5.0 out of 5 stars Jesus in Historical Context

N. · 2 February 2012

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } 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.

5.0 out of 5 stars Very readable popular account of literary archaeology about Jesus

P. · 13 October 2017

An excellent survey of the historical evidence about the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Sanders writes very clearly and is balanced and fair in his sifting of the data from the New Testament and from first century Judaism. Indeed, his particular strength is putting Jesus into the religious and political context of Palestine under Roman occupation, showing how Zealotry led to political extinction and how Phariseeism evolved into rabbinic Judaism. He argues that Jesus had more in common with the Pharisees than the Christian tradition allows for, and that the reason for Jesus's execution by the Romans was that he believed his role was to usher in the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem - a promise or threat that the chief priests feared would cause a riot and bloody Roman reprisals, thus leading to their request to Pilate to have Jesus executed summarily. This is a very readable book which is sympathetic to the religious experience of the first Christians,eg, in its sensitive discussion of the resurrection appearances, without assuming any faith position - it's all about the historical question of what actually happened.

4.0 out of 5 stars A good introduction for the study of Jesus

M.T. · 23 August 2007

This is a good introduction for those interested in studying the historical figure of Jesus. Deceptively short as the text is quite small, Sanders provides a welcome antidote to the sensationalist pseudo-history such as Holy Blood Holy Grail and others.Sanders is correct to state that the study of the historical Jesus is a perilous and frustrating task, not least due to the lack of sources. Sanders cleverly provides a setting for Jesus, putting him fully in his times of first century Galilee and Judaea. He places Jesus vis a vis Judaism and the political climate of Jesus' time. The strength of this book is that it is not encumbered with theology, but is an appraisal of Jesus the man, someone who had, or believed he had, an intimate relationship with God and who saw himself as the man to prepare the Jews for the coming of the kingdom. As Sanders correctly concludes, as a result Jesus was more of a teacher and a prophet than a preacher of repentance.All in all a recommended book for both Christians and non-Christians wanting a good introduction to Jesus, without sensationalism, be it theological or pseudo-historical.

5.0 out of 5 stars I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this book

L.E. · 2 December 2016

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. The writer begins by drawing on historical examples of how we might know what that person was like and the written evidence all the time looking at what has been written about Jesus. Then he looks at the key themes of Jesus's life. He is cautious but very disciplined in his remarks and analysis. Once started I wanted to keep reading and reflecting on what the author has to say. He plots a middle view avoiding extremes of Conservatives whose agenda means they have to accept everything in the gospels and sceptics whose agenda means they that have to deny everything. I was surprised though that the "Gospel of Thomas" hardly gets a mention as other writers make it more important than the Synoptic Gospels.Lucky Eddie

5.0 out of 5 stars Work of a great scholar

S.T. · 4 February 2021

Brilliant book. You can tell it's the work of a great scholar who has studied the subject in great depth. I particularly valued how Sanders devotes a lot of the book to help the reader understand the political and religious (Jewish) context of Jesus' life.Sanders also discusses our somewhat problematic sources on Jesus and how New Testament scholars can distinguish between authentic and inauthentic traditions (or at least try to!)Overall, a very informative read if you are interested in finding out what a distinguished New Testament scholar thinks about the historical Jesus.

Worst paper quality so 2 stars

j.i. · 5 August 2021

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } Very average and worst paper quality for such a rate in paperback

Historical scholarship provides helpful background reading to the New Testament

D.C. · 24 March 2023

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.

It doesn't talk about the historical Jesus.

s. · 11 December 2020

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.

Walking on Water

T.M. · 16 April 2016

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.

Livro

R. · 24 June 2023

Bom serviço pela rapidez e pela entrega de um ótimo livro