The Historical Figure of Jesus

This book represents a lot of scholarly work on the history behind the (Christian) Bible’s story, and of its chief figure, Jesus. It serves as a concise and handy guide to thinking historically about the first centuries bce and ce (or bc and ad). The first part of the book really sets the context that is missing to readers of the Bible, addressing the issue of the centuries of Hellenistic rule in Palestine and then the century of independent rule by the Jewish Hasmoneans and finally the climactic period of Herod the Great leading up to the birth of Jesus. There is further, a lot of clarity regarding the governance of Palestine during this period, including the differentiation between Galilee (where Jesus resided) and Judea (where the capital, Jerusalem was). The Roman occupation also is detailed, including the petition process to the prefect in Caesarea and the legate in Syria. Apparently, there were nonviolent ways in which Jewish people could protest Roman policies and see results. There is also helpful commentary on the fact of the governance system being mainly theocratic, that is led by the high priest in Jerusalem and that only when things got out of hand (riots, for instance), would further measures be taken. Numerous leaders both Roman and Jewish were replaced in the region for not handling situations very well. Sanders throughout emphasizes that there are some broad facts about Jesus’ life that we know with more confidence, and a whole host of information, contained in the gospels, that may be there as a kind of theological gloss, an attempt by later Christians to make sense of their somewhat enigmatic founder and his life. But there are some facts that seem, according to Sanders, to hold up fairly well in parsing the material for historical accuracy. He emphasizes that Jesus appears to have been viewed as a prophet and exorcist, a charismatic leader who had a message of love to his fellow Jews, especially who lived in the countryside and small villages of Galilee. His teaching was authoritative and autonomous, claiming to have a direct relationship with God without the mediation of human organizations or scripture. As a prophet, Jesus utilized symbolism such as the Twelve disciples symbolizing the twelve tribes of Israel, the banquet as a symbolizing the coming kingdom of God, and the overturning of the money-changer’s tables as symbolizing the destruction of the temple (or its coming destruction). During his lifetime, it appears that Jesus was not considered divine, despite his ability to make miracles and perform exorcisms (other figures could do similar feats), rather his followers seemed to be attracted to his message of inclusion of sinners in the kingdom of God, and his claims regarding authority and autonomy with respect to the practice of Judaism at that time. As someone raised as a Christian it is striking to me how some elements of who Jesus is (as I understood him from church) is retained in this historical (and more tentative) view of who Jesus is. Yes, Jesus is all about love, forgiveness, and a relationship with God, and yet these very traits are what get him killed as the authorities worry about insurrection and riot resulting from his actions and following. Of course, the most striking contrast is in thinking about what he meant by ‘kingdom of God.’ This seems to have been a reference to a future event in which a heavenly realm would appear on Earth, and that ultimately didn’t happen, needing subsequent reinterpretation by Christians in the aftermath of his death. Jesus’ followers, including the apostle Paul, had a resurrection experience, that appeared to have convinced them that Jesus was, in addition to being a healer and prophet, to have been a heavenly Lord that will return to usher in the Kingdom that he had spoken so much about. While, of course, the book diverges from any sort of official theological position, it does provide a tentative historical framework for piecing together the mystery of who Jesus was, what he taught and did, how he died, and why his followers acted the way they did—all within a tightly focused historical account of the 1st century. I heartily recommend the book to anyone, Christian or not, as providing a good starting point for thinking historically about events surrounding the founding of Christianity.

Over the past 10 years, I have read a fair number of books about the modern quest for the historical Jesus. I included a variety of authors with different prejudices, including  Funk , Horsley , Witherington , Vermes , Meier , Jeremias  and  Ehrman . I've also become familiar with the positions taken by other luminaries such as Crossan, Brown, Friedriksen , T.L. Johnson, and N.T. Wright. However, I appropriately saved the writer with the most eschatological position for last: E.P. Sanders. As it turned out, I also last experienced the most meticulous and well reasoned historical Jesus of all I have come to know.In Historical Figure of Jesus, Sanders does not set out a strict methodology for evaluating the authenticity of each pericope ("story bit") in the Gospels. His philosophy is to assemble as much social, political, economic and religious contextual information as possible regarding the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, and then read the Gospels and Paul in that light (with a bit of help from Josephus). His grasp of the circumstances in Galilee and Judea both before, during and after Jesus' lifespan is truly impressive and sweeping, if not perfectly complete (he does not ponder the possible effects of the Herodian building projects in Jerusalem and Sephoris on local woodworkers, nor does he examine the influence of Hillel on the Pharisiac schools that Jesus might have encountered during his youth). And yes, he does brush over the "Son of Man" theme from Daniel 7 too quickly (especially since this ultimately supports his portrait of Jesus). But then again, this book is meant to be a digest for popular audiences, and not a multi-volume tome for university libraries.Sanders used his historical sweep approach to justify ignoring the Gospel of John in its entirety. Again, a bigger work could have taken time to sift for historical memories amidst the heavily theological tone of John. But this book takes something of a diminishing returns approach, i.e. it cannot review everything so it focuses on what most contributes most to a plausible historical portrait of Jesus.Despite his focus on history, Professor Sanders says much more about Jesus than what the average historian would typically limit him or herself to. Sanders is careful to spell out and limit just what can be asserted with academic objectivity about Jesus; i.e., his approximate times of birth and death, where he flourished, what he taught and was remembered for and how he died. But Sanders goes quite a bit farther in sketching Jesus out psychologically, with appropriate warnings regarding the ultimate uncertainty regarding his points.Sanders does ultimately give us a dynamic Jesus, not just an historic stick-figure. His Jesus turns out to be another Jewish apocalypticist, not a rare type at the time (e.g., John the Baptist). However, as a preacher of the coming Kingdom of God, Jesus was certainly innovative; he expanded the "repent now" message to include "and I will give you great signs to convince you and great lessons to show the loving-kindness expected of the chosen".And somehow, that integration of loving-kindness into the vision of God's redemption of Israel from foreign domination convinced Jesus of the need for his own self-sacrifice, in order to bring about the apocalyptic event. Sanders is clear about this; the Jesus that he develops expected very big things to happen within but a few hours, as he prayed on his final night in the Garden of Gethsemane. Of course, the Kingdom of God did not come before the next sunset, nor any since. But over the coming centuries, the world was changed nonetheless. As Sanders closes, "Perhaps most important, we know how much [Jesus] inspired his followers".Again, Sanders is out on a slender branch at this point. Many historians will not follow him into such a developed view of Jesus (although the viewpoints offered by many other Jesus historians, e.g. Jesus as a liberal political reformer or a magician, are equally "developed"). Also, I suspect that the bulk of Christian theologians and lay practitioners would avoid embracing a non-Christological story of Jesus such as this. But the breadth of Sanders' knowledge and analysis will not be easily dismissed. The story of Jesus that he presents along with all that follows, including the development of the Gospels and the Church, has good fit with what we know about Palestine and the People of Israel during the time of Augustus and his Julio-Claudian successors. And we are left with a realistic story of irony and uplift for all humankind, one that can be embraced for inspiration by all who would listen open-mindedly.

The book by EP Sanders is a well written, scholarly and somewaht dry examination into the life of the historical Jesus. More than many of his contemporaries that write for a general (as opposed to a scholarly) audience, Sanders doesn't make radical assumptions or hypotheses into the life of Jesus. Rather, relying heavily on athropological arguments, Roman history and the Gospels, Sanders paints a picture of a Galilean healer, excorcist and teacher who managed to irritate the high preists and Romans during a festival time, and was summarily executed to keep the peace.Looking at the practice of Judiasm during the first century, as well as the interplay between Roman rule and the areas of Judea and Galilee, Sanders also argues that Jesus was likely a pious and observant Jew, and that many of the elements of the Gospels where he condones the breaking of dietary and other Jewish Biblically commanded customs were later additions by authors looking to balance and appeal to a Gentile readership. (He cites the works of Paul and Acts with the arguments around circumcision and unclean foods as proofs that Jesus probably never addressed these first and in his ministry).In all, the book is a well written look at Jesus of history - where not much can be known for certain. Sanders makes reasonable hypothesis, rational arguments, and cites examples of challenges with dating, source materials and interpretations as limitations to definitively saying "who" the Jesus of history was. A good book, and one not likely to stir as much controversy as his contemporary authors on the same subject.

Very average and worst paper quality for such a rate in paperback

Despite that this book is boring..This book has problems, the author was not sure about the day of the death of Jesus and he wrote it. Actually the companion Bible from Bullinger has the answer... This book rarely talk about Jesus and even less of the historical Jesus.It's just a very long text about the author's idea of Jewish religion,Romans and other informations till page 54,I am thinking to stop reading it cause I can't bear to "learn" mistake which are not in the Bible.

Did Jesus walk on the Sea of Galilee? - The question thrilled generations of Bible scholars and also some physicists. Water-spiders can walk on water - that's out of question - but can also charismatic apocalyptic Jewish prophets?As I learned from Sanders, in the end it is a question of method whether I believe it or not. Scholars applying theology will not get tired of affirming that Jesus walked over the waves (at least for those who are firm in their faith) whereas physicists will come to the conclusion that he would have drowned if he had tried. Though nobody has yet seriously discussed the possibility whether Jesus might have swum or even using a surfboard.Be that as it will, Sanders does not belong to the superb class of theologians. In contrast: with a good deal of common sense, shrewdness, and decent historical scholarship he explains to the reader what is feasible behind the gospels and what pure fiction.Walking on water is, by the way, not the only topos in question when we talk about Jesus. Why was the fleshborn Son of Man crucified? Because he healed on a sabbath? Because he partied with tollkeepers? Because he liked so much wine and fried fish? Because he rode on a mule as King David? Because he twisted the tables of the Jerusalem stock exchange? - No, no, no my friend...By diligently putting the Nazarene in his first century Palestinian environment, Sanders designs a historical figure that is believeable. One can profit a lot from this little book even if one does not consider himself a freshman in Bible studies. As the King James Bible has it: If thou hast not studied Sanders thou shouldst not speak of the LORD.

E P Sanders has a written an excellent account of the historical figure of Jesus which serves as a corrective to the anti-Christian message of "progressive" Christianity and its naturalistic allies. He is opposed to, "recent scholarly literature (which) contains what I regard as rash and unfounded assertions about Jesus - hypotheses without evidence to support them." For conservative readers the names of the non-believing Don Culpitt and the self-publicising John Shelby Spong spring to mind. Sanders does not provide a blind assertion of faith but a carefully constructed historical account based on what is known about Jesus in history. The limitations of contemporary documentation and differences in written in accounts of his life and works suggest that records were not perfectly preserved. In addition, the extant written accounts were, in part, written to glorify Jesus rather than provide an unimpeachable historical record. Sanders is no fundamentalist.Sanders does not delve into the development of Christian theology from which Jesus became the centre of a new religion both in historical and theological terms. His purpose is to "discuss Jesus the human being, who lived in a particular time and place" rather than the theological personage of Christian dogma. To achieve his objective he looks for historical evidence. Sanders establishes beyond doubt that Jesus was a real historical person about whom we know more than many other historical figures. The sources used to establish what we do know for Jesus are better than those which exist about Alexander the Great, whose career is derived from secondary sources. He acknowledges the limitations of contemporary accounts about Jesus and the restrictions this places on establishing a full understanding of Jesus the human being. However, there is more evidence than is often acknowledged. Sanders discusses the life and times of Jesus, the political situation in first century Palestine and Judaism as a religion in the context of the time.Sanders is clear that problems with dating are minor and he clarifies the meaning of BCE and CE as a dating system acceptable to all, including non-Christians, whereas BC and AD refer specifically to the Christian view of history. Although Jesus was born at a time "when Rome was supreme over the eastern Mediterranean" his preaching took place in the towns and villages of Galilee which was ruled by Antipas, a son of Herod the Great. He emphasises it would be wrong to believe that the populace was oppressed by the Romans as there was no official Roman presence in Galilee. Although Jews generally wanted independence they tolerated Roman rule as long as it did not interfere with the religious practices of Judaism. "The Jews were distinctive in having only one temple and in worshipping only one God." Judaism was based on the premise that Jewish customs were divinely ordained not social constructs. Therefore, Jews of the Diaspora could not assimilate with other cultures without compromising their essential Jewish identity. Jewish priesthood was hereditary and in Jesus's time consisted of three distinct groups. The Pharisees who were religious teachers, the Essenes who most scholars associate with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection.Sanders conscientiously analyses the external and primary sources referring to Jesus. Whereas some scholars dismiss Josephus's account as pure fiction Sanders explains its weaknesses. In referring to the writing of the gospels he draws attention to the importance of the imminence of the Second Coming had on early Christians for whom a written account was unnecessary. He emphasises "that we do not know.....precisely how the gospels originated" although oral to written accounts is the probable explanation. Roman records are largely quiet about Jesus because they were written by an elite class for whom an itinerant preacher in a distant and backward part of the world was unimportant. He notes that the names ascribed to the gospel writers did not appear until the second century AD. Other "gospels" - James and Thomas - were rejected as heretical. The Gospel of Thomas was an expression of Gnosticism which held that everything material was created by an evil God and thus the world itself was evil. They also held that Jesus was not a real human being. Sanders dismisses the apocraphal gospels as "legendary and mythological".All history must be seen in context, especially miracles. The medical profession had a poor reputation in ancient times. Pagan and other beliefs encouraged the idea "that human agents could encourage spiritual powers to intervene in the normal course of events." Cicero had argued that "Nothing can happen without cause; nothing happens that cannot happen and when what was capable of happened it may not be interpreted as a miracle." It's a view Sanders shares although he argues "that some rationalist explanations are...far-fetched." It's ironic that modern rationalists appear to believe in an uncaused universe. Jesus's contemporaries understood the escatalogical context in which miracles took place, even if modern explanations are different from tradidional ones. Rather like the Old Testament prophets Jesus preached the message that people had rebelled against God's requirements and should "start living appropriately". It was a spiritual message not a political, economic or social programme.Sanders is an excellent scholar who conducts his research meticulously, does not avoid difficult questions or allow his own beliefs to influence his conclusions. He weighs evidence and explains why he thinks it is sound or otherwise. He is not afraid to admit that in some instances he cannot reach a firm conclusion. This reviewer does not accept his entire argument but his work stands in stark contrast to the "self-indulgent charade" that passes for research at the Jesus Seminar. Although Sanders is a first-class academic, this book is written for the general reader and in a conversational style. As an introduction to the overall question of the historical figure of Jesus, it's in a league of its own, receives five stars and is highly recommended for purchase.

Bom serviço pela rapidez e pela entrega de um ótimo livro