’s God was acting through him and
his movement to do for Israel what the prophets had promised: The real return from exile in the
spiritual sense is the real forgiveness of sin. Jesus reinterpreted traditional Jewish sym­bols such as
loyalty to family, key elements of the Torah et cetera, in this way, redefining for his contemporaries the
important aspects of their faith. He was, according to Wright, conscious of his vocation: He believed
that he was Israel’s messiah, the one through whom God was acting to restore the fortunes of his
people.

Though calling Jesus an eschatological prophet, Wright’s redefinition of ‘apocalyptic’ in a sense makes
his Jesus more of a non-eschatological figure. Apart from the way he visualises first-century Judaism
as context for the historical Jesus, his portrayal of Jesus is determined by the way he views and
understands the Gospels as historical reliable accounts of Jesus’ ministry.

During the last few decades a number of proposals with regard to the historical Jesus were made
which can be called non-eschatological. According to these scholars, who take the first-century context
of Jesus se­rious­ly but define it differently, Jesus was mainly concerned with this world and not so
much with the coming of God’s kingdom in future. The kingdom is regarded by them to be mainly
something of the present.

(4) A scholar, who since the seventies of the twentieth century made a ground-breaking contribution to
Jesus research, is Geza Vermes. Him­self a Jew, he brought a number of important insights to the
historical study of Jesus as Jew. Vermes situates Jesus within the charismatic tradition of Judaism
represented by miracle-workers such as Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, thus typifying him
as a Galilean Hasid. He en­countered these figures, whom he used as models for understanding Jesus,
in the Rabbinic writings, which he regards as important aids in the search for Jesus as historical figure.
As a Hasid, or holy man, Jesus was, according to him, a healer, exorcist, preacher and teacher.

When dealing with the kingdom of God, central to the view of Jesus as eschatological or apocalyptic
prophet, Vermes is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand he points out that, in Jesus’ view, the
kingdom was imminent, even present in his ministry, an assertion which hints at some kind of temporal
understanding of the kingdom. On the other hand he dismisses a temporal understanding of the
kingdom as a misunderstanding of Jesus’ eschatological outlook and regards debate on the time
aspect of the kingdom as irrelevant. According to Vermes, Jesus the existential teacher was in his
teaching of the kingdom mainly concerned with peo­ple’s attitude and behaviour towards the kingdom.

Although Jesus was, according to Vermes, an observant Jew, the ob­ser­vance of the Law was not the
centre of his religion. Jesus’ religion was about following God, as expressed in Luke 6:36: ‘Be merciful,
as your father is merciful’.

(5) In his portrayal of first-century Galilee as setting for Jesus and his ministry, Richard Horsley
focusses on factors like the political and socio-economic circumstances during the time: the reality of
foreign rule and the conflict which it caused, economic pressure on the peasantry, and the big gap
between rich and poor. An important emphasis in his work, which deeply influences it, is that in
first-century Palestine, religion was not regarded as a separate area of life, apart from social, political
and econo­mic matters. In line with this insight he regards Jesus as someone actively engaged with his
world, a prophetic figure, even a social revolutionary. Jesus had a specific purpose in mind in the
service of which he acted: the renewal of the people of Israel. The kingdom of God does not refer to
something abstract which lies in the future, but to the continuing action of God, who is concerned with
the liberation and welfare of his people.

(6) Various factors contribute to Marcus Borg’s portrayal of Jesus. Cha­rac­teristic of his work is that in
his construction of Jesus he makes use of most of the kinds of material about Jesus in the Synoptic
Gospels, that is his words as well as his deeds. His Jesus is therefore a multi-faceted one: a
charismatic who was a healer, sage, prophet, and the founder of a revitalisation movement. Apart from
the Gospel material which he uses, his portrait of Jesus is also related to the fact that he makes use of
insights from cross-cultural anthropology, in this case a cross-cultural typology of religious personality
types. At the roots of the other facets of his Jesus is the fact that he was, according to Borg, a
Spirit-filled person in the charismatic stream of Judaism. What Jesus was, taught and did flowed from
his experience of the ‘world of spirit’. Different incidents from Jesus’ life and ministry fit with the view
of Jesus as a spirit person: The voice at his baptism, his experience in the wilderness, his prayers, and
the way Luke portrays him at the beginning of his ministry. This also applies to important facets of
Jesus’ work such as his healings and exorcisms and his teaching of unconventional wisdom.

In reconstructing the context in which Jesus taught and acted, Borg, like Horsley, emphasises the
economic pressure and conflict in first-century Palestine brought about by Roman rule. In reaction to
this situa­tion the Jewish social world was, according to him, increasingly structured around holiness
and the polarities characteristic of it, such as clean and unclean, purity and defilement, righteous and
sinful. The politics of holiness led to greater divisions among the Jews themselves and to inten­sified
conflict with Rome. With this social world Jesus was actively en­gaged, teaching his unconventional
wisdom, in a prophet-like way calling his people to change and founding a revitalisation movement,
that is, a renewal movement within Israel. This movement was characterised by the presence of the
spirit, itinerancy, inclusivity and compassion. Borg emphasises that, while spiritualising elements of the
Jewish tradition, Jesus remained deeply Jewish and the movement which he initiated was concerned
with what it meant to be Israel.

(7) As context for his Jesus, John Dominic Crossan focusses on the broader Mediterranean context, of
which Palestine formed part. The socio-political-religious context of Jewish Palestine as part of its
wider context is painted by him in dark colours as one of social discrimination, cultural domination and
imperial oppression, a situation in which es­pecial­ly the peasantry, who made up the vast majority of the
population, suffered. In this context Crossan’s Jesus and his program take form.

Crossan reaches his Jesus by means of a sophisticated methodology which comprises three facets:
(1) He uses cross-cultural and cross-temporal social anthropology, (2) pays attention to Greco-Roman
history and focusses on the (3) literature which contains Jesus’ words and deeds, identifying in these
sources the layers which most probably go back to Jesus.

Characteristic of Crossan’s work on Jesus is that he includes ex­tra-canonical writings such as the
Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter in the source material for Jesus, sometimes even awarding
them a pri­vileged place. The Gospel material which he regards to be the earliest and therefore in his
view the closest to Jesus, in conjunction with the context he constructs for Jesus’ ministry, leads him
to the view of Jesus as a Jewish peasant who resembles a Cynic sage. Jesus differed from the Cynics
in that he focussed on the farm rather than the market-place, which causes Crossan to typify him as
peasant Jewish Cynic.

Another factor which, according to Crossan, differentiates Jesus from the Cynics is that he did not
merely have a Cynic-like lifestyle: He had a social program and inaugurated a social movement. That
Jesus had a program in mind which entailed the rebuilding of society on principles of religious and
economic egalitarianism, comes to expression in two aspects of Jesus’ ministry: The practice of open
commensality, that is, eating together with persons of all classes, and free healing for everybody. In line
with Jesus’ preaching of a radical egalitarianism in society, the kingdom of God which Jesus
proclaimed, was, according to Crossan, a brokerless kingdom. No broker or mediator was necessary to
ensure entry into it. It was, moreover, not something of the future, but was immediately available to
everybody.

3 THE LIFE OF JESUS

Since only the significant years of Jesus’ life, involving his public minis­try, are covered by the Gospels,
not much information is available about his life prior to this.

Jesus was probably born shortly before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, in 5 or 6 BCE. He grew
up in Nazareth, a small town in Lower Galilee. He was a member of the lower class of the society, to
which at least 90% of the people belonged. His parents were Joseph and Mary. The synoptic Gospels
refer to four brothers by name: James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. He also had sisters, who are not
named in the Gospels.

After having been baptised by John the Baptist and perhaps spending some time in his movement, he
began his ministry in approximately 28 CE. He called a number of disciples who participated in his
ministry and carried on with it after his death. The duration of his ministry cannot be established with
certainty. In the synoptic Gospels there is reference to only one passover attended by Jesus in
Jerusalem, while John refers to three such occasions. This could, but does not necessarily, point to a
ministry of three years. On his visit to Jerusalem during Passover Jesus was arrested and crucified by
the Roman authorities, probably in 30 CE. Although the divergent Gospel reports about the resurrection
of Jesus make it difficult to say something historically sensible about this, one can infer from these
reports that after Jesus’ death his followers had resur­rec­tion experiences which convinced them that
he was alive.

We are, of course, interested in more than this bare outline of Jesus’ life. We want to know what it was
that caused people to flock to him in great numbers, what it was about him that made such a great
impact on people. Before coming to this, a few preliminary remarks need to be made.

In trying to know something about Jesus as historical figure, we have to keep in mind that he was a
first-century Jew who shared the basic convictions of Judaism. His ministry was therefore in some
sense related to the Judaism of his day and to the hopes and expectations of his people.

We have, moreover, to remind ourselves of the more specific context of his life and ministry outlined
above, that is first-century Palestine and especially Galilee. Although the period during which Jesus
lived and acted in Galilee was probably, as a result of the peaceful reign of Herod Anti­pas, not
characterised by overt revolution like the time before and after him, a region which was under foreign
rule would not have been without tension, with poverty and unrest ever-present realities. People
responded to this in different ways. From 4 BCE onwards, different military revolts, which can be called
messianic movements, occurred in Palestine. These ultimately culminated in the Jewish wars. Since
the second decade of the 1st century CE there were also a number of prophetic movements such as
that of John the Baptist, renewal movements which were concerned with the preservation and
redefinition of Jewish identity. The group which ori­gin­ated with Jesus was probably related to these
movements.

To understand Jesus and his ministry it is also essential to keep in mind that in first century Palestine
important aspects of life such as reli­gion, politics and economics were not, as in our time, separated
from each other. This explains why Jesus’ teaching and actions could have political consequences,
which eventually led to his death. It should also make us careful not to think of him in too esoteric and
restricted terms, for example as someone mainly concerned with the salvation of people’s souls, as he
came to be viewed in some church traditions.

Since Jesus’ public ministry started with John the Baptist, this is the appropriate place to start our
short sketch of Jesus. From the sparse in­for­mation about John in the Gospels it becomes evident that
he was a prophet concerned with judgement and renewal, who preached forgiveness of sins through
baptism. Jesus linked himself closely with John and may initially even have belonged to the group of
disciples around John.

As a result of the more and more diverse material about Jesus in the Gospels, the fact that he was
interpreted anew for new situations and also the fact that he evidently had more sides to him than John
the Baptist, it is more difficult to form a precise idea of Jesus as historical figure. The impression of
Jesus one gets from the Gospels is that of a figure who cannot comfortably be fitted into one role. He
fulfilled different functions, some of them not normally combined in comparable figures in Israel’s
history or of the time more or less contemporary with him. Elijah and Elisha , were, for example, both
prophets and healers, but not wisdom teachers. Hanina and Honi, also charismatic figures, were both
healers and wisdom teachers, but not prophetic figures.

Jesus was a prophet-like figure who gathered around him a group of disciples and went from village to
village, town to town, healing, preaching and exorcising demons. Apart from the healings and
exorcisms reported in the Gospels, and the Gospel summaries (e g Lk 4:40-41) which refer to this
aspect of his ministry, the historian Josephus, as we saw above, also referred to Jesus as ‘a doer of
mighty deeds’. More healing stories are told about him than about any other healer of whom we read in
the Jewish tradition. From the crowds who followed him it is clear that people, including his followers,
attached great significance to what they had perceived to be his miracles. That he was a prophet-like
figure is, for example, clear from his conduct towards the poor and the marginalised and his
overturning of the tables of the money-changers in the temple. He was furthermore a teacher, as will
become clear below when his teaching is discussed. In addition he was a Jewish leader who initiated a
movement which continued to exist after his death.

At the root of his person, the different roles he fulfilled and the way in which he fulfilled them, was his
charisma. ‘Charisma’ refers to the power to attract other persons and to influence them directly without
making use of existing authorities and institutions. In Jesus’ case this charisma was related to his
close relationship with and his experience of God, whom he regarded as his father. It was the source of
the authority with which he spoke and acted and of his healings and exorcisms as well as his
advocating of unconven­tional values and modes of behaviour.

Resulting from and cohering with his charisma, Jesus’ different roles were closely related to his vision
and preaching of the ‘kingdom of God’.

4 THE TEACHING OF JESUS

4.1 Jesus teaching about the kingdom of God

Prior to Jesus, the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ was relatively rare. The pre­cise term which was translated
as basileia theou in Greek does not oc­cur in the books of the Hebrew canon and only once in the Old
Testa­ment apo­crypha (Wisdom of Solomon 10:10). The notion of God rul­ing as king in the present and
in future is, however, prominent in some parts of the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms and the
book of Isaiah (cf e g Ps 103:19; 145:13; Is 52:7). During the intertestamental period, the notion of
God’s kingship was especially used in eschatological and apocalyptic con­texts, referring to Israel’s
salvation in the future. When using the term ‘kingdom of God’ and making it central to his vision and
action, Jesus would probably be aware of some of the talk about God’s kingly rule.

Jesus did, however, not merely stick to the previous use and conno­ta­tions of God’s kingly rule. He
spoke about the kingdom of God frequently and in diverse ways: as a place to be entered (Mk 9:47;
14:25), as something to be sought (Lk 12:31), as something of the future and of the present. The
petition for the coming of the kingdom in the Lord’s prayer (Lk 11:2/Mt 6:10) focusses, for example, on
a future kingdom. In fact, quite a number of sayings of Jesus fall in this category (cf e.g. Mk 14:25; Lk
13:28/Mt 8:11).

On the other hand, the kingdom was for him not confined to the future: What was expected in future,
was in a sense already something of the present (Lk 17:21). It was, moreover, related to and present in
his most typical teaching and actions. It was there when, by means of his parables and other wisdom
sayings, he challenged people to think and live differently. It was present in his meals with
tax-collectors and sinners, by which he anticipated a coming messianic banquet. It was especially
present when he healed people and exorcised demons, thereby breaking the power of Satan and
inaugurating the expected time of salvation. This is clear from Matthew 12:28, where the kingdom is
specifically linked to Jesus’ exorcisms: ‘But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom
of God has come upon you’. And, when John the Baptist’s disciples came to ask him whether he was
the one to come, he answered:

Go back and report to John what you hear and see:

the blind receive sight, the lame walk,

those who have leprosy are cured,

the deaf hear, the dead are raised,

and the good news is preached to the poor’ (Mt 11:4–5).

In the extra-canonical Gospel of Thomas (saying 113) the present dimension of the kingdom also
comes out clearly:‘...the kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it’. Compare
also the striking expression of the same notion in saying 3:

If those who lead you say to you:‘The kingdom is in heaven’,

then the birds of heaven will precede you,

if they say to you: ‘It is in the sea’,

then the fish will precede you.

But the kingdom is within you and outside you.

Jesus’ radical demands to his followers and his willingness to leave existing conventions behind may
be related to the new erawhich he was in a sense already inaugurating and which implied the leaving
behind of the old era. By relating the kingdom to his teaching and actions, Jesus showed what the
kingdom of God and living within it is about. The kingdom was, at least partly, about every day’s needs,
and about compas­sion towards the marginalised in society.

4.2 Jesus’s subversive wisdom teaching or reversal of values

In detecting the nature, style and main themes of Jesus’ teaching, the obvious access route is the
various forms or genres he employed.

(1) Firstly there are the parables, of which approximately 30 are con­tained in the synoptic Gospels and
three ‘new’ ones in the Gospel of Thomas. Most of these probably go back to Jesus himself.
Parables refer to the short stories Jesus told, in which he made use of mat­ters from nature or from
contemporary societyfamiliar to his lis­teners. The image of a sower (Mk 4) would, for example, not be
foreign to people in an agrarian society, nor would that of a farmer who sent out workers to work in his
land (Mt 20:1–16). By injecting an element of sur­prise into his stories, Jesus led his hearers out of old
ways of looking at the world to new ways of seeing and acting. The Jews of Jesus’ time, who did not
have good relations with the Samaritans, would, for example, not easily have made a Samaritan the
hero of a story. In Jesus’ narrative (Lk 10:25–37) this is precisely what happens. The same applies to
the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector (Lk 18:9-14). In real life of Jesus’ time, as would be
the case today, the owner of a vineyard would have paid the workers according to the hours they
worked. In Jesus’ parable (Mt 20:1-16), however, those who worked less hours are paid the same
amount of money.

(2) Another typical form used by Jesus are the short proverb-like sayings called aphorisms. Aphorisms
are usually described as sayings which do not reflect the conventional wisdom of a society, but the
unconventional views of an individual. Some of Jesus’ sayings give expression to obvious truths (e.g.
Lk 6:44//Mt 7:16; Lk 6:13//Mt 6:24). In others, as in some of his parables, he comes up with surprising
insights, in which the ordinary ways of understanding things are reversed: Those who are first, will be
last (Mk 10:31), those who want to preserve their lives, will lose them (Mk 8:35), those who are willing
to give, will receive (Mk 10:21–30).

In Jesus’ parables and other sayings a distinct view of reality and of God come to the fore. According
to Jesus, God acts in unpredictable and surprising ways. The wages he hands out are disproportional
to the work done (Mt 20:1–16). And when the guests he invites to a feast do not turn up, he replaces
them with people from the streets. He is compassionate (Lk 15), the one who causes his sun to rise on
the evil and the good (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35).

One should be careful not to romanticise and ‘esotericise’ Jesus’ teaching and to detach it from the
hard realities of his world and time. His teaching was, as the rest of his ministry, related to the context
of first-century Galilee. It clearly had social implications, as is clear from his conduct towards sinners
and tax collectors. Aspects of his teaching may even have referred to a reordering of society (cf e g Mt
20:1-16).

4.3 Jesus’ ethical teaching

Since Jesus did not merely adhere to conventional wisdom, the question arises as to how he thought
about the law of Moses, so important to Jews, and about purity laws. Did his teaching imply the
rejection of the Torah?

There are no indications in the Gospels that Jesus did away with the Torah. While sometimes showing
a great amount of freedom towards it, he in some respects intensified it. This applies especially to the
love com­mand­ment, which he extended from love of one’s neighbour to love of one’s enemy (Mt 5:23),
the stranger (Lk 10:25–37) and sinners (Lk 7:36–50; cf also Mk 10:11ff and Mt 5:3ff for examples of
Jesus’ radicalisation or intensification of the Law).

The ritual norms prescribed by the law, such as commandments about cleanness, were not done away
with by Jesus. According to Mark 1:40–45 (the healing of the leper), Jesus approved of sacrifice. He,
however, con­sidered it to be less important than the needs and interests of people. It is more important
to save a life than to keep to the sabbath com­mandment (Mk 3:4). Reconciliation with one’s brother
should precede the sacrificial cult (Mt 5:23ff).
4.4 Criteria for authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus

When New Testament scholars started to realise that, as a result of the nature of the Gospels and the
complexity of their origin, it is not possible to ascribe all the sayings and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels
to Jesus himself, a number of criteria were established to determine his authentic sayings and deeds.
The following are most commonly used to help determine what could go back to Jesus.

(1) Discontinuity with existing traditions. According to this criterion, to qualify as authentic, a Jesus
saying should differ from convictions within Palestinian Judaism and early Christianity.

(2) The criterion of multiple attestation. This criterion implies that sayings which appear in more than
one independent source have a greater claim to authenticity than sayings which appear in only one
source or in sources dependent on one another.

(3) The criterion of coherence, which implies that a saying which coheres with what has been
established as typical of Jesus’ teaching or action probably goes back to him.

These criteria are not without problems. With regard to the first one, it can be pointed out that Jesus’
teaching not only differed from, but would have shown similarities with his Jewish milieu. He was, after
all, a Jew. Between Jesus and early Christianity there would also have been continuity as well as
discontinuity. If (2) is applied consistently, sayings which could have originated with Jesus but which
are not extant in more than one independent source could be excluded.

5 THE DEATH OF JESUS

The question can be posed why Jesus, a wandering prophet, healer and teacher, was arrested by the
high priest Caiaphas and crucified by the Romans. During his ministry in Galilee there appears to have
been some conflict with the Pharisees and scribes about aspects of the law. This would, however, not
have been enough reason to execute him. The Pharisees, in fact, play no part in the stories of Jesus’
arrest and trial.

Jesus’ talk about the ‘kingdom of God’ and related activities may provide us with a clue in this regard.
These utterances certainly had social and political implications, and could have created suspicion in a
region which formed part of the Roman empire (kingdom) and considered to be a threat to the political
stability. It is significant that Jesus, who proclaimed the kingdom, was crucified in Jerusalem as the
‘king of the Jews’ (Mt 27:37; Mk 15:26; Lk 23:38; Jn 19:19).

The more immediate cause of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion was probably his ‘cleansing’ of the temple
during his and his disciples’ visit to Jerusalem during Passover. This action was probably a symbolic
act by which he prophesied the destruction of the temple. Apart from the fact that such action against
the temple would be regarded by Jews as a serious of­fence, it probably confirmed among the Jewish
and Roman authorities the impression of Jesus as a trouble-maker and therefore a threat to peace and
order. The fact that this happened during the Passover, when many people were together in Jerusalem,
made an uprising among the people an even greater possibility. Jesus’ actions as well as the context
in which they took place in the end probably led to his crucifixion.

For his followers Jesus’ crucifixion came to have immense theological significance. They believed that
his embarrassing death on the cross was not in vain, that he died as a martyr ‘for others’.

6 CONCLUSION
Through the ages people have followed Jesus of Nazareth in various ways and have cherished various
images of him. For some he is the saviour of their souls and the mediator which makes eternal
salvation possible. For others he provides a window on God and even functions as God himself. For
others he is the liberator from social and political injus­tice.

The historical search for Jesus endeavours to portray a image of him which account for the complexity
of his person and which is not at the outset dominated by subjective beliefs. It stands to reason that
this his­torical research cannot be entirely objective, but should for this very rea­son be done within the
context of scholarly debate.

The recent historical Jesus research have opened new perspectives on who Jesus was, what he said
and did, and what his significance was and is. The famous Irish author, George Bernard Shaw, for
example, in actual fact anticipated the results of present-day scholarship on Jesus’ view of the
kingdom when he remarked: ‘Jesus said: “The kingdom of God is among you”. Ever since the church has
looked for it somewhere else’.

The historical Jesus research presents a challenge to the churches and believers to re-think
conventional dogmas and beliefs, and today many people within the church are responding to this
challenge. But even if people leave the church and give up conventional Chris­tianity, they are still
fascinated by the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

EXCURSUS: JESUS AND CHRISTIANITY

Christianity takes its name from the figure of Jesus Christ. According to early Christian tradition (Acts
11:26) it was in Antioch in Syria that the ‘believers were first called Christians’ (Greek: Christianoi). As
the form of the name would imply, they were constituted (at least in the eyes of outsiders) as a Jewish
faction or ‘party’ much like the Herodians. Historically, Christianity emerged into the Graeco-Roman
world as a social, an ideological and a political phenomenon. It is exactly this fact that should lead us
to consider the nature of Christianity as a religious movement in late antiquity, and in light of that, to
consider the link between Jesus Christ and Christianity. According to traditional conceptions of the
history of Christianity there is a direct line of development between the historical figure of Jesus of
Nazareth and what later developed into ‘mainstream,’ orthodox Christianity. However, as the many
‘historical Jesuses’ and scholarly Jesus images mentioned earlier already suggested it is not so simple
to construct a ‘historical Jesus’ for the very reason that a multitude of contemporary ideologies, moral
philosophies, mythical imageries, and acts of social experimentation exerted their influence on the
formulation of the various early Christian Jesus images, as will be clear from the discussion of the
early Christian literature.

Religious orientation is conditioned by many factors, from physical, psychological, social, economical,
to historical. Concrete, historical religions are not static, homogeneous entities — they are multiform
and ever changing organisms, each taken up in interreligious nodal points of extensive historical
dimensions. New religions emerge from their predecessors: come into existence, adapt to changing
circumstances, and become extinct. But even their ‘extinction’ is relative. Older European pagan
religions lived on in the popular religion of Christian Europe. The old religions of the Graeco-Roman
world exerted an indelible influence on the Christianity of late antiquity. Zoroastrianism is a good
example of this. Rooted in the ancient Indo-European past, it exerted a tremendous influence on
emerging Judaism, Christianity and Islam, even on Mahayana Buddhism. Another good example of this
is Manichaeism, a hybrid of apocalyptic Jewish Christianity, Gnosticism, elements of Zoroastrianism,
and later also Confucianism and Buddhism. Every religion is taken up in this process of give and take,
development and change, adaptation and integration, disintegration and reintegration, demise and
rebirth.

On a less grand scale, the same intricate process can be indicated for the emergence of Christianity in
the period of late antiquity. To start with, Christianity was not a unitary movement from the beginning.
There was no such coherent and singular movement called Christianity in the period of the early
Principate onwards. Instead, what is becoming increasingly clear is that ‘Christianity’ consisted of
sometimes loosely connected, but more often unconnected, communities, groups, various popular
movements of a less settled character, and mendicant religious entrepeneurs espousing sometimes
vastly different ideologies, creating different epics, cutting new traditions and foundational narratives
from the cloth of the past according to the demands of their present contexts, and finally, displaying an
astonishing variety of relations to the cultural traditions of the Graeco-Roman world of which they were
all part.

In the course of the past century and a half it became possible through historical-critical investigation
of early Christian literature (in their final editions but also the pre-final layers of tradition) to read off the
diversity of social locations, social interests but especially the diversity of early Christianities from
these sources. So in Q, the Gospel of Thomas and in the pre-Markan Jesus anecdotes, conflict
narratives and miracle stories we encounter a Jesus who is not the messiah/Christ, no critique of
Second Temple Judaism, no reference to a crucifixion and no hint of a resurrection, or a Jesus who is
no more and no less than an old style traditional prophet, endowed with special enthusiasm and
inspiration but definitely not a god, if one is to go by later accounts of Jewish Christian gospel
traditions. It is surmised that these different Jesus portrayals are rooted in various early Christian
‘schools’’ production of their own self-images: as a school in opposition to Pharisaic Judaism, as a
school for whom the change of lifestyle is the litmus test of belonging, as a school whose teachings
should lead to meditation and true insight into one’s true nature as child of the universe.

Turning to the Pauline school we find a Christ almost divorced from historical factual existence (with
very few ‘historical’ teachings of Jesus preserved and no memories of an historical life), whose almost
sole contribution to the foundation of a Pauline discourse was the mytheme of being killed and raised
from the dead and transformed into the Ruler of the cosmos. But it is in the department of social
engineering and social experimentation that the Pauline legacy is strongest. Justified on the grounds
of the mytheme of dying and rising, and drinking deeply from the wells of Graeco-Roman (especially
Stoic) philosophy and ethics, issues of ethnic extraction, issues of table fellowship and communion,
obligations, honour and shame, who determines who gets to say what Christians should do, are neatly
solved, packaged and offered for the communities’ consumption. While on the topic of social
engineering, one needs only to pay attention to the vast cornucopia of literary exhortation spanning the
whole period from the Apostolic Fathers to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (often without taking
recourse to the example of Christ at all, as is the case, for example, with 1 Clement whose argument is
solely based on the imperial ideal of peace and concord) to understand how Christianity was literally
exhorted into existence according to the needs and dictates of communities situated in different
geographical locales, interacting and contending with opposing viewpoints — in the heat of a rhetorical
contest, to define self, other and truth — establishing Christianities not yet standardised into an
orthodox mainstream. For the earliest layers of the Christian tradition including (such later defined as
wayward traditions as) Jewish Christianities, Jesus was not (yet) a god, nor risen from the dead, nor
the substance of a grand plan to found a new, world-wide religion. In the words of Burton Mack: ‘For
the first forty years, ideas such as these are found only in the letters of Paul’.
Riding the first wave of the emerging new Graeco-Roman literary genre, the novel, came the earliest
Christian fictions, the gospels. Leading the pack was ‘Mark’, the first to combine the anecdotes and
stories of the public ministry with an account of the crucifixion, and to affix the title ‘Messiah’ to the
figure of the crucified hero in a type of apocalyptic vindication of the cause of the Jesus movement in
the aftermath of the Roman-Jewish war. No Hellenistic cult of Christ but a celebration of the
destruction of the temple as ordained by God as punishment for the execution of Jesus by the Jews. In
their re-editions of this work of fiction, Matthew and Luke respectively transformed the newly
‘Messiah-ed’ Jesus into a Christian rabbi for the benefit of a Christian synagogue in Antioch, Syria, and
into a Cynic-type philosopher tamed to the tastes of an upper middle-class Jewish audience in some
urban environment in Achaea or Asia Minor (as the first installment, in its combination with Acts, of the
later so prevalent genre of diadochai, or succession narratives, in heresiologies and church histories).
John left the ways of the world at large and turned Jesus into an anti-emperor at the head of a utopian
world-turned-upside-down as the imaginary habitus for small collegium-like urban communities in
what must have been a close relationship to Samaritan and proto-gnostic conventicles.

In light of the army of scholars chipping away at the very possibility of regarding Jesus as ‘a very
special person’ (Mack) it is becoming impossible to continue believing in a direct and causal
relationship between the genius, uniqueness and specialness of Jesus, his message and his actions,
and the religion about him. To put it differently, the various early Christianities could not all have been
triggered by the same historical personage, no matter how imaginably special. If one surveys the range
of mediator typologies for early Christianity alone, one encounters types or roles as diverse as teacher,
prophet, scribe, sage, divine man, inspired poet, apocalyptic seer, preacher of judgement, messiah, son
of man, son of God, divine revealer, gnostic Urmensch, cosmic lord, eschatological judge and heavenly
guide and saviour. To put it even more succinctly, Christianity did not arise from one man alone.

As Burton Mack put it:

Scholars have followed every lead and focused on every possible impulse that might have launched
the Christian phenomenon: the person of the historical Jesus; what it was he taught or preached; the
reasons for a recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; the reasons for a crucifixion and its trauma; the
reports of a resurrection; visions of the resurrected Lord, and the experience of a new spiritual
presence; the transformation of the disciples into apostles; the gathering of the first Christian
community; the commission to spread the word; the conversion of Gentiles; and so forth. None of
these events are moments that all of the documents recognize as having happened, much less invested
with importance as those that called their movements into existence (my emphasis). (1999:5)

Apart from the obvious legacy of hellenistic Judaism various strands of Graeco-Roman culture weaved
into the fabric that became Christianity. The first is Platonic, especially Middle-Platonic, thinking, that
as school philosophy provided nascent Christianity with the terminology for dialectics and cosmology
in Alexandria and made possible Christian self-definition over against paganism in the formation of the
Greek-Christian tradition of education. The second is Cynic-Stoic popular philosophy, already providing
for Paul the form of expression (the diatribe), but also the contents of moral-ethical exhortation, and in
its negative attitude to the world has been touted as the inspiration behind the formation of Christian
asceticism. Roman conceptions of divinity, in the third place, formed the matrix for Roman-Latin
Christian doctrines of God in such church fathers as Tertullian and Lactantius. The fourth strand is the
widespread phenomenon of late antique mystery religions. Employing their language and ritual the
Christian-Jewish cult was itself transformed to such an extent that the Christian church became a
mystery religion and was seen as such by Graeco-Roman writers. As one scholar put it: ‘The mysteries
create the outer form in which Christianity conquered a good deal of the world.’ Another strand is
Christian Gnosticism, which although only part of a wider phenomenon of pre- and extra-Christian
Gnosticism, nevertheless exerted a mighty pull on early Christian mentality through such widely
disseminated movements as Manichaeism and late mediaeval sectarian movements (like the
Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars and Albigensians). And finally, in the sixth place, Mediterranean popular
beliefs and practices were sucked up as it were by the sponge of Christian tradition determining to a
large extent the character of popular Christianity throughout Europe.

The result of these developments was that Christianity became the heir to Greek paideia or education
to such an extent that it became well-nigh impossible to distinguish between what is uniquely Christian
and what not, if ever such a distinction was possible at all in the first place. In his famous lament on
the continued matrimonial relationship between Christianity and Greek philosophy Tertullian asks:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the
Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,”
who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts
to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious
disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we
desire no further belief. (Prescription against the heretics, 7.9. And we do not even refer to the many
examples of Zoroastrian apocalyptic ideas in Justin Martyr and especially Lactantius. Many
scintillating example abound of comparisons between Christ and Greek and Roman deities in Justin’s
First Apology.)

The context in which these words are found, is an elaborate description of what Tertullian labeled
heresies. Heresies, he in effect argues, are the miscreants born from incursions into Christianity of
Greek philosophy. ‘Pure’ Christian belief became corrupted through accommodation to Graeco-Roman
culture and paideia. But one should not take Tertullian too seriously. If anything, these words are only
indicative of how impossible it was then, as it is now, to distinguish Christian religion from its
neighbouring and contemporary worldviews and ideological positions.

Almost a century before Tertullian, Justin Martyr had tried the same. But here the tenor was somewhat
different. It was still possible for Justin to compare the history of Jesus Christ to those of the Roman
gods (First Apology 21), or to argue that Jesus’ divine sonship is perfectly conceivable in light of the
many ‘sons of gods’ in the Roman pantheon (First Apology 22), even that the
suffering-death-resurrection complex in the Christian narrative has its counterparts in the histories of
Bacchus, Hercules, Perseus and the Caesars themselves. But Justin was arguing the case of the
reasonableness of Christianity before the imperial court. By the time of Tertullian a second front had
opened, not only did he need to circumscribe Christian identity vis-à-vis Roman religion and culture, but
also to define Christian identity in the face of increasing disintegration and variety (one should not
forget that the original meaning of ‘heresy’ was ‘option’ or ‘party’). It had become increasingly difficult
to ignore the centrifugal lines of development or trajectories in the growth of Christianity and to retain
the (mythical) illusion of a romantic past with the first flowering and effervescence of a newly revealed
divinity and his cult.

Considerations such as these led the famous historian of religion, Kurt Rudolph, to conclude: ‘For the
history of religions, there has never been a “pure religion”: this would be an ahistorical construct.
Indeed, every religion is a syncretistic phenomenon.’