home page / WYB 2601 / bookmarks / notes directory

to top  

Especially useful is the description on Stephen Carlson's website of the wide variety of hypotheses on the relationships among the synoptic gospels. See http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

The view of relationships that seems to me the most plausible is still the view of B. H. Streeter (1924), which adopts a modified two-source hypothesis (Q plus Mark), the modification being that there was an earlier edition of Luke known then as Proto-Luke,which was composed before the author of Luke knew Mark (Proto-Luke is thus composed of Q and L materials, though without the Birth Narratives).

In addition to the question of the relationships among the gospels, it is important to note that there are various sources bearing on the question of Jesus. Among the non-canonical sources, a few are particularly important and relevant to historical questions: the Gospel of Thomas is the most important, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Pilate, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Protevangelium of James are important, and several papyrus fragments are quite significant for understanding specific features and also the ways in which the materials about Jesus were transmitted in antiquity. There were early Jewish Christian gospels that have been supressed (for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes), which would be historically very important if we had the full texts, but only a few small fragments have survived. In addition, the whole of the Nag Hammadi corpus of materials (including the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, the Aprocryphon of James, the Dialogue of the Saviour, among others) are important for understanding how particular traditions developed the materials in specific directions.

The cannonical materials represent only a portion of the literature about Jesus that was produced in the first couple of centuries. It too represents a particular selection of material, not the full range of things that were available.

Outside the Chrstian tradition, there are relatively few materials that refer in any useful way to Jesus (the most interesting is the debated text in Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64). Most of the references are to Christians, not to Jesus (Josephus, Antiquities 20.200; Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96-97; Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Suetonius, Lives, Claudius 25.4 and Nero 16.2). There are also some allusions in the Jewish Rabbinic traditions that might bear upon the study of Jesus (Shemoneh Esreh [=18 Benedictions Prayer] 12; b. Sanhedrin 43a; Midrash Qoheleth 1.8).

to top

1. All of the gospels concentrate on teaching of Jesus, but the earliest sources available to us (Q and Gospel of Thomas) concentrate virtually exclusively on Jesus' teaching. Later gospels modify this emphasis by including Jesus' actions (healings, miracles, travel narratives, etc.) and the events of the last week.

2. The gospels also vary with respect to other features, as can be shown by calculating the percentage of gospel dealing with several main elements.

.	birth narratives	last week	[resurrection]	ministry
G. Thomas	0%	0%	[0%]	100%
Q	0%	0%	[0%]	100%
Proto-Luke	0%	20%	[4%]	0%
Mark	0%	38%	[3%]	62%
Matthew	5%	30%	[3%]	65%
Luke	12%	25%	[5%]	63%
John	2%	45%	[8%]	53%

to top

This suggests that as the gospel traditions developed there was more attention to the dramatic events of the birth of Jesus and the final events of the last week, especially the resurrection. This coheres with the still later development of gospels that were exclusively concerned with the passion (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Acts of Pilate) and the Infancy (e.g., the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelium of James).

3. The gospels with the greatest attention to the last week (Mark and John) are also the gospels with the most detailed descriptions of Jesus' itinerary prior to his final week.

THOMAS	Q	PROTO-LUKE	MARK	JOHN
.	Jordan	Jordan	Jordan	Jordan
.	wilderness	wilderness	wilderness	Peraea
.	.	Nazareth	.	Cana (Galilee)
.	Capernaum	Capernaum	Capernaum	Capernaum
.	Chorazin/Bethsaida	Nain	.	.
.	(Galilee)	Galilee	Galilee	Galilee
.	.	.	Capernaum	.
.	.	.	.	Jerusalem I
.	.	.	.	Judea
Samaria (allusion)	.	.	.	Samaria
.	.	.	.	Galilee
.	.	.	.	Jerusalem II
.	.	Decapolis	Decapolis	(Decapolis?)
.	.	Galilee	Galilee	Galilee
.	.	Samaria	Syria/Phoenicia	.
.	.	.	Decapolis	.
.	.	(Jerusalem?)	.	Jerusalem III
.	.	.	Galilee	Peraea
.	.	Judea	Judea	Judea
.	.	(Galilee?)	Peraea	Ephraim
.	.	(Samaria>)	.	.
.	(Jerusalem)	Jerusalem	Jerusalem.	Jerusalem IV.
.	.	.	.	.

 to top

1. It has long been recognized that the recollections of Jesus' teaching--even earlier and simplified ones such as Q--demonstrate that every account has an editorial hand at work: in the juxtaposition of sayings, in editorial beginnings and endings, in theological concerns, in alterations to suit church needs, and so on.

 2. The same thing appears to be true of the pegs on which to hang a life of Jesus; there will be editorial decisions at work as to what is important, emphasized, or suppressed, among other things.

 3. One cannot speak with confidence therefore about a reconstruction of the life of Jesus. This lack of confidence is reinforced by the differences among the three earliest totally independent outlines: Thomas, Q and Mark (Proto-Luke I take to be partly dependent, since it uses Q).

 4. But even if one must abandon complete confidence in individual outlines there are still points of resemblance among the five more or less independent outlines available to us (that is, Q, Thos, Mark, Proto-Luke, and John, leaving Luke and Matthew out of the reckoning, since they are both so dependent on earlier sources). Note that of the five,

a) four focus on Galilee; the fifth presupposes it;

b) four begin with the Jordan, John and the baptism;

c) three refer directly to a period in the wilderness; a fourth to Peraea (approximately similar);

d) three refer to a trip to or through Samaria;

e) three include a Judean period before the final events;

f) two refer to a trip to the Decapolis--one to two trips, the other to Peraea (=Decapolis?);

g) one refers to multiple trips to Jerusalem, one implies two trips;

h) one refers to a trip to Phoenicia/Syria.

 5. It should be emphasized that it is not possible simply to accept as historically reliable those periods of activity for which there is multliple attestation, and to discount those attested only once. The historical problem is much more complicated than that, and allowance should be made, for example, for the possibililty that Mark's account of a journey through Tyre-Sidon-Decapolis, because it seems so improbable, may be reliable.

 6. Nevertheless, a possible reconstruction that combines some of the above agreements--though it is not at all clear that they should simply be combined--follows:

 

Jordan/John/baptism

Wilderness and/or Peraea

Galilee (esp. Capernaum and including Nain, Cana, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Gennesaret, etc.)

Samaria (possibly going to or from a feast in Jerusalem)

Galilee

Decapolis (Gerasa [=Jerash]?, Gadara [=Umm Qeis]? Gergesa?)

Galilee

Phoenicia/Syria visit plus Decapolis (Peraea?)

Judea (possibly going to or from a feast in Jerusalem)

Galilee

Judea

Jerusalem

to top

The cultural context of the historical Jesus can be illuminated by an appreciation of archaeological work in the following relevant regions, which has provided important details about such matters.

1. Galilee: its political status, social make-up, relationship to its neighbours, geographical context, religious factors, level of urbanization, economy, trade, transportation routes, brigands, Hellenizing influences.

(See various works by Sean Freyne, Richard Horsley, Eric Meyers; also Geza Vermes, K. C. Hanson and Douglas Oakman)

 2. Samaria: its origins in the northern kingdom, its variant tradition on Torah, Samaritan religion, synagogues, political status, relation to Judea and Galilee, roads, economy.

(See standard treatments; on see religion John MacDonald, Reinhold Pummer)

 3. Judea: political status, social make-up, role of Jerusalem as capital and religious centre, importance of Temple and priesthood, religious make-up, presence of competing groups and affiliations, social stratification, urbanization, economy, influence of neighbours, Roman presence and importance in Roman plans, power sharing.

(See Shaye Cohen, Joachim Jeremias, E. P. Sanders, standard treatments)

 4. Decapolis: nature and influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic institutions, autonomy of the polis and its organization, relation of city and chora (surrounding agricultural area), cultural and urban role of the cities, relations between the cities and Israel, Roman interest in and role for Decapolis.

(See Aryeh Kasher, A.H.M. Jones, David Graf)

 5. Phoenicia/Syria: relation of Syria to Judea/Galilee/Samaria, continuing of importance as seafaring nation,continuing significance of Phoenician religion, importance of Syria to Rome.

(See Glen Bowersock, Fergus Millar)

 6. Other cult centres: continuation of local cults in Galilee/Samaria/Judea; Pan at Panias (=Banyas=Caesarea Philippi); Demeter and Kore at Sebaste (=Samaria); Imperial Cult centres in Caesarea Maritima, Sebaste, and Panias; the cult of Asklepios in Jerusalem; the role of popular religion.

 7. Other cultural influences: Idumeans (on the southern border of Judea); Nabateans (in the Transjordan); Itureans (to the north and east of Galilee in the Anti-Lebanon mountains); Egypt

 8. Rome is, of course, the dominant cultural influence on the areas in which Jesus lived and worked, though it is not always possible to disentangle the influence of Rome and the influence of Late Hellenism (Greece). To some degree every part of the area was affected by Rome's long arm. Noteworthy cultural influences, sometimes neglected, are a school of Cynic philosophers in Gadara (=Umm Queis), one of the cities of the Decapolis, of architects in Ascalon and in Damascus.

On specific sites, see for plans, photos, introductions and bibliographies, Ephraim Stern, editor, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, four volumes (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), or Eric Meyers, editor, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology (New York: Oxford, 1996)

to top  

1. In Galilee, Peraea, and the Golan there was effectively no Roman presence during the lifetime of Jesus. These areas were administered under local client rulers, in the case of Galilee and Peraea the ruler was the Tetrarch Antipas (4 BCE to 38 CE), son of Herod the Great, and in the case of Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Hulitis, another son of Herod, the Tetrarch Philip (4 BCE to 34 CE). In both cases that had a substantial degree of autonomy, and there was only rare interference by Rome in the internal running of the areas. For most social, economic, religious, and trade matters, these areas were politically independent, so long as they were ruled effectively and in the general interests of Rome. The same was true of Judea and Samaria, which for a short while after the death of Herod (4 BCE) was ruled by another son, Archelaus (4 BCE to 6 CE).

2. When rule broke down, Rome would step in. This happened in the case of Archelaus in 6 CE, when complaints by both Judeans and Samaritans led to his removal from office and exile. This happened in the case of Antipas in 38 CE, when he petitioned Caligula to have his status upgraded from Tetrarch to King. He too was removed from office and exiled.

3. Tiberius appointed Agrippa I ruler in place of Philip, on Philip's death. Caligula gave Agrippa the title King, and then appointed him ruler in place of Antipas, when he was exiled. Later still 41 CE) Claudius appointed Agrippa I King of all of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Gaulanitis; thus, almost the full extent of the kingdom as it had existed under Herod the Great was restored under his grandson, Agrippa I. This lasted however for only a short time, from 41-44 CE, for Agrippa I died with a grisly illness (see Acts, Josephus, for descriptions.

For fuller descriptions of all these events, see Peter Richardson, Herod, King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1996; Minneapolis: Fortress 1999).

4. Roman presence in the East was concentrated in Syria, on the one hand, which it ruled directly through an Imperial legate (governor), and in Egypt on the other. Both werer essential to Roman interests, Egypt primarily for its grain supplies, and both Egypt and Syria for their control of important international trade routes to the east.

5. In the Holy Land, direct Roman military presence and governance was limited to Judea and Samaria from 6-41 CE, and throughout most of the region from 44 CE onwards. It should be noted, however, that Herod the Great had promoted the Imperial cult, and that he had built Temples to Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima (originally Strato's Tower), Sebaste (originally Samaria), and Caesarea Philippi (originally Panias).

6. Even during those periods when Rome was in direct control, it still allowed a large measure of local responsibility through native-born officials, and almost total independence in religious matters through the ancient cult centre in Jerusalem, with its priests and other officials. While Rome sometimes exerted some indirect religious control (e.g., by controlling access to the High Priest's vestments) it allowed descendants of the Herodian family to continue to appoint the High Priest through most of the period.

7. Relevant to the question of the poliitcs of the region was the matter of the Diaspora, Jewish communties spread around the Mediterranean world. Rome was surprisingly tolerant of thees communties and of their continued attachment to their native land and religion. So Rome, for example, permitted Jews in the Diaspora (up to the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE) to continue to collect the half-shekel tax for the Temple's maintenance, a very unusual--perhaps unique--provision.

8. Rome also allowed other independent cities (e.g., Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Scythopolis, Gadara, and so on) to continue to exist in accord with their ancient charters and to exercise a high degree of independence, including for example the right to continue to mint their own coinage.

9. These provisions did not keep the Holy Land at peace, and increasingly in the 40s and 50s of the first century there were causes for small revolutionary movements to adopt as a rallying cry against Rome. A major revolt broke out in 66 CE, surprisingly successful at first, but eventually put down ruthlessly by the Roman forces under Vespasian and Titus, his son. Jerusalem was destroyed after a long siege (69-70 CE), and the final stages of the Revolt were wiped out in 73-74 CE. During this revolt the Diaspora was relatively quiet and univolved.

10. Revolt broke out in various Diaspora areas, however, in 115 to 117 CE: in Egypt, Cyrenaica, Cyprus, Babylon, and perhaps in Asia, there were Jewish Revolts with substantial loss of life and property.

11. Revolt broke out again in Judea in 132-135 CE in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In all of these revolts one of the important factors was inter-ethnic hostility, in the first one between Jews and Syrians, Phoenicians, and the citizens of the Hellenistic cities; in the Diaspora Revolts, between Jews and the majority populations in their areas.

to top

		JULIO-CLAUDIANS
27 BCE-14 CE	Augusts	Gaius Octavius (later Gaius Julius Caesar	63 BCE-14 CE
14-37 CE	Tiberius	Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus	42 BCE-37 CE
37-41 CE	Caligula	Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus (Caligula is a nick-name, meaning "little boots")	12-41 CE
41-54 CE	Claudius	Tiberius Claudius Nero Germanicus	10 BCE-54 CE
54-68 CE	Nero	Nero Claudius Caesar	37-68 CE
		CIVIL WAR: YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS
68-69 CE	Galba	Servius Sulpicius Galba	3-69 CE
69 CE	Otho	Marcus Salvius Otho	32-69 CE
69 CE	Vitellius	Aulus Vitellius	15-69 CE
		FLAVIANS
69-79 CE	Vespasian	Titus Flavius Vespasianus	9-79 CE
79-81 CE	Titus	Titus Flavius Vespasianus	39-81 CE
81-96 CE	Domitian	Titus Flavius Domitianus	51-96 CE
		ANTONINES
96-98 CE	Nerva	Marcus Cocceius Nerva	30-98 CE
98-117 CE	Trajan	Marcus Ulpius Traianus	53-117 CE
117-138 CE	Hadrian	Publius Aelius Hadrianus	76-138 CE
138-161 CE	Antoninus Pius	Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Antoninus	86-161 CE
161-180 CE	Marcus Aurelius	Marcus Annius Verrus	121-180 CE

to top

1. Jews and Judaism were not isolated from the rest of the Empire. Some of the important trade routes of activity, both north-south and more importantly east-west, went through the Holy Land. Goods from or destined to Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, Arabia, India, China and the Far East would have passed through the great harbours of the region at Gaza, Ashkelon, Caesarea Maritima, Dor, Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon.

2. Judea and related areas were known for agricultural produce (wheat, olive oil, wine), natural resources (bitumen from the Dead Sea, perfumes and spices, purple dye), and for its manufactured goods (glass, pottery--especially fine Nabatean dinner ware).

3. It is still being debated whether the same relationship between urban and rural areas would be found in this region, or if in fact the Holy Land was more agrarian and "rural." Certainly it is the case that the majority of the population lived in villages and small towns, especially in the Galilee an the Golan. There were two main cities in the Galilee (Sepphoris and Tiberias) and two main cities in the Golan (Bethsaida and Caesarea Philippi [Panias]). In Judea, Jerusalem was the main city, though the really international cities of great importance were along the Mediterranean coastline (see 1 above).

4. As in other parts of the ancient world, the majority of the population were of low status, agrarian, poor, indentured or smallholders, or tradesmen of various kinds. (See Hanson and Oakman and others).

5. To a much greater extent than today, the population depended on annual crops and herds, which were themselves dependent on and could be adversely affected by climate and rainfall and natural disasters (drought, plague, earthquakes, and the like). Sheep and goats, but also cattle in some Transjordanian areas (Bashan) were essential to the economy. In agriculture, grapes, olives, dates, figs, wheat, barley, fruits were important. In some cases, there were royal estates that maintained a near-monopoly on some expensive products such as date wine, perfumes (Jericho) and other resins. The Dead Sea was mined for bitumen--it was known to the Romans as Lake Asphaltitis.

6. Many of these products were traded on the international market, and competing products (e.g., wine from Rome and the Aegean) or other products not locally produced were imported. Thus, while local currency was produced, the ancient Mediterranean world had a kind of "world" economy.

7. The ancient world was a class structure. Social position and family mattered in a system based on honour and shame, custom, inherited roles. Money also mattered, and money tended to accumulate in relatively few hands.

8. For the agrarian poor, the biggest problem was absentee ownership of land (see Fiensey). Crop failures in bad years might lead to indebtedness or loss of land, or eviction. The result was still more accumulation of wealth and land, which appears to have been a special problem in the first century BCE and CE in Judea and the Galilee. Exacerbating this problem was the special issue of Royal Estates, known at various places in the Galilee, Golan, Samaria, and Judea. [Slavery should also be recognized as a general Mediterranean phenomenon, but in our period it was not a specially severe problem in the Holy Land.]

9. There has been a good bit of study and debate about how these ecominic conditions contributed to the social and political radicalism and "zealotism" of first-century Judea (note the Parable of the Vindressers). Brigandage seems to have been a problem in the first century BCE, and possibly during parts of the first century CE (note the Parable of the Good Samaritan).

10. Insofar as Jesus was from the same agrarian peasant class, he may well have shared in common attitudes towards money, wealth, trade, social injustice.

See especially on some of these issues, K.C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts (Minneapolis: Fortress 1998).

to top

Reconstruction of Temple (naos) begun	20 or 19 to18 BCE
Triple conjunction of planets	spring-Dec 7 BCE
Birth of Jesus	spring 7 BCE?
Death of Herod the Great	March 4 BCE
Beginning of John's ministry	late 28/early 29 CE
	="46 years" (18+28=46)
Beginning of Jesus' miinstry	29/early 30 CE [age=36/37= "about 30"?]
3 or 4 passovers (John)
Death of Jesus	April 3, 33 CE [age 40= "not yet 50"]

to top

Notes:

1. The alternatives to the triple conjunction in 7 BCE are Halley's comet in 12 BCE or a conjunction of other planets in 2 BCE. Jesus' birth is dated variously between 15 BCE and 1 BCE.

2. The death of Herod the Great is almost certainly shortly before Passover in 4 (possibly 5) BCE. Attempts have been made recently to date it to 1 BCE, including Finegan, below.

3. The beginnings of John's ministry is dated from Luke 3:1-6; there is, however, difficulty in reckoning the 15th year of Tiberius (dates can range from as early as 25 through to 29 CE).

4. Three minor notes are relevant: (a) between the beginning of the building of the Temple (naos) and the beginning of Jesus' ministry is "46 years" (John 2:20); (b) at the same point, Jesus is "about 30" (Luke 3:23); (c)at a later point (perhaps near the end) he is "not yet 50" (John 8:57).

5. On which dates and years does either 14 (John) or 15 (Synoptics) Nissan fall on a Friday? Neither possibility (30 CE [7 April] or 33 CE [3 April]) synchronizes with the synoptic dating to the day of Passover, but both cohere with John's "day of preparation"--the day before Passover (14 Nissan). The strong recollection of some parts of the early church was that it was the 14th of Nissan, so that up through the second century and beyond significant elements in the early church continued to celebrate Easter on the 14th of Nissan (i.e., on the Day of Passover), not on Sunday. This controversy--the Quartodeciman controversy--was one of the major internal disputes in the early church of the second century.

6. Following the early practice of the church might be one way to decide the question of the day of Jesus' death. The other way would be to decide on the basis of the occurrence of a lunar (not a solar, required for the reports of "darkness") eclipse on 3 April 33 (cf. Acts 2:20, "the moon turned to blood").

7. Also relevant to the decision could be the impact of the date of Jesus' death upon the early years of Christian history, especially the date of Paul's conversion and his trips to Jerusalem (see later).

See Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabogy, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 274-369, for discussion of these and other issues.

to top

Views proposed by others

Teacher/Rabbi: As a technical term, rabbi is anachronistic, but the term was used informally, and Jesus was viewed functionally as teacher/scribe/learned exegete; note especially the relationship of teacher to disciples (Matt 23:7; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; Matthew 7:29; Mark 1:22).

Prophet: An ecstatic or charismatic person, who uttered blessings, threats and curses, knew of the eschaton, often with a national role (Luke 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; 24:19; 1:67; 2:36; Mark 13; 9:11ff.).

Exorcist/healer/miracle worker: Everyone presupposed belief in demon possession and spiritual origin of illness (cf. other contemporary miracle workers, Honi the circle drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, and popularity of Asklepios). In various accounts, Jesus was commonly viewed as a healer.

Messiah/coming one/son of David: These all related to an expectation of a promised deliverer (usually of the line of David) who was sometimes thought of explicitly as one who would free Israel from Rome's yoke (Mal. 3:1; Matt. 11:2f.; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 22:67; Mark 12:35-37).

Lord: The term was usually used in Hebrew of God (=Yahweh or Adonai), in Aramaic of a superior; it was used in Greek either as a term for God, or of respect for those in authority (e.g., Augustus) or teachers (roughly = "master").

Son of God: Jesus was referred to this way occasionally (see the trial narratives, where it is equivalent to "king" as in Psalm 2). Demons use it in some of exorcisms, perhaps as equivalent to "divine man" notions in popular Roman and Semitic religion (see also the centurion at the cross).

Views imputed to Jesus

Son of Man: See 4 Esdras 13:3; Daniel 7:13; Enoch 37-71; Ezekiel (frequently). There is a linguistic problem (what does it mean?), a religio-historical problem (where does it come from?), and a usage-problem (which are primary in the gospels, earthly sayings, suffering sayings or eschatological sayings?). In the NT the phrase appears only in Jesus' mouth (with the one exception of Acts 7:56). It is often ambiguous (does Jesus refer to himself or to a third person?) and almost always elusive and allusive. That Jesus used it regularly seems certain; what he meant by it is rather uncertain.

The son: Occasionally the gospels report a saying which seems to imply that Jesus should be viewed uniquely as the son (i.e., of God, but in a stronger sense than the title, above); e.g. at the baptism, Mark 13:32; Matt. 11:27. This usage is sometimes linked with Jesus' near-unique use in prayer of Abba, a diminutive form of the word Av ("father," roughly equivalent to "daddy"). It occurs untranslated in the early church traditions, underscoring its unfamiliarity; this has led to the view that that Jesus taught others to address God in a particularly familiar form of address, as he also did.

to top